Webflow Marketplace / 06 of 08
Bring review context to the reviewer’s tools
I built review tooling that gives an AI assistant structured access to Marketplace queues, asset versions, prior feedback, and submission evidence, with explicit limits on changes.
Selected professional work by Micah Johnson for Webflow, presented as individual portfolio work. Webflow did not commission this work through CREATE SOMETHING. Individual contributions are described within a wider team and platform context.
Contribution focus: Template and app review integrations, evidence retrieval, and write boundaries
MCP is the Model Context Protocol, which connects an AI assistant to structured tools and information.
Offline evidence replay with synthetic clients. Actual handler results; no live reviewer or Airtable operation.
Silent recording · Select captions for visual guidance. Open the MP4 ↗
The problem
Template/App Review MCP
A reviewer needs to understand the current version and prior decisions before deciding what to do next. Reconstructing that context across operational systems adds work, and an assistant with broad write access can introduce a second problem: acting on incomplete or stale information.
The contribution
The work behind the interface.
The Template and App Review MCPs expose domain-specific review tools. They bring record context into the reviewer’s agent workflow while retaining important differences between template and app operations.
Template self-assignment uses runtime reviewer identity. Supplemental agent notes have their own feedback field. Confirmed app status changes require an expected current status, so stale state or missing confirmation can fail explicitly. App reviewer assignment remains read-only through this interface. Preflight evidence is available as review context rather than an approval shortcut.
The key decision
What needed to stay clear.
Make the authority to act as explicit as the evidence. Tool access, reviewer ownership, confirmation, and the freshness of the underlying record all affect which action is valid.
The documented result
What the evidence shows.
The new offline evidence replay shows eight actual production-handler calls with synthetic in-memory clients: queue and context reads, confirmation and stale-state refusals, reviewer self-assignment, the review contract, and supplemental-only notes. Assertions passed with zero network attempts or external writes.
The recording is an offline replay of real handler output. It does not demonstrate live MCP transport, reviewer authentication, Airtable retrieval, or production review operations.
Portfolio evidence captured October 2026. Historical implementation and recordings do not establish the current state of every production system.