Q301: Frontend Architecture Review Framework and Decision Records
What Interviewers Want To Evaluate
Interviewers want to know whether you can review architecture without turning it into opinion theater.
They are checking how you evaluate requirements, trade-offs, constraints, risks, alternatives, non-goals, ownership, rollout, observability, and long-term maintenance.
Short Interview Answer
A frontend architecture review should start from user goals and constraints, then evaluate the proposed design across state, data flow, rendering, performance, accessibility, security, observability, rollout, and ownership. I would ask for alternatives, explicit trade-offs, failure modes, and migration plans. Important decisions should be recorded in ADRs so future teams know why the choice was made, what assumptions were true, and when the decision should be revisited.
Detailed Interview Answer
Architecture review is a quality and alignment tool.
It should not be:
senior people forcing taste
late-stage approval theater
library popularity debate
one person rewriting the plan
It should help teams make better decisions before the cost of change is high.
Review Inputs
Before reviewing, ask for:
problem statement
users and workflows
requirements
non-goals
constraints
scale assumptions
data model
API contracts
UI flows
alternatives considered
rollout plan
observability plan
Without inputs, review becomes guesswork.
Review Dimensions
A strong frontend review covers:
state ownership
server data caching
URL state
rendering strategy
bundle impact
accessibility
security boundaries
privacy
offline behavior
error states
observability
testability
deployment and rollback
team ownership
Not every dimension has equal weight for every feature.
The reviewer should focus on the risk profile.
Decision Records
An ADR is an architecture decision record.
It usually includes:
title
status
context
decision
alternatives
consequences
owners
revisit trigger
date
The goal is not paperwork.
The goal is memory.
Six months later, a team should understand why a decision was reasonable at the time.
Alternatives
Every important design should include alternatives.
Example:
Option A: local component state
Option B: URL state
Option C: server persisted state
Option D: global client store
If the proposal has no alternatives, the team may be hiding assumptions.
Risk-Based Review
Small changes need lightweight review.
High-risk changes need deeper review.
High-risk signals:
authentication
payments
personal data
large migration
cross-team dependency
performance-sensitive route
shared component API
new vendor
new deployment model
The review process should scale with risk.
Failure Modes
Ask:
What fails if the API is slow?
What happens offline?
What if the new route partially deploys?
What if old clients call new APIs?
What if the vendor is down?
What if data is malformed?
What if screen readers cannot use it?
Failure-mode thinking improves design more than abstract debate.
Interview Framing
Say:
I would structure the review around requirements, alternatives, trade-offs, risk, rollout, and ownership, then capture durable decisions in ADRs.
Then add:
I would avoid reviewing by personal preference; I would review by user impact, system constraints, and long-term operability.
Common Mistakes
- Reviewing too late.
- Reviewing by framework preference.
- Ignoring rollout and rollback.
- Missing accessibility or security.
- Not recording decision context.
- Treating all changes with the same process.
- Asking for perfection instead of appropriate risk control.
Learning Studio Example
An architecture review for the side-by-side JS/TS console should cover:
editor component choice
keyboard shortcuts
copy behavior
code execution boundary
console output isolation
mobile layout
performance
accessibility
error states
future saved snippets
An ADR would record why the chosen editor and execution approach fit the project.
Final Mental Model
Architecture review is decision hygiene.
It should help teams:
see assumptions
compare options
reduce risk
align owners
remember why
ship with confidence