agentleFS
Sign inStart free
ceilf6ceilf6/FrontAgent/skills/frontend-reviewer/SKILL.md

frontend-reviewer

Skill124 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Review frontend code, UI changes, generated implementations, and pull requests with severity-based findings and checklist-driven analysis. Use when auditing React/TypeScript/CSS code, validating AI-generated frontend output, performing acceptance review before merge, or checking whether a frontend change is safe to ship.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. pranav8494/team-of-agents★ 7same name

    How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.

  • In this repository5 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

10 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈9

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read references/frontend-quality-rules.md when architecture, layering, or maintainability questions matter.

    line 29
  2. Distinctive:

    If no findings exist, state that explicitly and mention residual risks or testing gaps.

    line 32
  3. Distinctive:

    Start with findings. Do not lead with a summary.

    line 36
  4. Distinctive:

    Prefer one issue per finding.

    line 43
  5. Distinctive:

    Use exact evidence. Avoid generic advice.

    line 44
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not invent files, line numbers, or user intent.

    line 48
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not upgrade style nits into blocking issues.

    line 49
  8. Distinctive:

    Do not hide uncertainty. Mark assumptions when evidence is incomplete.

    line 50
  9. Distinctive:

    Do not spend space on praise unless the user explicitly asks for it.

    line 51
  10. Distinctive:

    Prefer behavioral regressions, data-flow bugs, accessibility issues, and missing tests over cosmetic commentary.

    line 52

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Frontend Reviewer

Review relevant frontend files and produce concrete findings ordered by severity. Keep the review evidence-based, concise, and actionable.

Workflow

  1. Read references/severity-rubric.md.
  2. Read references/review-checklist.md.
  3. Read references/frontend-quality-rules.md when architecture, layering, or maintainability questions matter.
  4. Inspect only the files relevant to the request, the diff, or the changed surfaces implied by the task.
  5. Report findings grouped by severity, highest risk first.
  6. If no findings exist, state that explicitly and mention residual risks or testing gaps.

Output Contract

  • Start with findings. Do not lead with a summary.
  • For each finding include:
    • affected file path
    • optional line number when known
    • severity
    • why it matters
    • shortest viable fix direction
  • Prefer one issue per finding. Split unrelated problems.
  • Use exact evidence. Avoid generic advice.

Guardrails

  • Do not invent files, line numbers, or user intent.
  • Do not upgrade style nits into blocking issues.
  • Do not hide uncertainty. Mark assumptions when evidence is incomplete.
  • Do not spend space on praise unless the user explicitly asks for it.
  • Prefer behavioral regressions, data-flow bugs, accessibility issues, and missing tests over cosmetic commentary.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free