# Frontend Architecture Document Review Checklist

## Purpose

This checklist is for the Design Architect to use after completing the "Frontend Architecture Mode" and populating the `front-end-architecture-tmpl.txt` (or `.md`) document. It ensures all sections are comprehensively covered and meet quality standards before finalization.

[[LLM: INITIALIZATION INSTRUCTIONS - FRONTEND ARCHITECTURE VALIDATION

Before proceeding with this checklist, ensure you have access to:

1. frontend-architecture.md or fe-architecture.md - The frontend architecture document (check docs/frontend-architecture.md or docs/fe-architecture.md)
2. architecture.md - Main architecture document for alignment verification
3. UI/UX specifications or design files (Figma, Sketch, etc.)
4. Any component library documentation or design system references
5. Technology stack specifications from main architecture

IMPORTANT: If the frontend architecture document is missing, immediately ask the user for its location. This checklist cannot proceed without it.

VALIDATION APPROACH:

1. Cross-Reference - Verify alignment with main architecture document
2. Completeness - Ensure all template sections are properly filled
3. Consistency - Check that patterns and conventions are uniform
4. Implementability - Verify an AI agent could implement from these specs
5. Best Practices - Ensure modern frontend practices are followed

EXECUTION MODE:
Ask the user if they want to work through the checklist:

- Section by section (interactive mode) - Review each section, present findings, get confirmation before proceeding
- All at once (comprehensive mode) - Complete full analysis and present comprehensive report at end]]

---

## I. Introduction

[[LLM: Verify all links and references are present and functional. If any links are broken or missing, note them as failures. The introduction sets the context for the entire document.]]

- [ ] Is the `{Project Name}` correctly filled in throughout the Introduction?
- [ ] Is the link to the Main Architecture Document present and correct?
- [ ] Is the link to the UI/UX Specification present and correct?
- [ ] Is the link to the Primary Design Files (Figma, Sketch, etc.) present and correct?
- [ ] Is the link to a Deployed Storybook / Component Showcase included, if applicable and available?

## II. Overall Frontend Philosophy & Patterns

[[LLM: This section is critical for consistency. Verify that:

1. The chosen patterns align with the tech stack in the main architecture
2. The philosophy is clear enough for consistent implementation
3. State management approach matches the application's complexity
4. No conflicting patterns are specified

Pay special attention to alignment with the main architecture document - any mismatches here will cause implementation problems.]]

- [ ] Are the chosen Framework & Core Libraries clearly stated and aligned with the main architecture document?
- [ ] Is the Component Architecture (e.g., Atomic Design, Presentational/Container) clearly described?
- [ ] Is the State Management Strategy (e.g., Redux Toolkit, Zustand) clearly described at a high level?
- [ ] Is the Data Flow (e.g., Unidirectional) clearly explained?
- [ ] Is the Styling Approach (e.g., CSS Modules, Tailwind CSS) clearly defined?
- [ ] Are Key Design Patterns to be employed (e.g., Provider, Hooks) listed?
- [ ] Does this section align with "Definitive Tech Stack Selections" in the main architecture document?
- [ ] Are implications from overall system architecture (monorepo/polyrepo, backend services) considered?

## III. Detailed Frontend Directory Structure

[[LLM: The directory structure is the blueprint for code organization. Verify:

1. The ASCII diagram is clear and complete
2. Structure follows the stated patterns from Section II
3. Conventions are explicit (where do new components go?)
4. Structure supports the chosen framework's best practices

An AI agent should be able to know exactly where to place any new file based on this structure.]]

- [ ] Is an ASCII diagram representing the frontend application's folder structure provided?
- [ ] Is the diagram clear, accurate, and reflective of the chosen framework/patterns?
- [ ] Are conventions for organizing components, pages, services, state, styles, etc., highlighted?
- [ ] Are notes explaining specific conventions or rationale for the structure present and clear?

## IV. Component Breakdown & Implementation Details

[[LLM: Component specifications are crucial for consistent implementation. For this section:

1. Verify the template itself is complete with all required fields
2. Check that any example components follow the template exactly
3. Ensure naming conventions are clear and followable
4. Validate that the level of detail is sufficient for implementation

The component template should be so clear that every component built follows the same pattern.]]

### Component Naming & Organization

- [ ] Are conventions for naming components (e.g., PascalCase) described?
- [ ] Is the organization of components on the filesystem clearly explained (reiterating from directory structure if needed)?

