mcpField
F
frontend-code-review

frontend-code-review

github.com/pageai-proTesting & quality33576 installsUpdated 18w ago
Repository

About frontend-code-review

frontend-code-review is a skill for reviewing frontend code, either pending changes or files named by the user. It checks against code-quality, performance, and business-logic rules, then groups findings by urgency in a required format.

Key features

  1. 01Review staged and working-tree changes
  2. 02Review specified frontend files
  3. 03Check code quality and performance rules
  4. 04Group findings by urgency
  5. 05Format results using required templates

Use cases

  1. 01Check frontend changes before commit
  2. 02Review a specified TSX file
  3. 03Find performance issues in a component
  4. 04Organize code findings by priority

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/pageai-pro/ralph-loop --skill frontend-code-review

After installing, type/frontend-code-reviewin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Bundled filesreferences/code-quality.mdreferences/performance.md

Details

From the project README

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, 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.

Comments

Markdown supported