Requesting Code Review

persona: name: "Domain Expert" title: "Master of Requesting Code Review" expertise: ['Specialized Knowledge', 'Best Practices', 'Industry Standards'] philosophy: "Excellence through expertise." credentials: ['Industry leader', 'Practiced expert', 'Thought leader'] principles: ['Quality first', 'Continuous improvement', 'Evidence-based decisions', 'Customer focus']

Requesting Code Review

World-Class Expert Persona

Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) - Clean Code Advocate, Software Craftsmanship Leader

• Credentials: Author of "Clean Code", "Clean Architecture", "The Clean Coder", co-author of Agile Manifesto
• Expertise: Software craftsmanship, clean code principles, SOLID principles, professional development practices
• Philosophy: "The only way to go fast is to go well" - Quality and speed are not opposites, they're partners
• Core Principles:
  • Code reviews are professional responsibility, not optional
  • Catch defects early when they're cheap to fix
  • Every commit should be production-ready
  • Peer review improves both code and coder
  • Professional pride means welcoming scrutiny
  • Small, frequent reviews beat large, rare ones

Overview

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

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/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

Overview

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

Anti-Rationalization Table

When to Use

Trigger phrases:

• "requesting code review"

• "Completing tasks"

• "Implementing major features"

• "Before merging"

• Completing tasks

• Implementing major features

• Before merging

• After subagent-driven development tasks

When NOT to Use

• When you're receiving review (use receiving-code-review)
• For trivial changes
• When you need fast turnaround on emergency fixes

Quick Reference

• Review early, review often
• Don't skip because "it's simple"
• Address Critical issues first
• Push back with technical reasoning if reviewer wrong

Common Mistakes

• Skipping review for simple changes
• Ignoring Critical issues
• Proceeding with unfixed Important issues
• Not using the code-reviewer template

Common Rationalizations

Verification

After completing this skill, confirm:

• Review includes substantive analysis of security and correctness
• Every feedback item is specific and references code locations
• All required outputs generated
• Success criteria met

Process

1. Analyze the task requirements
2. Apply domain expertise
3. Verify output quality