### Template for Component Specification

- [ ] Is the "Template for Component Specification" itself complete and well-defined?
  - [ ] Does it include fields for: Purpose, Source File(s), Visual Reference?
  - [ ] Does it include a table structure for Props (Name, Type, Required, Default, Description)?
  - [ ] Does it include a table structure for Internal State (Variable, Type, Initial Value, Description)?
  - [ ] Does it include a section for Key UI Elements / Structure (textual or pseudo-HTML)?
  - [ ] Does it include a section for Events Handled / Emitted?
  - [ ] Does it include a section for Actions Triggered (State Management, API Calls)?
  - [ ] Does it include a section for Styling Notes?
  - [ ] Does it include a section for Accessibility Notes?
- [ ] Is there a clear statement that this template should be used for most feature-specific components?

### Foundational/Shared Components (if any specified upfront)

- [ ] If any foundational/shared UI components are specified, do they follow the "Template for Component Specification"?
- [ ] Is the rationale for specifying these components upfront clear?

## V. State Management In-Depth

[[LLM: State management is often where frontend apps become complex. Validate:

1. The chosen solution matches the app's needs (not over/under-engineered)
2. Store structure is clearly defined with examples
3. Patterns for async operations are specified
4. Selector patterns promote performance
5. The approach scales with application growth

Look for specific examples and templates, not just high-level descriptions.]]

- [ ] Is the chosen State Management Solution reiterated and rationale briefly provided (if not fully covered in main arch doc)?
- [ ] Are conventions for Store Structure / Slices clearly defined (e.g., location, feature-based slices)?
- [ ] If a Core Slice Example (e.g., `sessionSlice`) is provided:
  - [ ] Is its purpose clear?
  - [ ] Is its State Shape defined (e.g., using TypeScript interface)?
  - [ ] Are its Key Reducers/Actions listed?
- [ ] Is a Feature Slice Template provided, outlining purpose, state shape, and key reducers/actions to be filled in?
- [ ] Are conventions for Key Selectors noted (e.g., use `createSelector`)?
- [ ] Are examples of Key Selectors for any core slices provided?
- [ ] Are conventions for Key Actions / Reducers / Thunks (especially async) described?
- [ ] Is an example of a Core Action/Thunk (e.g., `authenticateUser`) provided, detailing its purpose and dispatch flow?
- [ ] Is a Feature Action/Thunk Template provided for feature-specific async operations?

## VI. API Interaction Layer

[[LLM: API integration is where frontend meets backend. Verify:

1. HTTP client setup is complete with all configurations
2. Error handling is comprehensive (network, timeout, 4xx, 5xx)
3. Service definitions follow a consistent pattern
4. Authentication/authorization integration is clear
5. Retry logic doesn't create cascading failures

This section should prevent any ambiguity in how the frontend communicates with backends.]]

- [ ] Is the HTTP Client Setup detailed (e.g., Axios instance, Fetch wrapper, base URL, default headers, interceptors)?
- [ ] Are Service Definitions conventions explained?
- [ ] Is an example of a service (e.g., `userService.ts`) provided, including its purpose and example functions?
- [ ] Is Global Error Handling for API calls described (e.g., toast notifications, global error state)?
- [ ] Is guidance on Specific Error Handling within components provided?
- [ ] Is any client-side Retry Logic for API calls detailed and configured?

## VII. Routing Strategy

[[LLM: Routing defines the application's navigation structure. Check:

1. All major application routes are defined
2. Protection mechanisms are clearly specified
3. Route patterns are consistent and predictable
4. Deep linking considerations are addressed
5. Route guards integrate with authentication properly

The routing table should be comprehensive enough to understand the entire app structure.]]

- [ ] Is the chosen Routing Library stated?
- [ ] Is a table of Route Definitions provided?
  - [ ] Does it include Path Pattern, Component/Page, Protection status, and Notes for each route?
  - [ ] Are all key application routes listed?
- [ ] Is the Authentication Guard mechanism for protecting routes described?
- [ ] Is the Authorization Guard mechanism (if applicable for roles/permissions) described?

## VIII. Build, Bundling, and Deployment

[[LLM: Build and deployment directly impact performance and reliability. Validate:

1. Build scripts are clearly documented
2. Environment variable handling is secure and clear
3. Optimization strategies are appropriate for the app size
4. Deployment platform is compatible with the build output
5. Caching strategies won't cause stale content issues

Look for specific commands and configurations, not general statements.]]

- [ ] Are Key Build Scripts (e.g., `npm run build`) listed and their purpose explained?
- [ ] Is the handling of Environment Variables during the build process described for different environments?
- [ ] Is Code Splitting strategy detailed (e.g., route-based, component-based)?
- [ ] Is Tree Shaking confirmed or explained?
- [ ] Is Lazy Loading strategy (for components, images, routes) outlined?
- [ ] Is Minification & Compression by build tools mentioned?
- [ ] Is the Target Deployment Platform (e.g., Vercel, Netlify) specified?
- [ ] Is the Deployment Trigger (e.g., Git push via CI/CD) described, referencing the main CI/CD pipeline?
- [ ] Is the Asset Caching Strategy (CDN/browser) for static assets outlined?

