requesting-code-review

What this skill does

# Requesting two-stage review (spec compliance first, then code quality)

Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade.

**Core principle:** Review early, review often.

- Leverage native parallel subagent dispatch and 200k+ context windows where available.


## When to Request Review

Use symptom -> action triggers: when one matches, apply this skill and verify with the protocol below.

**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=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(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

**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)

## Anti-Patterns

- Delegating or evaluating without a scoped success condition: The output becomes hard to review and easy to overbuild.
- Skipping the evidence step: A workflow that cannot be re-checked quickly is not ready for handoff.
- Bundling unrelated subtasks together: It creates noisy prompts, weaker ownership, and avoidable integration risk.

## Verification Protocol

Before claiming "skill applied successfully":

1. Pass/fail: The requesting two-stage review trigger is matched to a concrete user symptom or artifact.
2. Pass/fail: The core requesting two-stage review workflow is applied without skipping required inputs, outputs, or guardrails.
3. Pass/fail: Evidence is captured from the relevant file, command, rendered artifact, or external source before claiming success.
4. Pressure-test scenario: Apply the skill to an ambiguous request with one missing input and one tempting shortcut.
5. Success metric: Zero rationalizations; unknowns stay explicit until verified.


## Example

```
[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]

You: Let me request two-stage review (spec compliance first, then code quality) 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/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

See template at: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

<!-- PORTABILITY:START -->
## Cross-Client Portability

This skill is written to stay usable across GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, Codex, and Gemini CLI.

- GitHub Copilot: keep the folder in a Copilot-visible skill or plugin path, or wrap the workflow as project instructions if the host does not support portable skill folders directly.
- Claude Code: keep the folder in a local skills directory or a compatible plugin or marketplace source.
- Codex: install or sync the folder into `$CODEX_HOME/skills/<skill-name>` and restart Codex after major changes.
- Gemini CLI: this repository generates a project command named `/skills:requesting-code-review` from this skill. Rebuild commands with `python scripts/export-gemini-skill.py requesting-code-review` and then run `/commands reload` inside Gemini CLI.

<!-- PORTABILITY:END -->

<!-- MCP:START -->
## MCP Availability And Fallback

Preferred MCP Server: None required

- Fallback prompt: "Use the Requesting two-stage review (spec compliance first, then code quality) skill without MCP. Rely on the local `SKILL.md`, bundled references or scripts, and manual verification. Show the exact commands, evidence, and final checks you used before concluding."
- If the current host does not expose a matching server, use the bundled references, scripts, native toolchain, and manual workflow already described in this skill.
- Treat direct local verification, rendered output, logs, tests, or screenshots as the fallback evidence path before completion.

<!-- MCP:END -->

## Related Skills

- [agent-task-mapping](../agent-task-mapping/SKILL.md): Use it when the workflow also needs task-to-agent routing decisions.
- [custom-agent-usage](../custom-agent-usage/SKILL.md): Use it when the workflow also needs loading and invoking custom agent definitions safely.
- [subagent-delegation](../subagent-delegation/SKILL.md): Use it when the workflow also needs safe, scoped delegation to helper agents.
- [subagent-driven-development](../subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md): Use it when the workflow also needs plan-driven implementation with reviewer loops.