domains / software-engineering / request-code-review / requesting-code-review

requesting-code-review

Skill card

combined

The copies share the same core workflow (get SHAs, dispatch a code-reviewer subagent, act on feedback), but they disagree on the subagent type and template placeholders, and each adds material constraints the others lack. obra/superpowers is the most complete and self-contained (it names a general-purpose subagent, includes a 'Common Rationalizations' section, and uses a 4-placeholder template). foryourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-Skills adds a 'Routing Boundary' that separates this skill from code-reviewer and receiving-code-review, plus an 'Integration with Workflows' section. sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills and LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills are near-identical mirrors that use a 5-placeholder template and a superpowers:code-reviewer subagent type, and sickn33 adds generic 'When to Use' and 'Limitations' sections. Crowning one copy would hide the routing boundary, the workflow integration guidance, and the placeholder/subagent-type disagreement.

Repositories

Other copies

Combined skill

---
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.

## Routing Boundary

Use this skill when the user needs to prepare or request a code review. This skill owns the request package: implementation summary, requirements reference, base/head git range, reviewer prompt, and response handling checklist. Use `code-reviewer` for the actual review findings. Use `receiving-code-review` when review feedback already exists and must be evaluated or applied.

## 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:**
```bash
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or: git merge-base origin/main HEAD
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
```

**2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:**

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

**Placeholders:**
- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary of what you built
- `{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}` - What you just 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=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | cut -d' ' -f1)
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

[Dispatch code reviewer subagent]
  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
  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

[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

## 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

## When to Use
This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.

## Limitations
- Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
- Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
- Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.

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