## IX. Frontend Testing Strategy

[[LLM: Testing ensures quality and prevents regressions. Verify:

1. Testing layers are appropriate (unit, integration, e2e)
2. Tools are specified and compatible with the tech stack
3. Test file locations follow a clear pattern
4. Testing scope is realistic and valuable
5. Test data management is addressed

The strategy should be specific enough to start writing tests immediately.]]

- [ ] Is there a link to the Main Testing Strategy document/section, and is it correct?
- [ ] For Component Testing:
  - [ ] Is the Scope clearly defined?
  - [ ] Are the Tools listed?
  - [ ] Is the Focus of tests (rendering, props, interactions) clear?
  - [ ] Is the Location of test files specified?
- [ ] For UI Integration/Flow Testing:
  - [ ] Is the Scope (interactions between multiple components) clear?
  - [ ] Are the Tools listed (can be same as component testing)?
  - [ ] Is the Focus of these tests clear?
- [ ] For End-to-End UI Testing:
  - [ ] Are the Tools (e.g., Playwright, Cypress) reiterated from main strategy?
  - [ ] Is the Scope (key user journeys for frontend) defined?
  - [ ] Is Test Data Management for UI E2E tests addressed?

## X. Accessibility (AX) Implementation Details

[[LLM: Accessibility is not optional - it's a core requirement. Check:

1. Semantic HTML usage is emphasized
2. ARIA guidance is practical and specific
3. Keyboard navigation is comprehensively addressed
4. Testing tools and processes are defined
5. Accessibility is integrated into the development workflow

This section should prevent accessibility from being an afterthought.]]

- [ ] Is there an emphasis on using Semantic HTML?
- [ ] Are guidelines for ARIA Implementation (roles, states, properties for custom components) provided?
- [ ] Are requirements for Keyboard Navigation (all interactive elements focusable/operable) stated?
- [ ] Is Focus Management (for modals, dynamic content) addressed?
- [ ] Are Testing Tools for AX (e.g., Axe DevTools, Lighthouse) listed?
- [ ] Does this section align with AX requirements from the UI/UX Specification?

## XI. Performance Considerations

[[LLM: Performance directly impacts user experience. Validate:

1. Image optimization strategies are concrete
2. Code splitting approach matches app architecture
3. Re-render optimization techniques are specified
4. Performance monitoring is built-in from the start
5. Performance budgets or targets are defined

Look for specific techniques and tools, not just aspirational statements.]]

- [ ] Is Image Optimization (formats, responsive images, lazy loading) discussed?
- [ ] Is Code Splitting & Lazy Loading (impact on perceived performance) reiterated if necessary?
- [ ] Are techniques for Minimizing Re-renders (e.g., `React.memo`) mentioned?
- [ ] Is the use of Debouncing/Throttling for event handlers considered?
- [ ] Is Virtualization for long lists/large data sets mentioned if applicable?
- [ ] Are Client-Side Caching Strategies (browser cache, service workers) discussed if relevant?
- [ ] Are Performance Monitoring Tools (e.g., Lighthouse, DevTools) listed?

## XII. Change Log

- [ ] Is the Change Log table present and initialized?
- [ ] Is there a process for updating the change log as the document evolves?

---

## Final Review Sign-off

[[LLM: FINAL VALIDATION REPORT GENERATION

Generate a comprehensive frontend architecture validation report:

1. Executive Summary

   - Document completeness (percentage of sections properly filled)
   - Alignment with main architecture (High/Medium/Low)
   - Implementation readiness (Ready/Needs Work/Not Ready)
   - Critical gaps identified

2. Section Analysis

   - Pass rate for each major section
   - Most critical failures or gaps
   - Sections requiring immediate attention

3. Technical Concerns

   - Potential implementation challenges
   - Inconsistencies between sections
   - Missing critical information
   - Over-engineering concerns

4. Recommendations

   - Must-fix items before development
   - Should-fix items for better quality
   - Nice-to-have improvements

5. AI Implementation Assessment
   - Clarity score for AI implementation (1-10)
   - Ambiguous areas needing clarification
   - Missing examples or templates

After presenting the report, ask if the user wants detailed analysis of any specific section, especially those with failures or concerns.]]

- [ ] Have all placeholders (e.g., `{Project Name}`, `{e.g., ...}`) been filled in or removed where appropriate?
- [ ] Has the document been reviewed for clarity, consistency, and completeness by the Design Architect?
- [ ] Are all linked documents (Main Architecture, UI/UX Spec) finalized or stable enough for this document to rely on?
- [ ] Is the document ready to be shared with the development team?
