Forge app review
The Forge Skills Plugin bundles several Forge-focused skills plus MCP-backed tooling so your agent can scaffold apps, review them before deploy, debug production issues, and stay current on Forge APIs and the Atlassian Design System.
npx -y skills add atlassian/forge-skills --skill forge-app-reviewAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 18 stars18 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Performs a lightweight pre-release readiness review of Atlassian Forge apps across manifest/module wiring, architecture, runtime compatibility, dependency posture, tests, deploy readiness, and obvious security, cost, or reliability smells. Use when the user asks "review my Forge app", "pre-deploy check", "is this app ready to ship", "review manifest", "general app review", "release readiness", or asks for a broad quality pass. Do not use for deep security audits/SAST/exploitability review, cost optimization, or diagnosing a known broken app; route those to forge-security-review, forge-cost-optimizer, or forge-debugger respectively.
SKILL.md
6.0 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Forge App Review
Run a general Forge release-readiness review. This skill is the front door for broad app review, not a replacement for specialist security, cost, or debugging skills.
Boundaries
Use this skill for:
- Pre-deploy and release-readiness checks.
- General architecture and maintainability review.
- Manifest/module/resource/function wiring.
- Runtime, dependency, package, and script sanity checks.
- Basic tests/deploy readiness and operational hygiene.
- Obvious security, cost, or reliability smells that should trigger a deeper specialist pass.
Use another skill instead when the user's primary intent is:
- Deep security audit, SAST, authz, secrets, tenant isolation, exploitability, or CVSS reporting ->
forge-security-review. - Cost optimization, invocations, GB-seconds, storage/log volume, trigger frequency, or memory tuning ->
forge-cost-optimizer. - A known failure, error message, blank UI, failed deploy/install, broken resolver, missing app, or logs/tunnel diagnosis ->
forge-debugger.
If a broad review finds a deep security/cost/debug concern, include it as a handoff recommendation rather than duplicating the specialist workflow.
Review Rules
- Audit first. Do not modify app files unless the user explicitly asks to apply fixes.
- Read the codebase before making claims.
- Prefer concrete file/line evidence.
- Keep findings focused on bugs, release blockers, meaningful risks, and missing validation.
- Do not run full SAST or cost tooling from this skill. Recommend the specialist skill when warranted.
- Do not report speculative security or cost observations as confirmed vulnerabilities or savings.
Workflow
- Read
manifest.ymlormanifest.yaml.- Identify modules, resources, functions, resolver bindings, triggers, web triggers, remotes, permissions, runtime, and memory settings.
- Verify referenced handlers/resources exist.
- Read
package.json.- Check Forge package fit, scripts, runtime assumptions, direct dependencies, and obvious unused/missing packages.
- Inspect source files.
- Backend/resolvers:
resolver.define, handler exports, product API calls, storage usage, external fetches, logging, error handling. - Frontend: UI Kit or Custom UI resource entry points,
invoke()patterns, bridge usage, loading/error states.
- Backend/resolvers:
- Inspect tests and project docs when present.
- Note missing tests only when behavior risk justifies it.
- Produce a prioritized readiness report.
What To Check
Release Blockers
- Manifest references a missing handler, resource path, or module key.
- Resolver names called by the frontend do not match
resolver.define()names. - Required scopes or egress permissions are missing for actual API/fetch usage.
- Runtime, package versions, or module syntax likely fail
forge lint, build, deploy, or install. - App has no clear way to exercise its primary user flow.
Architecture And Maintainability
- Module type matches the intended UX surface.
- Resolver boundaries are coherent and not overly monolithic for the app size.
- Sensitive or privileged logic stays backend-side.
- UI-only formatting/transforms are not unnecessarily forced through backend functions.
- Error handling is sufficient for user-facing workflows.
- Code organization matches existing project style.
Lightweight Security Signals
Only flag obvious signals and recommend forge-security-review for deep validation:
- Broad/write/admin scopes without visible usage.
api.asApp()in user-triggered resolvers without obvious authorization checks.- Hardcoded credentials or token-like literals.
- External fetches without manifest egress entries.
- Web triggers without visible authentication strategy.
- Full payload/request logging that may expose user, tenant, or secret data.
Lightweight Cost Signals
Only flag obvious signals and recommend forge-cost-optimizer for deep analysis:
- Resolver invoked only to return static data or product context.
- Multiple independent
invoke()calls on page load. - Scheduled triggers that look like broad polling.
- Product triggers without filters or
ignoreSelfwhere applicable. - Full payload/API response logging in hot paths.
- Storage writes on every invocation.
Lightweight Debuggability Signals
Only flag readiness gaps; use forge-debugger when there is an observed failure:
- Missing loading/error states around async UI paths.
- Logs are either too noisy or absent around important failures.
- README or scripts do not explain how to lint/build/deploy/test.
- App has no obvious local verification command besides
forge lint.
Output Format
Return a concise Markdown report:
# Forge App Review Results
## Summary
- Readiness: Ready | Needs changes | Blocked
- Highest-risk area: <manifest | resolver wiring | permissions | dependencies | tests | operational hygiene>
- Files inspected: <short list>
- Specialist handoffs: <none | security | cost | debugger>
## Findings
1. [Critical | Warning | Info] <title>
- Evidence: `<file:line>` and observed pattern
- Impact: <why this affects readiness>
- Recommendation: <specific fix or specialist handoff>
## Clean Areas
- <important categories checked with no issues>
## Suggested Next Step
- <apply fixes | run specialist review | deploy/lint/test command>
If there are no findings, say the app looks ready from this general review and list any residual specialist reviews that were intentionally out of scope.