seaworld008/requesting-code-review

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. 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:

Dispatch a general-purpose subagent, filling the template at 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]

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 task or at natural checkpoints
• 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

See template at: code-reviewer.md

<!-- LOCAL-CURATION-SUPPLEMENT:START -->

Review Request Checklist

A strong review request includes:

• The user-facing requirement or plan being validated.
• The exact diff range, branch, or commit pair under review.
• The areas where risk is highest: data loss, auth, concurrency, migrations, billing, security, or UX regressions.
• The tests already run and any tests intentionally skipped.
• The expected behavior in edge cases, not just the happy path.
• Any files or generated artifacts reviewers should ignore.

Good vs Weak Requests

Weak:

Please review my changes.

Better:

Review the checkout retry changes from BASE..HEAD. Focus on idempotency,
double-charge prevention, webhook replay behavior, and missing tests.
I ran the unit suite and one manual Stripe test; migration rollback is not covered.

Follow-up Rules

• Fix critical and important findings before moving to the next task.
• If a finding is rejected, document the technical reason and supporting evidence.
• Re-run the relevant tests after changes, not only the full suite.
• Keep review conversations tied to code and requirements, not preferences.

<!-- LOCAL-CURATION-SUPPLEMENT:END -->