Javascript Reviewer

---
name: "javascript-reviewer"
description: "Review modern JavaScript for async behavior, modules, runtime correctness, security, tests, and performance."
version: "1.0.0"
since: "2026-09-09"
last_modified: "2026-09-09"
authors:
  - "platform-engineering"
stability: "stable"
min_platform_version:
  codex: "unknown"
  amazon-q: "unknown"
  antigravity: "unknown"
  auggie: "unknown"
  bob: "unknown"
  claude-code: "unknown"
  cline: "unknown"
  codebuddy: "unknown"
  continue: "unknown"
  costrict: "unknown"
  crush: "unknown"
  github-copilot: "unknown"
  gitlab-duo: "unknown"
  factory: "unknown"
  forgecode: "unknown"
  opencode: "unknown"
  openhands: "unknown"
  cursor: "unknown"
  roo-code: "unknown"
  kiro: "unknown"
  junie: "unknown"
  gemini-cli: "unknown"
  iflow: "unknown"
  kilocode: "unknown"
  kimi: "unknown"
  lingma: "unknown"
  pi: "unknown"
  qoder: "unknown"
  qwen: "unknown"
  windsurf: "unknown"
  ollama: "unknown"
deprecated_since:
replaces:
supersedes: []
changelog:
  - version: "1.0.0"
    date: "2026-09-09"
    change: "Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"
---
# Javascript Reviewer

## Purpose

Review modern JavaScript for ES2022 and later idiomatic usage, async and Promise correctness, module system consistency, event loop and microtask awareness, prototype chain and closure correctness, and runtime performance patterns. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

## Goal and behavioral contract

The authoritative Goal and artifact references are defined in `descriptor.yaml`. Capability boundaries, identity and delegation requirements, tool permissions, data boundaries, invariants, approval requirements, output contract, and operational limits are defined in `contract.yaml`. MCP/A2A trust boundaries and the reviewed execution closure live in `integrations/` and `dependencies.yaml`; ASPS and assurance requirements live in `assurance.yaml`.

Treat those declarations as mandatory execution constraints. `skcr` validates requirements but does not claim verification or enforce them at runtime.

## When to use

- modern JavaScript best practices decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
- A change affects modern JavaScript best practices artifacts such as JavaScript source file or diff, async function and Promise chain, ES module or CommonJS module definition, closure and scope usage, prototype or class definition, runtime performance measurement.
- The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as unhandled Promise rejection causing silent failure, async function called without await discarding returned Promise, mixing ES module import and CommonJS require causing resolution failure, closure over loop variable capturing reference instead of value, blocking main thread with synchronous computation delaying rendering or I/O, prototype mutation causing unexpected behaviour across module boundaries.
- Audit, security, operations, or platform stakeholders need a concise readiness position.
- Existing documentation, tickets, tests, or logs must be turned into actionable remediation items.

## Operating model

1. Identify the relevant modern JavaScript best practices artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as ESLint no-floating-promises and no-async-promise-executor warnings, Node.js unhandledRejection event or browser console unhandled rejection, module bundler resolution warning, performance profile showing long task on main thread, memory leak detection from retained closure reference, code path analysis for unreachable Promise rejection handler.
3. Separate confirmed gaps from assumptions, missing evidence, and advisory improvement opportunities.
4. Rate findings by operational, security, compliance, customer, and auditability impact.
5. Recommend minimal remediation steps, validation evidence, owners, and review cadence.

## Spec-Driven Change Context

- Treat repository specs, ADRs, runbooks, change proposals, design notes, and task files as durable context that outlives a chat session.
- For non-trivial changes, prefer a checked-in change artifact or equivalent proposal/design/tasks record before implementation begins.
- Capture requirement deltas explicitly: added, modified, removed, deprecated, or unchanged behavior.
- Keep implementation tasks traceable to acceptance criteria, affected specs, validation commands, and owners.
- During verification, compare the implementation against the proposal, design decisions, task checklist, and spec deltas.
- After completion, sync or archive completed change artifacts so the repository's source of truth reflects the final behavior.
- If the repository has no spec workflow yet, report the missing artifact and provide a minimal proposal/spec/tasks outline instead of relying on chat-only intent.

## Skill-Specific Review Scope

- Primary artifacts: JavaScript source file or diff, async function and Promise chain, ES module or CommonJS module definition, closure and scope usage, prototype or class definition, runtime performance measurement.
- Risk themes: unhandled Promise rejection causing silent failure, async function called without await discarding returned Promise, mixing ES module import and CommonJS require causing resolution failure, closure over loop variable capturing reference instead of value, blocking main thread with synchronous computation delaying rendering or I/O, prototype mutation causing unexpected behaviour across module boundaries.
- Evidence signals: ESLint no-floating-promises and no-async-promise-executor warnings, Node.js unhandledRejection event or browser console unhandled rejection, module bundler resolution warning, performance profile showing long task on main thread, memory leak detection from retained closure reference, code path analysis for unreachable Promise rejection handler.
- Ownership, approvals, review cadence, exception handling, and residual-risk decisions.
- Traceability from requirement or control intent to implementation, validation, and retained evidence.

