AI Coding Tools for E-commerce Frontends: A Reproducible Evaluation and Pitfall Guide

1. Task Definition: Ten Pages and Acceptance Criteria

The evaluation task requires the tool to use a mainstream component-based frontend framework and generate a complete e-commerce site in one pass. The site contains ten core pages covering the business loop of browsing, purchasing, account management, and after-sales management. The original task merged “login and registration” into one item, which can cause ambiguity in the page count. This article therefore splits them into two independent pages.

No.	Page	Core Acceptance Criteria
1	Home (Product List)	Product cards are clickable and lead to details; the list has an empty state.
2	Product Detail Page	Includes title, price, description, image (placeholder allowed), and stock status.
3	Purchase Page	Quantity and specification can be modified; the amount is recalculated in real time as quantity changes; form validation is performed before submission.
4	Purchase Success Page	Redirects here after successful submission on the purchase page; displays the order number.
5	Login Page	Account and password are required; an error prompt is shown on failure; redirects to the user center after login.
6	Registration Page	Validates password strength and password confirmation; the button is disabled during submission.
7	User Center (Dashboard)	Displays user information and shortcut entries; redirects to the login page when accessed without login.
8	Order Management Page	Supports list display and status filtering; data comes from the data layer and is not written into the view.
9	Wallet and Coupon Package Page	Displays balance and coupon list; has an empty state.
10	System Settings Page	Form modifications can be saved; the save result has clear feedback.

In addition to single-page acceptance checks, cross-page requirements must also be checked: all pages must be directly accessible via routing, the purchase flow must go from the detail page to the success page, and login state and cart data must remain consistent after page switches.

2. Test Environment and Recording Standard

Each test must record the following information; otherwise, the results cannot be reproduced:

• Tool name, version number, underlying model (fill in when the tool is public), and test date.
• Working mode, recorded using the actual name in the tool interface, such as wizard-style, one-shot generation, or multi-Agent planning.
• Full original prompt and the input content of each repair conversation round.
• Runtime environment: Node.js version, package manager, browser version, and operating system.
• Metrics: generation completion time, time to first launch, number of runtime errors, and number of repair rounds.

Lag should be based on actual records. Record the duration and count of interface unresponsiveness. Do not use absolute descriptions such as “no lag” or “instant” in reports. Responsive checks should use three widths: 375px, 768px, and 1280px, and screenshots should be kept for each width.

3. Comparison Record Table

Only results from the same task, same prompt, and same environment can be compared horizontally. The conclusion is valid only for this set of conditions.

Tool and Mode	Version and Date	First Launch	Runtime Errors	Repair Rounds	Style Separation	Mock Data Location	Directory Layering	Responsive (375/768/1280)
TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD

Each time a runtime error occurs, write it into the failure log in the following format:

• Time and conversation round.
• Trigger action, such as a startup command or a clicked page.
• Full first line of the error and key lines in the stack trace.
• File paths involved.
• Repair method and result.

4. Engineering Checklist

Style Separation

• Styles are in separate style files, or a unified CSS-in-JS solution is used.
• There are no large blocks of inline styles in components.
• Common styles are centralized in global or theme files.

Mock Data and Data Decoupling

• There are no hard-coded list arrays or objects in view components.
• Mock data is in separate data files or a mock service.
• Replacing mock data with a real API requires only data layer changes.

Directory Layering

• At least a component layer, page layer, network layer, and state layer are present.
• There is no same-name directory nesting, such as two levels both named src.
• Files in custom hook and context directories have actual implementations.

Routing and State

• All pages are directly accessible via routing.
• The purchase flow can be completed from the detail page to the success page.
• Login state and cart data remain consistent across pages.

Form Validation

• Required, format, and length validation all work, with clear error message locations.
• The button is disabled during submission to prevent duplicate submissions.

Responsive Design

• There is no horizontal scrolling at 375px, 768px, and 1280px widths.
• Login and registration forms do not distort at each width.
• Breakpoints are explicitly defined in the styles.

Interaction Details

• Button text and background have sufficient contrast, and the text is clearly readable.
• Focus state is visible.
• Loading states and empty states have clear feedback.
• Image placeholders are replaceable, and image tags have alt text.

5. Common Failure Modes and Repair Steps

The original test repeatedly showed the following problems. They should be checked item by item during evaluation:

• Project structure errors: same-name folder nesting, the startup command cannot find the entry, and the project cannot run.
• Runtime errors that are hard to converge: after multiple conversation rounds, the error count does not decrease, or fixing one place breaks another.
• Visual issues: white text on a white button background, a single color scheme, missing breakpoints, and mobile layout misalignment.
• Empty-shell modules: custom hook or context files exist, but there is no implementation inside.
• Hard-coded data: list data is written directly in page components.

The following steps are recommended for repair:

1. Record the first error and save the complete log.
2. Submit the error information together with the related files to the tool, and fix only one problem per round.
3. If the error count does not decrease for two consecutive rounds, stop conversational repair and return to the last runnable version. Save the current version before rolling back to avoid losing existing changes.
4. Regenerate only the failing module separately; do not redo the whole site.
5. After each repair round, recheck the checklist items affected by the change.

6. Selection Points and Pitfall Avoidance

When selecting a tool, compare the following dimensions: first launch status, repair cost (number of rounds and time), engineering structure quality, data layer replaceability, responsive and visual usability, and process traceability (whether prompts and versions are saved).

Pay attention to the following pitfalls:

• Do not look only at the demo. Demos usually follow an ideal path; walk through the complete flow yourself according to the checklist.
• A generated result is not a deliverable. Teams still need code review, testing, and deployment verification.
• Before enterprise adoption, validate in the team’s existing workflow how the code repository and CI connect, the code review standards, and how object storage and log monitoring are integrated. These need to be tested in the team’s own environment; this article does not draw conclusions about specific vendors’ infrastructure.
• Step-by-step generation makes problems easier to locate than one-shot generation. You can generate the page skeleton and routing first, then add business logic page by page, and finally unify styles and responsive design.

The issues exposed by the original test are concentrated in three areas: engineering structure, data decoupling, and responsive design. These are also the items that should be prioritized during manual review.