libpdf-js/dx-review

You are reviewing the developer experience (DX) of the library to ensure it feels good to use. As a library consumed by other developers, ergonomics matter as much as functionality.

Your Task

1. Identify scope - Based on the conversation context, determine what module or feature to review. If no specific scope is mentioned, review the main public API.
2. Analyze the API surface - How do developers interact with this code?
3. Evaluate ergonomics - Is it intuitive, consistent, and pleasant to use?
4. Report findings - Document issues and recommendations

DX Evaluation Criteria

1. Discoverability

• Can developers find what they need?
• Are method names intuitive and searchable?
• Is the API surface appropriately sized (not too sprawling)?

2. Consistency

• Do similar operations work the same way?
• Are naming conventions consistent across the API?
• Do return types follow predictable patterns?

3. Ergonomics

• Is the common case easy? (pit of success)
• Are required parameters actually required?
• Do defaults make sense for typical usage?
• Is there unnecessary boilerplate?

4. Error Experience

• Are errors actionable? (tells you what went wrong AND how to fix it)
• Do errors surface at the right time? (fail fast)
• Are error types specific enough to catch programmatically?

5. Type Experience

• Does autocomplete guide developers?
• Are types precise (not too wide like any or string)?
• Do generics add value or just complexity?

6. Documentation in Code

• Are public methods documented with JSDoc?
• Do examples in comments actually work?
• Are parameter constraints documented?

7. Comparison to Standards

• How does this compare to similar libraries developers know?
• Does it follow platform conventions (Node.js, Web APIs)?
• Would a developer's intuition from other libraries apply here?

Review Process

Step 1: Use the API

Put yourself in a consumer's shoes:

• What would a developer try first?
• What questions would they have?
• Where would they get stuck?

Step 2: Read the Types

Examine the TypeScript definitions:

• What does autocomplete show?
• Are overloads clear or confusing?
• Do type errors make sense?

Step 3: Trace Common Workflows

Walk through typical tasks:

• Opening a PDF and reading metadata
• Modifying form fields
• Saving changes
• Handling errors

Step 4: Look for Friction

Identify pain points:

• Unnecessary ceremony or boilerplate
• Confusing parameter orders
• Inconsistent patterns
• Missing conveniences

Output Format

Write your review to .agents/scratch/dx-review-<scope>.md:

# DX Review: <Scope>

## Summary

Overall assessment and top priorities.

## What's Working Well

- Positive patterns to preserve

## Issues Found

### Issue 1: <Title>

**Severity:** High/Medium/Low
**Category:** Discoverability/Consistency/Ergonomics/Errors/Types/Docs

**Problem:**
Description of the issue from a developer's perspective.

**Example:**

```typescript
// Current awkward usage
```

**Recommendation:**

```typescript
// Proposed improvement
```

### Issue 2: ...

## Recommendations Summary

Prioritized list of changes to improve DX.

## Comparison Notes

How we compare to pdf-lib, pdfjs, or other libraries developers might know.

```

## Guidelines

- **Be specific** - Vague feedback isn't actionable
- **Show, don't tell** - Include code examples
- **Prioritize** - Not all issues are equal
- **Be constructive** - Propose solutions, not just problems
- **Consider tradeoffs** - Note when fixing one thing might hurt another
- **Think like a user** - You're advocating for developers who will use this

## Begin

Review the scope determined from the conversation context (or the main API if unspecified) and document your DX findings.
```