Reactprinciples audit recipe

React Principles — Audit Cookbook Recipe (internal)

You audit an existing cookbook recipe against the real codebase to ensure accuracy. This is an internal maintainer skill — used to verify recipes stay correct as the codebase evolves.

When to invoke

• User says "audit recipe <slug>" or "check recipe X"
• User asks whether a recipe is still accurate
• User mentions Issue #53 (living issue tracking applied recipe audits)

Inputs needed

Ask the user for:

1. Recipe slug — e.g., server-state, client-state, form-validation
2. Audit scope (optional):
   • Quick — only verify import paths and obvious breakages
   • Full — verify principles, rules, pattern code, and implementation match actual codebase patterns (default)

What to read first

Read the recipe and the type definition:

src/features/cookbook/data/recipes/<slug>.ts
src/features/cookbook/data/types.ts

Then enumerate referenced files for verification:

src/features/cookbook/data/cookbook-data.ts   # check status, slug match, order

Audit checklist

Walk through every item systematically. Use Grep and Glob for cross-codebase verification.

1. Recipe registration

• Slug in cookbook-data.ts matches the file's slug
• Title matches
• Category matches
• status is "published" if the recipe should be live (or "coming-soon" intentionally)

2. Import paths in pattern code

For every import ... from "@/..." mentioned in pattern.code:

• The file at that path exists
• The named export from that path exists
• No outdated paths (e.g., @/types when actual is @/shared/types/common)
• No fictional packages or modules

3. Import paths in implementation code

Same checks for implementation.nextjs.code and implementation.vite.code:

• All @/-aliased imports point to real files
• All imported symbols are actually exported

4. Pattern accuracy

• Pattern code reflects the actual patterns used in the codebase (not aspirational or outdated)
• If the recipe says "use X factory", check that X actually exists and is used
• If the recipe references a specific hook/component name, check it exists with that exact name

5. Implementation accuracy

• Next.js implementation reflects current Next.js conventions (App Router, route handlers, etc.)
• Vite implementation reflects current Vite conventions (or matches Next.js if framework-agnostic)
• No references to removed APIs (e.g., keepPreviousData in React Query v5 — should be placeholderData)

6. Rules consistency

• Each rule is enforced or recommended by the actual codebase
• Rules don't contradict newer recipes (e.g., a rule against useShallow would contradict updated client-state recipe)

7. Metadata

• lastUpdated is reasonably current (flag if > 3 months old AND any code changes were found)
• demoKey (if present) maps to a working demo
• contributor info is correct

Severity classification

• Critical — broken imports, fictional exports, fundamentally wrong patterns. Recipe is misleading to readers.
• Major — outdated patterns that still work but don't reflect current best practice. Should be updated.
• Minor — stale dates, slight wording inconsistencies, missing optional fields.

Output format

# Recipe audit: <slug>

**Recipe file:** \`src/features/cookbook/data/recipes/<slug>.ts\`
**Status:** <published | coming-soon>
**Last updated:** <date>

## Findings

### Critical

1. **<file>:<line> — <one-line summary>**
   - Where in recipe: \`pattern.code\` / \`implementation.nextjs.code\` / etc.
   - Problem: <one-sentence explanation>
   - Actual codebase state: <what's really there>
   - Suggested fix: <concrete suggestion>

### Major / Minor

(same format)

## Summary

- Critical: <count>
- Major: <count>
- Minor: <count>
- Overall: <ready to ship | needs major fixes | minor polish>

What you should NOT do

• Don't modify the recipe file directly (allowed-tools does not include Write or Edit)
• Don't update cookbook-data.ts — only flag discrepancies
• Don't make subjective stylistic suggestions ("I think this could be worded better") — focus on factual accuracy
• Don't audit recipes that don't exist — if the slug doesn't match a file, ask the user to confirm

Related

• Issue #53 in the main repo tracks the audit status of applied recipes — refer to it for context

Reference

See Cookbook recipe types for the RecipeDetail structure that every recipe must conform to.