review-quality

安装量: 45
排名: #16311

安装

npx skills add https://github.com/heyvhuang/ship-faster --skill review-quality

Quality Review (Unified) Goal: turn “is this change good?” into a repeatable review with a clear merge/production readiness verdict. This skill intentionally merges three review lenses: Merge readiness (requirements alignment + risk + verification) Code maintainability (Clean Code-style review) Documentation consistency (README/docs vs implementation) This is the single entry point for Ship Faster reviews. It includes an internal auto-triage: Always run the unified review (this skill). If React/Next.js performance risk is detected, also run review-react-best-practices and include its findings. If UI surface changes are detected, also run a Web Interface Guidelines audit (a11y/focus/forms/motion/content overflow) and include terse file:line findings. Inputs (recommended) BASE_SHA and HEAD_SHA for diff-based reviews Optional: PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS path (e.g. run_dir/evidence/features/-plan.md ) Optional: docs scope ( README.md , docs/** , API contracts) Optional: run_dir (Ship Faster run directory, if available) Suggested scope commands

Baseline: main/master merge-base

BASE_SHA

$( git merge-base HEAD main 2

/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD master ) HEAD_SHA = $( git rev-parse HEAD ) git diff --stat " $BASE_SHA .. $HEAD_SHA " git diff " $BASE_SHA .. $HEAD_SHA " Process 0) Auto-triage (Built-in Router) Goal: reduce user choice. The reviewer decides which specialized review lens to apply, deterministically, based on the diff. Collect signals (minimum): git diff --name-only " $BASE_SHA .. $HEAD_SHA " git diff --stat " $BASE_SHA .. $HEAD_SHA " git diff " $BASE_SHA .. $HEAD_SHA " Routing rules (apply in order): Docs-only change (fast path): If every changed file is in docs/ or ends with .md|.txt|.rst Then run the unified review, but focus on Docs ↔ Code consistency + release risk (skip deep code maintainability unless docs reference code changes). React/Next.js performance-sensitive change : If any changed file matches: /.tsx , /.jsx next.config. , app/ , pages/ , src/app/ , src/pages/ React/Next entrypoints ( layout.tsx , page.tsx , middleware.ts , route.ts , loading.tsx ) Or the diff contains performance-sensitive keywords (spot check via git diff ): use client , Suspense , dynamic( , next/dynamic , next/navigation , React.cache , revalidate , fetch( , headers() , cookies() Then: run review-react-best-practices and include its output (or link to its artifact) in the final report. UI Web Interface Guidelines audit (a11y/UX rules, terse output): If any changed file matches: UI code: /.tsx , /*.jsx , /.vue , /.html , /*.css , /.scss Common UI dirs: app/ , pages/ , src/app/ , src/pages/ , components/ , src/components/* Then: fetch the latest Web Interface Guidelines and audit only the changed UI files first. Source: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/vercel-labs/web-interface-guidelines/main/command.md Fetch method: WebFetch (if available) or curl -fsSL Output findings in terse file:line format , grouped by file (high signal, low prose). Treat a11y + focus issues as higher severity than cosmetic issues. Output requirement (at top of your report):

Triage

Docs-only: yes|no

React/Next perf review: yes|no

UI guidelines audit: yes|no

Reason: <1-3 bullets based on file paths / patterns> 1) Merge readiness (verdict review) Use the template: references/code-reviewer.md . Minimum checks: Requirements alignment (acceptance criteria hit, non-goals respected) Side effects are gated (deploy/payments/DB writes require explicit approval) Error handling is explicit (no silent failures) Verification evidence exists (tests/build/typecheck/lint/manual steps) 2) Clean Code maintainability scan Review the diff (and nearby touched code) across these dimensions: Meaningful naming (avoid data1 , tmp , mixed naming for same concept) Small functions / SRP (very long functions, too many params, mixed responsibilities) Duplication (DRY) (copy/paste logic, repeated transformations/validation) Over-engineering (YAGNI) (unused branches, unnecessary abstractions) Magic numbers / strings (hardcoded values without semantic constants) Structural clarity (deep nesting, unreadable one-liners, nested ternaries) Project conventions (imports/order/style consistency) 3) Docs ↔ code consistency scan Check that docs do not lie: Enumerate: README.md , docs/*/.md , config examples, env keys, API contracts For each claim/config/example: locate the authoritative code/config/contracts Record mismatches with evidence (doc location + code location) Output (required) Produce a structured report: quality-review.md quality-review.json (optional but recommended) If you are working inside a Ship Faster run directory, write to: run_dir/evidence/quality-review.md run_dir/evidence/quality-review.json If triage selects React/Next performance review and a Ship Faster run_dir is available, also persist: run_dir/evidence/react-best-practices-review.md If triage selects UI guidelines audit and a Ship Faster run_dir is available, also persist: run_dir/evidence/ui-guidelines-review.md (terse file:line findings, grouped by file) Output format (recommended)

Summary

Verdict: Ready / With fixes / Not ready

Scope: BASE_SHA..HEAD_SHA (or file list)

Triage

Docs-only: yes|no

React/Next perf review: yes|no

UI guidelines audit: yes|no

Reason: ...

Strengths

...

Issues

Critical (Must Fix)

Location: path:line

What

Why it matters

Minimal fix

Important (Should Fix) ...

Minor (Nice to Have) ...

UI Guidelines (terse, only if audit=yes)

path:line < finding

- path:line < finding

返回排行榜