Requesting Code Review

What This Skill Does

This skill helps developers request effective code reviews by providing a structured approach. It guides the user in preparing the necessary context, such as git SHAs and descriptions, to ensure the reviewer can quickly understand the changes. The skill emphasizes early and frequent reviews to catch issues before they escalate.

When to Use

• After completing a task in subagent-driven development.
• After completing a major feature implementation.
• Before merging code to the main branch.
• When stuck on a problem and needing a fresh perspective.
• Before starting a significant refactoring effort.
• After fixing a complex bug to ensure correctness.

Key Features

• Provides a template for crafting review requests.
• Uses git SHAs to specify the code range for review.
• Focuses the reviewer on the work product, not the development process.
• Offers guidance on acting on feedback from the reviewer.
• Promotes early and frequent code reviews.
• Integrates with subagent-driven development workflows.

Requesting Code Review

Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.

Core principle: Review early, review often.

When to Request Review

Mandatory: After each task in subagent-driven development After completing major feature Before merge to main

Optional but valuable: When stuck (fresh perspective) Before refactoring (baseline check) After fixing complex bug

How to Request

1. Get git SHAs: BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or origin/main HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:

Use Task tool with superpowers:code-reviewer type, fill template at code-reviewer.md

Placeholders: {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED} - What you just built {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS} - What it should do {BASE_SHA} - Starting commit {HEAD_SHA} - Ending commit {DESCRIPTION} - Brief summary

1. Act on feedback: Fix Critical issues immediately Fix Important issues before proceeding Note Minor issues for later Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)

Example

[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]

You: Let me request code review before proceeding.

BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}') HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

[Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent] WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md BASE_SHA: a7981ec HEAD_SHA: 3df7661 DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types

[Subagent returns]: Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests Issues: Important: Missing progress indicators Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval Assessment: Ready to proceed

You: [Fix progress indicators] [Continue to Task 3]

Integration with Workflows

Subagent-Driven Development: Review after EACH task Catch issues before they compound Fix before moving to next task

Executing Plans: Review after each batch (3 tasks) Get feedback, apply, continue

Ad-Hoc Development: Review before merge Review when stuck

Red Flags

Never: Skip review because "it's simple" Ignore Critical issues Proceed with unfixed Important issues Argue with valid technical feedback

If reviewer wrong: Push back with technical reasoning Show code/tests that prove it works Request clarification

Requesting Code Review

Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.

Core principle: Review early, review often.

Red Flags

Never: Skip review because "it's simple" Ignore Critical issues Proceed with unfixed Important issues Argue with valid technical feedback

If reviewer wrong: Push back with technical reasoning Show code/tests that prove it works Request clarification