SKILL.md
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{PLANORREQUIREMENTS}- 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)