/requesting-code-review

name: requesting-code-review
description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements

Requesting Code Review

Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history.

**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:**

Dispatch a `general-purpose` subagent, filling the template at [code-reviewer.md](code-reviewer.md)

**Placeholders:**

• `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary of what you built
• `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do
• `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit
• `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit

**3. 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 code reviewer subagent]
  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661

[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]

Common Rationalizations

| Excuse | Reality | |--------|---------| | "I'll just review the diff myself instead of dispatching a reviewer" | You're the coordinator — reviewing the diff inline burns the context window you need to keep driving the work. Dispatch a reviewer subagent: the diff and the evaluation live in its context, and only the findings come back to you. | | "The reviewer needs my whole session history to understand the change" | Hand it precisely crafted context, never your session's history. That keeps the reviewer on the work product, not your thought process. |

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

See template at: [code-reviewer.md](code-reviewer.md)