shadcn-code-review

$npx mdskill add existential-birds/beagle/shadcn-code-review

Reviews shadcn/ui components for CVA, composition, accessibility, and data-slot patterns.

  • Ensures correct CVA usage and exported VariantProps for consumers.
  • Depends on shadcn/ui, Radix primitives, and Tailwind CSS.
  • Checks for asChild, context, focus-visible, aria states, and data-slot attributes.
  • Outputs a checklist of issues with references to detailed guides.

SKILL.md

.github/skills/shadcn-code-reviewView on GitHub ↗
---
name: shadcn-code-review
description: 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.
---

# shadcn/ui Code Review

## Quick Reference

| Issue Type | Reference |
|------------|-----------|
| className in CVA, missing VariantProps, compound variants | [references/cva-patterns.md](references/cva-patterns.md) |
| asChild without Slot, missing Context, component composition | [references/composition.md](references/composition.md) |
| Missing focus-visible, aria-invalid, disabled states | [references/accessibility.md](references/accessibility.md) |
| Missing data-slot, incorrect CSS targeting | [references/data-slot.md](references/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)](#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](../review-verification-protocol/SKILL.md) 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](#hard-gates-before-writing-findings) (especially gate 4), then report only issues that still pass the [review-verification-protocol](../review-verification-protocol/SKILL.md) pre-report checks.

More from existential-birds/beagle

SkillDescription
adr-decision-extractionUse 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 \u2014 use adr-writing or write-adr for that.
adr-writingUse 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).
agent-architecture-analysisUse 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 \u2014 this performs deep per-factor codebase analysis with file-level evidence.
app-intents-code-reviewReviews App Intents code for intent structure, entities, shortcuts, and parameters. Use when reviewing code with import AppIntents, @AppIntent, AppEntity, AppShortcutsProvider, or @Parameter.
artifact-analysisUse 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.
axum-code-reviewReviews axum web framework code for routing patterns, extractor usage, middleware, state management, and error handling. Use when reviewing Rust code that uses axum, tower, or hyper for HTTP services. Covers axum 0.7+ patterns including State, Path, Query, Json extractors.
brainstorm-beagleUse when the user has a fuzzy idea and wants to shape it into a concrete project spec before planning or building. Triggers on: \"brainstorm this\", \"I have an idea for...\", \"help me think through this project\", \"what should I build\", \"spec this out\". Also catches vague feature descriptions needing structured questioning to clarify scope. Does NOT write code, plan implementation, review strategy docs, or run strategy interviews \u2014 produces a WHAT/WHY spec through dialogue, not a HOW plan.
bubbletea-code-reviewReviews BubbleTea TUI code for proper Elm architecture, model/update/view patterns, and Lipgloss styling. Use when reviewing terminal UI code using charmbracelet/bubbletea.
cloudkit-code-reviewReviews CloudKit code for container setup, record handling, subscriptions, and sharing patterns. Use when reviewing code with import CloudKit, CKContainer, CKRecord, CKShare, or CKSubscription.
combine-code-reviewReviews Combine framework code for memory leaks, operator misuse, and error handling. Use when reviewing code with import Combine, AnyPublisher, @Published, PassthroughSubject, or CurrentValueSubject.