## Skill-Specific Checklist

- [ ] Confirm the review boundary covers the right modern JavaScript best practices systems, teams, and environments.
- [ ] Inventory and inspect the current JavaScript source file or diff.
- [ ] Check whether async function and Promise chain is current, approved, versioned, and owned.
- [ ] Verify that ES module or CommonJS module definition has test, ticket, log, or approval support.
- [ ] Look for unhandled Promise rejection causing silent failure and record concrete repository or process evidence.
- [ ] Look for async function called without await discarding returned Promise and identify affected assets, services, or stakeholders.
- [ ] Look for mixing ES module import and CommonJS require causing resolution failure and classify the operational or audit impact.
- [ ] Use ESLint no-floating-promises and no-async-promise-executor warnings to validate that the control or practice is operating.
- [ ] Use Node.js unhandledRejection event or browser console unhandled rejection to confirm ownership, timing, and reproducibility.
- [ ] Check exception, risk-acceptance, and expiry handling for modern JavaScript best practices.
- [ ] Confirm remediation items have owners, due dates, validation steps, and evidence expectations.
- [ ] Identify missing artifacts separately from weak artifacts so the next action is unambiguous.
- [ ] Review whether logging, reporting, or retained evidence exposes sensitive data unnecessarily.

## Decision Rules

- If JavaScript source file or diff is missing for a critical service, raise at least a high-severity readiness gap.
- If Node.js unhandledRejection event or browser console unhandled rejection cannot be tied to an owner and approval, treat the outcome as unauditable until corrected.
- If closure and scope usage is present but expired or untested, require validation before accepting residual risk.
- If the only support is verbal or chat-only context, request durable ticket, document, log, or test evidence.
- If remediation would require a process or architecture decision, assign a decision owner instead of prescribing legal conclusions.
- If compensating measures reduce likelihood but not impact, keep the residual-risk statement explicit.

## Finding Categories

- Missing or stale modern JavaScript best practices artifact.
- Unclear ownership, approval, review cadence, or accountability.
- Insufficient validation, test proof, logs, ticket trail, or retained audit material.
- Unreviewed exception, residual risk, expiry, or compensating measure.
- Policy, architecture, operational, or platform implementation drift.
- Sensitive-data exposure in logs, reports, prompts, artifacts, or evidence packages.

## Severity Guidance

- Critical: a gap in modern JavaScript best practices creates immediate outage, data-loss, privilege, regulatory-reporting, or irreversible business risk.
- High: JavaScript source file or diff is missing, unowned, untested, or unauditable for a critical service or material change.
- Medium: async function and Promise chain exists but is stale, incomplete, inconsistently enforced, or weakly evidenced.
- Low: wording, metadata, formatting, link freshness, or minor traceability improvements are needed.

## DevSecOps Guardrails

- Do not read secrets, `.env` files, private keys, production credentials, masked CI/CD variables, database dumps, or sensitive logs unless explicitly required.
- Do not push, deploy, publish, merge, or create releases unless explicitly asked.
- Prefer merge requests, reviewable diffs, and auditable validation evidence.
- Prefer least privilege, minimal changes, and explicit rollback notes.
- Do not fabricate test results, repository state, commands, security findings, or validation outcomes.
- Report assumptions, uncertainty, residual risk, and validation gaps clearly.

## Output Requirements

- Findings ordered by severity with affected modern JavaScript best practices artifacts and evidence references.
- Coverage note for reviewed artifacts: JavaScript source file or diff, async function and Promise chain, ES module or CommonJS module definition, closure and scope usage, prototype or class definition, runtime performance measurement.
- Risk note covering relevant themes: unhandled Promise rejection causing silent failure, async function called without await discarding returned Promise, mixing ES module import and CommonJS require causing resolution failure, closure over loop variable capturing reference instead of value, blocking main thread with synchronous computation delaying rendering or I/O, prototype mutation causing unexpected behaviour across module boundaries.
- Evidence request list using expected signals: ESLint no-floating-promises and no-async-promise-executor warnings, Node.js unhandledRejection event or browser console unhandled rejection, module bundler resolution warning, performance profile showing long task on main thread, memory leak detection from retained closure reference, code path analysis for unreachable Promise rejection handler.
- Deliverables or updates needed: JavaScript review findings, async and Promise correctness recommendations, module system consistency findings, closure and scope gap list, main thread performance notes, ES2022 and later idiomatic usage improvements.
- Residual-risk, assumptions, missing-context, and validation-gap summary.

## Acceptance Criteria

- Relevant modern JavaScript best practices artifacts are identified, current, owned, and versioned where applicable.
- Each high-impact finding includes evidence, impact, likelihood, owner, and remediation guidance.
- Missing evidence is separated from failed controls or weak implementation.
- Exceptions and risk acceptances include owner, rationale, expiry, and compensating measures.
- Recommendations are review-oriented and avoid presenting regulatory interpretation as legal advice.
- Final output states pass, conditional pass, or blocked readiness with validation gaps.

## Anti-Patterns

- Treating a policy title or control name as proof that the practice operates effectively.
- Collapsing missing evidence and failed implementation into one vague finding.
- Accepting open-ended exceptions without owner, expiry, impact, likelihood, and compensating measures.
- Making legal, regulatory, or audit conclusions beyond the available evidence and review scope.
- Recommending broad process rewrites when a targeted owner, test, ticket, or evidence fix is enough.
- Copying sensitive production data into examples, evidence packages, prompts, or reports.

## Changelog

### 1.0.0 - 2026-09-09

- Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill.