// Trigger when the user requests a review of frontend files (e.g., `.tsx`, `.ts`, `.js`). Support both pending-change reviews and focused file reviews while applying the checklist rules.
React/TypeScript component style guide. Use when writing, refactoring, or reviewing React components, especially around props typing, state boundaries, shared local state with Jotai atoms, API types, query/mutation contracts, navigation, memoization, wrappers, and empty-state handling.
Generate Vitest + React Testing Library tests for Dify frontend components, hooks, and utilities. Triggers on testing, spec files, coverage, Vitest, RTL, unit tests, integration tests, or write/review test requests.
Refactor high-complexity React components in Dify frontend. Use when `pnpm analyze-component --json` shows complexity > 50 or lineCount > 300, when the user asks for code splitting, hook extraction, or complexity reduction, or when `pnpm analyze-component` warns to refactor before testing; avoid for simple/well-structured components, third-party wrappers, or when the user explicitly wants testing without refactoring.
Write, update, or review Dify end-to-end tests under `e2e/` that use Cucumber, Gherkin, and Playwright. Use when the task involves `.feature` files, `features/step-definitions/`, `features/support/`, `DifyWorld`, scenario tags, locator/assertion choices, or E2E testing best practices for this repository.
Review backend code for quality, security, maintainability, and best practices based on established checklist rules. Use when the user requests a review, analysis, or improvement of backend files (e.g., `.py`) under the `api/` directory. Do NOT use for frontend files (e.g., `.tsx`, `.ts`, `.js`). Supports pending-change review, code snippets review, and file-focused review.
| name | frontend-code-review |
| description | Trigger when the user requests a review of frontend files (e.g., `.tsx`, `.ts`, `.js`). Support both pending-change reviews and focused file reviews while applying the checklist rules. |
Use this skill whenever the user asks to review frontend code (especially .tsx, .ts, or .js files). Support two review modes:
Stick to the checklist below for every applicable file and mode.
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.
When invoked, the response must exactly follow one of the two templates:
# 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?"
## Code review
No issues found.