본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

shadcn-code-review

Reviews shadcn/ui components for CVA patterns, composition with asChild, accessibility states, and data-slot usage. Use when reviewing React components using shadcn/ui, Radix primitives, or Tailwind styling.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(5)

  • SKILL.md4.5 KB
  • references/accessibility.md7.2 KB
  • references/composition.md6.0 KB
  • references/cva-patterns.md5.3 KB
  • references/data-slot.md7.1 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

shadcn/ui Code Review

Quick Reference

Issue TypeReference
className in CVA, missing VariantProps, compound variantsreferences/cva-patterns.md
asChild without Slot, missing Context, component compositionreferences/composition.md
Missing focus-visible, aria-invalid, disabled statesreferences/accessibility.md
Missing data-slot, incorrect CSS targetingreferences/data-slot.md

Review Checklist

  • cn() receives className, not CVA variants
  • VariantProps<typeof variants> exported for consumers
  • Compound variants used for complex state combinations
  • asChild pattern uses @radix-ui/react-slot
  • Context used for component composition (Card, Accordion, etc.)
  • focus-visible: states, not just :focus
  • aria-invalid, aria-disabled for form states
  • disabled: variants for all interactive elements
  • sr-only for screen reader text
  • data-slot attributes for targetable composition parts
  • CSS uses has() selectors for state-based styling
  • No direct className overrides of variant styles

Hard gates (before writing findings)

Run these in order. Do not draft user-facing findings until every gate passes for the batch you are about to report.

  1. Location evidence — Pass: Each issue lists a repo path and either a line range or a short verbatim quote from the file you read (not from memory or diff-only guesswork).

  2. Exemption check — Pass: For each issue, you can state in one line why it is not covered by Valid Patterns (Do NOT Flag).

  3. Context-sensitive claims — Pass: For accessibility or Radix-related flags, you checked the file for imports/wrappers showing what actually runs (or you cite the concrete gap).

  4. Protocol — Pass: You completed the Pre-Report Verification Checklist in review-verification-protocol for this review.

Valid Patterns (Do NOT Flag)

These are correct patterns that should NOT be flagged as issues:

  • max-h-(--var) - correct Tailwind v4 CSS variable syntax (NOT v3 bracket notation)
  • text-[color:var(--x)] - valid arbitrary value syntax
  • Copying shadcn component code into project - intended usage pattern
  • Not documenting copied shadcn components - library internals, not custom code
  • Using cn() with many arguments - composition is the pattern
  • Conditional classes in cn() arrays - valid Tailwind pattern
  • Extending primitive components without additional docs - well-known base

Context-Sensitive Rules

Apply these rules with appropriate context awareness:

  • Flag accessibility issues ONLY IF not handled by Radix primitives underneath
  • Flag missing aria labels ONLY IF component isn't using accessible radix primitive
  • Flag variant proliferation ONLY IF variants could be composed from existing
  • Flag component documentation ONLY IF it's custom code, not copied shadcn

Library Convention Note

shadcn/ui components are designed to be copied and modified. Code review should focus on:

  • Custom modifications made to copied components
  • Integration with application state/data
  • Accessibility in custom usage contexts

Do NOT flag:

  • Standard shadcn component internals
  • Radix primitive usage patterns
  • Default variant implementations

When to Load References

  • Reviewing variant definitions → cva-patterns.md
  • Reviewing component composition with asChild → composition.md
  • Reviewing form components or interactive elements → accessibility.md
  • Reviewing multi-part components (Card, Select, etc.) → data-slot.md

Review Questions

  1. Are CVA variants properly separated from className props?
  2. Does asChild composition work correctly with Slot?
  3. Are all accessibility states (focus, invalid, disabled) handled?
  4. Are data-slot attributes used for component part targeting?
  5. Can consumers extend variants without breaking composition?

Before Submitting Findings

Complete Hard gates (especially gate 4), then report only issues that still pass the review-verification-protocol pre-report checks.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Use when you need to mine a conversation, session transcript, or design discussion for architectural decisions before writing ADRs. Identifies problem-solution pairs, trade-off debates, technology choices, and explicit "[ADR]" tags. Triggers on "what decisions did we make", "extract decisions from this chat", "find the choices in our discussion", or "summarize architectural decisions". Also useful after long planning sessions to capture decisions that were made implicitly. Does NOT write ADR documents — use adr-writing or write-adr for that.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle842026년 9월 16일 업데이트

Use when writing or formatting an ADR document using the MADR template, applying Definition of Done (E.C.A.D.R.) criteria, or verifying ADR completeness. Triggers on "write the ADR", "format as MADR", "check ADR quality", "mark gaps in ADR". Also triggers when a decision has been extracted and needs to become a document. Does NOT extract decisions from conversations (use adr-decision-extraction) or orchestrate the full extract-confirm-write workflow (use write-adr).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle842026년 9월 16일 업데이트

Use when auditing an agent codebase against the 12-Factor Agents methodology, reviewing LLM-powered system architecture, or assessing agentic app compliance. Triggers on "analyze agent architecture", "12-factor audit", "how compliant is this agent", or "evaluate this LLM app". Also applies when comparing frameworks or planning agent improvements. Not for quick checklists — this performs deep per-factor codebase analysis with file-level evidence.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle842026년 9월 16일 업데이트

Vercel AI Elements for workflow UI components. Use when building chat interfaces, displaying tool execution, showing reasoning/thinking, or creating job queues. Triggers on ai-elements, Queue, Confirmation, Tool, Reasoning, Shimmer, Loader, Message, Conversation, PromptInput.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle842026년 9월 16일 업데이트

Reviews App Intents code for intent structure, entities, shortcuts, and parameters. Use when reviewing code with import AppIntents, @AppIntent, AppEntity, AppShortcutsProvider, or @Parameter.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle842026년 9월 16일 업데이트

Use when the user wants a cited, structured read of local documents and project knowledge. Triggers on: "analyze these docs", "scan my project for context", "read the docs folder", "summarize what's in .beagle/concepts/", "extract context from docs/", "what's in this folder", "go read everything in X and tell me what's there". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups ("find this function", "search the repo"), web research (use web-research), LLM-as-judge evaluation (use llm-judge), or document editing (use humanize-beagle). Produces a written scan plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle842026년 9월 16일 업데이트

existential-birds의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고