front-end-checklist vs no-mistakes
Two of the top projects in Code review and testing, side by side: who leads on each score part and who each one suits, then setup, license, activity and what each review found.
front-end-checklist
Front-end rules checklist with an MCP server for agent code review
no-mistakes
Local git proxy that runs AI review, tests and lint before opening a PR
Verdict
front-end-checklist ranks higher, 63 to 60. Of the 3 score parts we measure for both, front-end-checklist leads on 1, no-mistakes on none and 2 are even.
- Adoptionfront-end-checklist leads by 78 points, 95 to 17: a wide gap.
- FreshnessEven at 100.
- MaintenanceWe do not score no-mistakes on this; front-end-checklist has 33.
- Easy to runWe do not score no-mistakes on this; front-end-checklist has 33.
- Agent-readyEven at 70.
Pick front-end-checklist if you are
Front-end developers and teams auditing sites or feeding rules to agents
- 386 rules with Critical/High/Medium/Low priorities, grouped into 11 categories
- Hosted MCP server exposes 11 tools, including review_code, search_rules and audit_url
Pick no-mistakes if you are
Developers who want agent-checked branches before raising PRs
- Runs in an isolated worktree, so your working directory is not disturbed
- Works with claude, codex, grok, opencode, copilot, cursor and others, with ordered fallbacks
| What we compare | front-end-checklist | no-mistakes |
|---|---|---|
| Score parts, out of 100 | ||
| Adoption | 95, widely used | 17, niche |
| Freshness | 100, active | 100, active |
| Maintenance | 33, patchy | Not scored for this kind |
| Easy to run | 33, some setup | Not scored for this kind |
| Agent-ready | 70, partly | 70, partly |
| Facts from GitHub and the README | ||
| Stars | 74.5k | 8.8k |
| License | MIT (permissive) | MIT (permissive) |
| Last commit | Oct 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| Last release | May 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Language | MDX | Go |
| Docker | No | No |
| GPU | Not needed | Not stated |
| arm64 or Apple Silicon | Not stated | Not stated |
front-end-checklist
A corpus of 386 English front-end rules across 11 categories (HTML, CSS, JavaScript, performance, accessibility, SEO, security, images, testing, privacy, i18n), each with a priority level, remediation guidance and verification steps. It is readable on the website or in the README, and a hosted MCP server and installable skills let agents review code or audit public URLs against the same rules.
Who it is for: Front-end developers and teams auditing sites or feeding rules to agents
Strengths
- 386 rules with Critical/High/Medium/Low priorities, grouped into 11 categories
- Hosted MCP server exposes 11 tools, including review_code, search_rules and audit_url
- Skills install with `npx skills add frontendchecklist/skills`, global or per rule
- MIT licensed; rules also usable as a plain README checklist without any tooling
Weaknesses
- Content repo, not a linter: findings come from an agent applying the rules
- audit_url only handles public https:// pages
- Security, privacy and i18n categories are thin (22, 5 and 5 rules)
- MCP tool discovery can be lazy in some clients; the prompt must name the server
- no GPU
- Needs MCP-compatible client, pnpm (for contributing)
no-mistakes
no-mistakes places a local git remote in front of your real one. Pushing to it creates a disposable worktree and runs a pipeline (review, test, docs, lint, push, PR, CI) driven by a coding agent CLI such as claude or codex. The branch is forwarded to the real remote only after every gate passes, and a PR is opened for you. Safe fixes are applied automatically; other findings wait for approval in a TUI.
Who it is for: Developers who want agent-checked branches before raising PRs
Strengths
- Runs in an isolated worktree, so your working directory is not disturbed
- Works with claude, codex, grok, opencode, copilot, cursor and others, with ordered fallbacks
- Three entry points: git push, a TUI, or a /no-mistakes agent skill
- Watches CI after the PR opens and auto-repairs failures
Weaknesses
- Requires a runnable coding agent CLI configured for every gate
- Agent calls spend API quota; RAM and cost figures are unknown
- CI repairs may need another full review pass if revalidate_repairs is set
- Auto PR creation and CI watching are documented only for configured push targets such as GitHub
- Needs git, a coding agent CLI (claude, codex, opencode, etc.)
- Models: claude, codex, grok, rovodev, opencode
More in Code review and testing
Building with these?
We help teams pick an open-source AI stack and run it in production. Client work never changes a rank.