Main Site ↗
SkillHubSkillHub
SKILLHUB
Back to List

frontend-code-review

by langgenius135.3k0GitHub

A specialized tool for reviewing frontend TypeScript/JavaScript files with two modes: pending-change review for git staging and targeted file review. Follows structured checklists for code quality, performance, and business logic, outputting violations with urgency flags and suggested fixes.

Loading...

Output Preview

output_preview.md

Code review

Found 3 urgent issues need to be fixed:

1 Missing React key in map()

FilePath: src/components/UserList.tsx line 24

{users.map((user) => (
  <UserCard 
    name={user.name}
    email={user.email}
    // Missing key prop here
  />
))}

Suggested fix

Add key={user.id} to the UserCard component to help React identify which items have changed.

2 Unhandled promise rejection

FilePath: src/utils/api.ts line 45

async function fetchUserData(userId: string) {
  const response = await fetch(`/api/users/${userId}`);
  // No error handling for failed fetch
  return response.json();
}

Suggested fix

Wrap the fetch call in try-catch block or add .catch() to handle network errors gracefully.

3 Inline function in render causing re-renders

FilePath: src/components/ProductGrid.tsx line 67

<ProductItem 
  onClick={() => handleSelect(product.id)} // Creates new function each render
  title={product.name}
/>

Suggested fix

Memoize the click handler: const handleClick = useCallback(() => handleSelect(product.id), [product.id])

Found 2 suggestions for improvement:

1 Console.log in production code

FilePath: src/hooks/useAuth.ts line 18

console.log('User authenticated:', user); // Debug log left in

Suggested fix

Remove or replace with proper logging utility that respects environment.

2 Magic number without constant

FilePath: src/utils/validation.ts line 32

if (password.length < 8) { // Magic number 8
  return false;
}

Suggested fix

Define constant: const MIN_PASSWORD_LENGTH = 8 and reference it.

Would you like me to use the Suggested fix section to address these issues?

Target Audience

Frontend developers working with TypeScript/React codebases who need structured code reviews before commits or during development

10/10Security

Low security risk, safe to use

9
Clarity
8
Practicality
8
Quality
7
Maintainability
6
Innovation
Frontend
code-reviewtypescriptreactquality-assurancegit-workflow
Compatible Agents
Claude Code
Claude Code
~/.claude/skills/
Codex CLI
Codex CLI
~/.codex/skills/
Gemini CLI
Gemini CLI
~/.gemini/skills/
O
OpenCode
~/.opencode/skills/
O
OpenClaw
~/.openclaw/skills/
GitHub Copilot
GitHub Copilot
~/.copilot/skills/
Cursor
Cursor
~/.cursor/skills/
W
Windsurf
~/.codeium/windsurf/skills/
C
Cline
~/.cline/skills/
R
Roo Code
~/.roo/skills/
K
Kiro
~/.kiro/skills/
J
Junie
~/.junie/skills/
A
Augment Code
~/.augment/skills/
W
Warp
~/.warp/skills/
G
Goose
~/.config/goose/skills/
SKILL.md

Frontend Code Review

Intent

Use this skill whenever the user asks to review frontend code (especially .tsx, .ts, or .js files). Support two review modes:

  1. Pending-change review – inspect staged/working-tree files slated for commit and flag checklist violations before submission.
  2. File-targeted review – review the specific file(s) the user names and report the relevant checklist findings.

Stick to the checklist below for every applicable file and mode.

Checklist

See references/code-quality.md, references/performance.md, references/business-logic.md for the living checklist split by category—treat it as the canonical set of rules to follow.

Flag each rule violation with urgency metadata so future reviewers can prioritize fixes.

Review Process

  1. Open the relevant component/module. Gather lines that relate to class names, React Flow hooks, prop memoization, and styling.
  2. For each rule in the review point, note where the code deviates and capture a representative snippet.
  3. Compose the review section per the template below. Group violations first by Urgent flag, then by category order (Code Quality, Performance, Business Logic).

Required output

When invoked, the response must exactly follow one of the two templates:

Template A (any findings)

# Code review
Found <N> urgent issues need to be fixed:

## 1 <brief description of bug>
FilePath: <path> line <line>
<relevant code snippet or pointer>


### Suggested fix
<brief description of suggested fix>

---
... (repeat for each urgent issue) ...

Found <M> suggestions for improvement:

## 1 <brief description of suggestion>
FilePath: <path> line <line>
<relevant code snippet or pointer>


### Suggested fix
<brief description of suggested fix>

---

... (repeat for each suggestion) ...

If there are no urgent issues, omit that section. If there are no suggestions, omit that section.

If the issue number is more than 10, summarize as "10+ urgent issues" or "10+ suggestions" and just output the first 10 issues.

Don't compress the blank lines between sections; keep them as-is for readability.

If you use Template A (i.e., there are issues to fix) and at least one issue requires code changes, append a brief follow-up question after the structured output asking whether the user wants you to apply the suggested fix(es). For example: "Would you like me to use the Suggested fix section to address these issues?"

Template B (no issues)

## Code review
No issues found.

Source: https://github.com/langgenius/dify#.claude~skills~frontend-code-review

Content curated from original sources, copyright belongs to authors

Grade A
7.6AI Score
Best Practices
Checking...
Try this Skill

User Rating

USER RATING

0UP
0DOWN
Loading files...

WORKS WITH

Claude Code
Claude
Codex CLI
Codex
Gemini CLI
Gemini
O
OpenCode
O
OpenClaw
GitHub Copilot
Copilot
Cursor
Cursor
W
Windsurf
C
Cline
R
Roo
K
Kiro
J
Junie
A
Augment
W
Warp
G
Goose