Skip to main content

frontend-code-review

Use only when the user explicitly requests a review or audit of frontend code under `web/` or `packages/dify-ui/`. Supports pending-change, file-focused, and pasted-diff reviews. Do not use for implementation-only requests, diagnosis without review intent, or backend-only code.

Datos de origen

Repositorio
langgenius/dify
Última actividad en el origen
10 de octubre de 2026 a las 04:40
Idioma detectado de SKILL.md
inglés
Estrellas
158.150
Forks
24.983

Opciones de instalación

De forma predeterminada está seleccionado el prompt que primero revisa el origen. Puedes cambiar a un comando directo o descargar una copia local.

Revisa los archivos de origen

Lee SKILL.md y los archivos complementarios que muestra SkillsMP antes de decidir si quieres instalarlo.

Explorador de archivos
9 archivos

Mostrando SKILL.md

SKILL.md
Instrucciones de origen · Vista previa de solo lectura
name
frontend-code-review
description
Use only when the user explicitly requests a review or audit of frontend code under `web/` or `packages/dify-ui/`. Supports pending-change, file-focused, and pasted-diff reviews. Do not use for implementation-only requests, diagnosis without review intent, or backend-only code.
# Frontend Code Review Review the requested scope for concrete defects and violations of explicit project contracts. This skill owns review decisions; its references route to canonical rules without activating another skill's implementation workflow. ## Evidence First 1. Establish the review scope from the requested files or current diff. 2. Read the changed lines, their behavior owner, and the nearest scoped `AGENTS.md`. 3. Trace public consumers, generated contracts, primitive APIs, or runtime configuration only when they decide correctness. 4. Report findings tied to an observable failure, violated contract, security boundary, or demonstrated maintenance risk. Explicit team conventions are contracts: establish their scope and exceptions, and do not invent user impact to justify a convention finding. ## Rule Routing Read only the packs matched by the diff: - DOM semantics, focus, keyboard, forms, disabled state, or visible interaction: [`references/accessibility-ui.md`][accessibility] - Dify UI imports, Base UI wrappers, overlays, tokens, or primitive contracts: [`references/dify-ui.md`][dify-ui] - Component ownership, props, state, Effects, navigation, or module boundaries: [`references/component-architecture.md`][component-architecture] - Generated clients, Query, mutations, auth, SSR, URL state, or persistence: [`references/data-query-contracts.md`][data-query] - Test files or a concrete missing-regression-test finding: [`references/testing.md`][testing] - Bundle, waterfall, rendering, or subscription cost supported by evidence: [`references/performance.md`][performance] - Stable Dify runtime invariants in the named paths: [`references/dify-invariants.md`][dify-invariants] - General TypeScript or styling quality not owned above: [`references/code-quality.md`][code-quality] Read `packages/dify-ui/README.md`, `packages/dify-ui/AGENTS.md`, `packages/dify-ui/docs/overlays.md`, or `web/docs/test.md` only when the reviewed code falls under that contract. Check current official documentation when local code and bundled references do not settle a framework, browser, or accessibility behavior. ## Severity And Output - **P0**: security or privacy leak, data loss, production crash, or inaccessible critical workflow. - **P1**: user-visible regression, invalid API or authorization contract, hydration failure, or broken primary interaction. - **P2**: concrete maintainability, performance, test, or accessibility defect, or a material violation of an explicit project contract. - **P3**: minor actionable cleanup; omit unless the user requested a thorough audit. Lead with findings ordered by severity. Include a tight file and line reference, the observed failure or applicable project rule, and a concrete fix direction. Explain the rule's applicability for convention findings; describe downstream consequences only when supported by evidence. When no findings remain, say so briefly and state any material verification gap. Do not add praise sections, speculative risks, or an unsolicited offer to implement fixes. [accessibility]: references/accessibility-ui.md [code-quality]: references/code-quality.md [component-architecture]: references/component-architecture.md [data-query]: references/data-query-contracts.md [dify-invariants]: references/dify-invariants.md [dify-ui]: references/dify-ui.md [performance]: references/performance.md [testing]: references/testing.md
Ver en GitHub