Requesting Code Review

HOTL Requesting Code Review

Lifecycle

Executors invoke requesting-code-review at defined checkpoints. This skill dispatches the code-reviewer agent with structured context. Returned findings are handled by receiving-code-review.

Precondition

Only request review when the checkpoint work is in a reviewable state and its planned verification has completed. Do not request review for code that has failing required verification unless the purpose of the review is to diagnose the failure.

When to Request Review

Mandatory Triggers

• executing-plans: After each 3-step batch boundary
• subagent-execution: After meaningful delegated implementation batches (3+ completed implementation steps, or cross-module change, or high-risk/user-facing/shared-infra change)
• All executors: Before final completion (claiming done, merging, or creating a PR)

Conditional Triggers

• loop-execution: At intermediate gates only when the change is high-risk, cross-module, or feature-scale. Always at final completion.
• Ad-hoc development: Before merge to main. Optionally when stuck or before a large refactor.

When NOT to Request

• After trivial single-step changes (typo, config value, import fix)
• Mid-loop iterations that haven't reached a gate
• When the same code was already reviewed and hasn't changed since
• Do not request a second full review when a scoped follow-up review is enough

Review Base (Deterministic)

The review base defines the git range for the reviewer. Executors record this before starting each reviewable batch.

• Batch review: git rev-parse HEAD recorded by the executor before starting the batch
• Final review: Branch point or last recorded review base, whichever is more recent. A final review is required unless the most recent review already covers all current changes and no code changed afterward.
• Follow-up review: HEAD immediately before the fix. Re-review only the changed scope unless the fix affects shared architecture, risk level, or multiple modules.

Dispatch Template

When dispatching the hotl:code-reviewer agent, provide this context:

Review the following implementation work.

**Review type:** checkpoint | final | follow-up | direct
**Workflow:** {workflow_file} (or "No workflow — reviewing against stated intent")
**Steps reviewed:** {step_range} (or "N/A")
**Git range:** {review_base}..{HEAD_SHA}

**Intent contract:**
- intent: {intent}
- constraints: {constraints}
- success_criteria: {success_criteria}
- risk_level: {risk_level}
(or "No formal contract — review against stated intent and general correctness/risk")

**Implementation summary:**
{summary}

**Changed files:**
{git_diff_stat}

**Verification evidence:**
- Commands run: {verification_commands}
- Outcomes: {pass_fail_status}
- Known gaps: {limitations}

Review against the workflow plan and HOTL contracts (if provided),
or against the stated intent and general correctness/risk.
Produce findings with file:line references.

Acting on Results

1. Invoke receiving-code-review
2. Follow Verify → Evaluate → Respond → Implement
3. If any accepted BLOCK finding requires re-review after fix, dispatch a scoped follow-up review
4. Do not proceed past the checkpoint until all BLOCK findings are resolved

Review Types

• checkpoint — executor mid-run at a batch boundary (uses PROCEED/HOLD verdict)
• final — executor completing a governed workflow run (uses READY/NOT READY verdict)
• follow-up — scoped re-review after fixing BLOCK findings
• direct — user-invoked review via hotl:code-review (uses READY/NOT READY verdict). Findings are returned to the user without automatically invoking receiving-code-review.

Source: hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins → plugins/yimwoo/hotl-plugin/skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md