AI agent skill · by @mizchi
Frontend Review Weekly
Use for the weekly AI review. Orchestrates all frontend-review-* skills in order, dispatches the 5 perspective sub-skills in parallel, diffs against last week's KPIs, and produces a weekly report that feeds the ratchet.
Archived 2026-10-23 · Source updated 2026-09-16. Check the original repository for the latest version.
SKILL.md instructions
# Frontend Review — Weekly Orchestrator You are running the weekly AI review. Your job is NOT to make new judgments — it's to: 1. Re-run every `frontend-review-*` skill in the correct order. 2. Dispatch the 5 perspective sub-skills in parallel. 3. Diff the KPIs against last week's baseline. 4. File GitHub issues for repeat findings. 5. Propose static-rule promotions for patterns that appear 3+ weeks in a row. ## Procedure ### Phase 1: raw data collection Run, in this order: 1. `frontend-review-triage` 2. `frontend-review-ci` 3. `frontend-review-hygiene` 4. `frontend-review-deps` 5. `frontend-review-testing` 6. `frontend-review-security` Each of these writes to `<client-repo>/.frontend-review/report/latest/`. ### Phase 1.5: architecture review (run when findings are suspected) Run these on-demand, or always for the first weekly of a new engagement: 7. `frontend-review-state` 8. `frontend-review-performance` These write to `<client-repo>/.frontend-review/report/latest/md/`. ### Phase 2: perspective review (parallel) Dispatch the 5 perspective skills concurrently using the `dispatching-parallel-agents` skill. Each reads the raw JSON and produces a perspective-specific markdown report: - `frontend-expert` - `react-expert` - `performance-expert` - `security-expert` - `frontend-ops-expert` ### Phase 3: KPI diff and ratchet Compare `<client-repo>/.frontend-review/report/latest/raw/*.json` against `<client-repo>/.frontend-review/kpi/baseline.json`. Flag: - Any **regression** (bad) — these must be fixed before the next weekly - Any **improvement** (good) — these update the baseline (ratchet tightens) ### Phase 4: repeat-finding detection Compare this week's findings with the previous 2 `report/weekly-*.md` files. Any finding that appears in all three weeks is a candidate for **static rule promotion**: propose an eslint/biome custom rule, a codemod, or a CI gate that would make the check automatic. Write these proposals to `<client-repo>/eslint-rules/proposals/<rule-name>.md` (create the directory if needed) but do NOT implement them — that's a separate engineering task. ### Phase 5: report Write `<client-repo>/.frontend-review/report/weekly-$(date +%Y-w%V).md` with: - **KPI delta table** (per category) - **Regressions** (must fix) - **Improvements** (ratchet updates) - **Perspective summaries** (1 paragraph per perspective) - **Static rule promotions** (pointer to proposals) - **Issues filed** (`gh issue create` output) ## Trend Monitoring Alongside KPI diffing, check the following external signals once per weekly cycle to detect ecosystem drift early. ### Monitoring sources | Source | Cadence | What to look for | |---|---|---| | **jser.info** | Weekly (Sunday publish) | Major releases, RFCs, breaking changes, security advisories affecting the project's dependencies | | **State of JS** (yearly, ~Dec) | Annual | Usage/satisfaction trends; two consecutive years of satisfaction decline is a switch-trigger | | **State of CSS** (yearly) | Annual | CSS adoption trends, Tailwind / CSS-in-JS sentiment | | **JavaScript Rising Stars** (yearly, ~Jan) | Annual | GitHub star growth; early signal for emerging tools | | **Official release blogs** | On release | Track the project's direct dependencies (framework, bundler, test runner, linter, TypeScript) for major releases | For the weekly run, WebFetch `https://jser.info/` and scan for any mention of packages listed in `package.json`. Flag anything relevant under an **Ecosystem Signals** heading. ### Switch triggers Recommend investigating a tool replacement when **any two** of these conditions are met: 1. Satisfaction score has declined for **2 consecutive years** in State of JS / State of CSS. 2. **No major release in the past 6 months** and GitHub issue accumulation is trending up. 3. A **maintainer departure or deprecation notice** was reported. 4. A **clear superior alternative** exists: feature parity + significant performance or DX improvement + realistic migration path. ## AI / Human Responsibility Split **AI can act on (without human pre-approval):** - Auto-fixable lint / typecheck errors - Expanding test coverage for existing patterns - Dependency version bumps (after lint + test pass) **Human must decide:** - Test failure triage: is the spec wrong, the implementation wrong, or the test wrong? - New library additions or removals - Architecture boundary changes (new state layer, new routing pattern, new async boundary) - Any change that modifies what the app does, not just how it does it Flag any AI-generated PRs in the weekly report that appear to cross into the human-decision zone. ## Boundaries - Do NOT skip any of the Phase 1 domain skills, even if time is short. - Do NOT modify source code in the client repo. - Do NOT silently update `kpi/baseline.json` on a regression. Only update on improvement. ## Reference - Checklist: `11-ai-review.md`, `13-kpi-tracking.md` - Phase: `week-4-ai-review.md`, `ongoing.md` - Related skills: all `frontend-review-*` plus `frontend-expert`, `react-expert`, `performance-expert`, `security-expert`, `frontend-ops-expert` - External skill: `superpowers:dispatching-parallel-agents`