forge-app-review

name

forge-app-review

description

Performs a lightweight pre-release readiness review of Atlassian Forge apps across manifest/module wiring, architecture, runtime compatibility, dependency posture, tests, deploy readiness, and obvious security, cost, or reliability smells. Use when the user asks "review my Forge app", "pre-deploy check", "is this app ready to ship", "review manifest", "general app review", "release readiness", or asks for a broad quality pass. Do not use for deep security audits/SAST/exploitability review, cost optimization, or diagnosing a known broken app; route those to forge-security-review, forge-cost-optimizer, or forge-debugger respectively.

Forge App Review

Run a general Forge release-readiness review. This skill is the front door for broad app review, not a replacement for specialist security, cost, or debugging skills.

Boundaries

Use this skill for:

• Pre-deploy and release-readiness checks.
• General architecture and maintainability review.
• Manifest/module/resource/function wiring.
• Runtime, dependency, package, and script sanity checks.
• Basic tests/deploy readiness and operational hygiene.
• Obvious security, cost, or reliability smells that should trigger a deeper specialist pass.

Use another skill instead when the user's primary intent is:

• Deep security audit, SAST, authz, secrets, tenant isolation, exploitability, or CVSS reporting -> forge-security-review.
• Cost optimization, invocations, GB-seconds, storage/log volume, trigger frequency, or memory tuning -> forge-cost-optimizer.
• A known failure, error message, blank UI, failed deploy/install, broken resolver, missing app, or logs/tunnel diagnosis -> forge-debugger.

If a broad review finds a deep security/cost/debug concern, include it as a handoff recommendation rather than duplicating the specialist workflow.

Review Rules

• Audit first. Do not modify app files unless the user explicitly asks to apply fixes.
• Read the codebase before making claims.
• Prefer concrete file/line evidence.
• Keep findings focused on bugs, release blockers, meaningful risks, and missing validation.
• Do not run full SAST or cost tooling from this skill. Recommend the specialist skill when warranted.
• Do not report speculative security or cost observations as confirmed vulnerabilities or savings.

Workflow

1. Read manifest.yml or manifest.yaml.
   • Identify modules, resources, functions, resolver bindings, triggers, web triggers, remotes, permissions, runtime, and memory settings.
   • Verify referenced handlers/resources exist.
2. Read package.json.
   • Check Forge package fit, scripts, runtime assumptions, direct dependencies, and obvious unused/missing packages.
3. Inspect source files.
   • Backend/resolvers: resolver.define, handler exports, product API calls, storage usage, external fetches, logging, error handling.
   • Frontend: UI Kit or Custom UI resource entry points, invoke() patterns, bridge usage, loading/error states.
4. Inspect tests and project docs when present.
   • Note missing tests only when behavior risk justifies it.
5. Produce a prioritized readiness report.

What To Check

Release Blockers

• Manifest references a missing handler, resource path, or module key.
• Resolver names called by the frontend do not match resolver.define() names.
• Required scopes or egress permissions are missing for actual API/fetch usage.
• Runtime, package versions, or module syntax likely fail forge lint, build, deploy, or install.
• App has no clear way to exercise its primary user flow.

Architecture And Maintainability

• Module type matches the intended UX surface.
• Resolver boundaries are coherent and not overly monolithic for the app size.
• Sensitive or privileged logic stays backend-side.
• UI-only formatting/transforms are not unnecessarily forced through backend functions.
• Error handling is sufficient for user-facing workflows.
• Code organization matches existing project style.

Lightweight Security Signals

Only flag obvious signals and recommend forge-security-review for deep validation:

• Broad/write/admin scopes without visible usage.
• api.asApp() in user-triggered resolvers without obvious authorization checks.
• Hardcoded credentials or token-like literals.
• External fetches without manifest egress entries.
• Web triggers without visible authentication strategy.
• Full payload/request logging that may expose user, tenant, or secret data.

Lightweight Cost Signals

Only flag obvious signals and recommend forge-cost-optimizer for deep analysis:

• Resolver invoked only to return static data or product context.
• Multiple independent invoke() calls on page load.
• Scheduled triggers that look like broad polling.
• Product triggers without filters or ignoreSelf where applicable.
• Full payload/API response logging in hot paths.
• Storage writes on every invocation.

Lightweight Debuggability Signals

Only flag readiness gaps; use forge-debugger when there is an observed failure:

• Missing loading/error states around async UI paths.
• Logs are either too noisy or absent around important failures.
• README or scripts do not explain how to lint/build/deploy/test.
• App has no obvious local verification command besides forge lint.

Output Format

Return a concise Markdown report:

# Forge App Review Results

## Summary
- Readiness: Ready | Needs changes | Blocked
- Highest-risk area: <manifest | resolver wiring | permissions | dependencies | tests | operational hygiene>
- Files inspected: <short list>
- Specialist handoffs: <none | security | cost | debugger>

## Findings

1. [Critical | Warning | Info] <title>
   - Evidence: `<file:line>` and observed pattern
   - Impact: <why this affects readiness>
   - Recommendation: <specific fix or specialist handoff>

## Clean Areas
- <important categories checked with no issues>

## Suggested Next Step
- <apply fixes | run specialist review | deploy/lint/test command>

If there are no findings, say the app looks ready from this general review and list any residual specialist reviews that were intentionally out of scope.