frontend-code-review

Name: frontend-code-review - Agent Skill
Rating: 5.0 (126934 reviews)
Author: langgenius

126,934

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.

Download Folder View on GitHub

CLI Install

Recommended

Use the skills CLI to install this skill with one command. Auto-detects all installed AI assistants.

Method 1 - skills CLI

npx skills i langgenius/dify/.agents/skills/frontend-code-review

Method 2 - openskills (supports sync & update)

npx openskills install langgenius/dify

Auto-detects Claude Code, Cursor, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, and more. One install, works everywhere.

Installation Path

Download and extract to one of the following locations:

~/.claude/skills/frontend-code-review/

SKILL.md

references

Skill Instructions

Back

Run with Cloud Agent

No setup needed. Let our cloud agents run this skill for you.

Select Provider

Select Model

Claude Sonnet 4.5

$0.20/task

Best for coding tasks

Environment setup included

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:

Pending-change review – inspect staged/working-tree files slated for commit and flag checklist violations before submission.
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

Open the relevant component/module. Gather lines that relate to class names, React Flow hooks, prop memoization, and styling.
For each rule in the review point, note where the code deviates and capture a representative snippet.
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.