Requesting Code Review

Requesting Code Review

Dispatch superpowers: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:

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)

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 superpowers:code-reviewer subagent]
  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
  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

Pascal / mORMot2 Addendum

When this section applies: the session is operating on a Pascal project (the PASCAL_PROJECT=1 env was exported by the mormot2-superpowers session-start hook). If PASCAL_PROJECT is unset, ignore this section.

Dispatch the Pascal-aware code-reviewer agent (in agents/code-reviewer.md) - its checklist already covers the items below. When constructing the review request, give the agent:

• The diff range (e.g. git diff plan-02-domain-skills-complete..HEAD).
• The plan task or design section the change implements.
• The BUILD_RESULT lines from /delphi-build and/or /fpc-build.
• The /mormot2-test exit status.

Pascal review checklist (what the agent will check)

• String types: RawUtf8 for storage/transport, string only at UI/RTL boundary, RawByteString for binary, UnicodeString for VCL - see mormot2-core.
• Interface lifetime: every IInvokable / IFoo declared interface has a [GUID] literal, and reference-counted lifetime is respected (no as TObject on an interface unless the source backs it).
• try-finally completeness: every Create/Init/Open has a matching Free/Done/Close in a try/finally (or the resource is interface-typed and self-managed).
• Free vs FreeAndNil: FreeAndNil for fields that may be re-checked; Free is acceptable for locals about to leave scope.
• Threading on TSqlDBConnection: each thread owns its connection; no shared connection across threads. See mormot2-db/references/thread-safety.md.
• ORM reflexes: no string fields on TOrm descendants, no TOrm.ID self-set, every published matters.
• Build symbols deployed: .map (Delphi) or DWARF (FPC) accompanies the binary.
• No em dashes in commit messages or docs (per global rule).