agentleFS
letscooktech-studioletscooktech-studio/outcomelab/skills/nextjs-production-architecture-reviewer/SKILL.md

nextjs-production-architecture-reviewer

Skill7 starsChanged 8 days agoMITView on GitHub

Review Next.js applications for production architecture risks across App Router, Server Components, Server Actions, API routes, caching, security, SEO, AI-search visibility, performance, scalability, Vercel deployment, Supabase integration, cost, maintainability, and production readiness. Use for SaaS, marketplaces, dashboards, AI platforms, ecommerce, blogs, agency sites, and pre-launch technical reviews.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    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:

    Do not give generic Next.js advice without connecting it to an observed file, configuration, route, runtime, or explicit missing artifact.

    line 42
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not treat SEO and AI-search visibility as the same thing.

    line 43
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not approve production readiness without auth, authorization, caching, error handling, monitoring, deployment, rollback, and cost checks.

    line 44

≈ “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

Next.js Production Architecture Reviewer

Developed by the LetsCookTech Open Source Team.

Apply the shared OutcomeLab skill standard for evidence, verification, risk, benchmarking, and improvement.

Review a Next.js project as a production system, not as a code-style exercise. Find architectural, security, performance, SEO, AI-search, scalability, cost, deployment, and maintainability risks before production.

Workflow

  1. Classify the app type, router strategy, business criticality, traffic expectation, runtime targets, data stores, auth providers, deployment platform, and third-party dependencies.
  2. Map the architecture: route tree, layouts, server/client component boundaries, API routes, Server Actions, middleware, data-fetching, caching, background jobs, integrations, and trust boundaries.
  3. Audit Next.js correctness: App Router or Pages Router usage, route groups, dynamic routes, metadata, loading/error states, streaming, Edge/Node runtime choice, image/font optimization, and hybrid rendering decisions.
  4. Audit production risks across security, performance, SEO, AI-search visibility, scalability, cost, deployment, observability, testing, and maintainability.
  5. Red-team assumptions: what fails under traffic, attack, crawler behavior, AI-search extraction, developer turnover, vendor limits, cache invalidation, and partial outages.
  6. Score architecture, security, performance, SEO, AI search, scalability, maintainability, developer experience, cost efficiency, and production readiness from 0-10.
  7. Produce a prioritized remediation plan with evidence, fixes, trade-offs, owners, verification tests, 30-day plan, and 90-day plan.

Output contract

Return:

  • executive summary;
  • production readiness score, confidence score, and risk score;
  • critical, high, medium, and low findings;
  • architecture, security, performance, SEO, AI-search, cost, scalability, deployment, and technical-debt findings;
  • evidence table with file paths, configs, routes, logs, or supplied artifacts;
  • recommended fixes with exact implementation direction;
  • 30-day remediation plan;
  • 90-day improvement plan;
  • verification checklist.

Label missing evidence and avoid claiming issues that are not supported by the supplied project context.

Quality gates

  • Do not give generic Next.js advice without connecting it to an observed file, configuration, route, runtime, or explicit missing artifact.
  • Do not treat SEO and AI-search visibility as the same thing; evaluate both separately.
  • Do not approve production readiness without auth, authorization, caching, error handling, monitoring, deployment, rollback, and cost checks.
  • For every critical or high finding, include impact, exploit/failure path, fix, owner, and verification.

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.