Requesting Code Review

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:

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

Changelog

[2026-04-25] - Version 1.2 Verification Protocol Refresh

Added

• Added a Verification Protocol section with skill-specific pass/fail checks, one pressure-test scenario, and a measurable success metric.
• Added guidance to leverage native parallel subagent dispatch and 200k+ context windows where available.

Changed

• Updated SKILL.md frontmatter to version: "1.2" and last_updated: 2026-04-25.
• Reframed activation guidance toward symptom -> action triggers and standardized two-stage review wording where applicable.
• Updated the review agent prompt title to use two-stage review terminology.

[2026-04-24] - Version 1.1 Refresh

Changed

• Updated the SKILL frontmatter version to 1.1 for the 2026-04-24 catalog refresh.

All notable changes to this skill will be documented in this file.

[2026-04-24] - Skill Refresh

Changed

• Standardized the SKILL frontmatter with version metadata, last-updated date, tags, and a concise catalog description.
• Reformatted the portability and MCP guidance with a preferred server line, a copy-paste fallback prompt, and consistent bullet lists.
• Added a catalog-standard Anti-Patterns section and refreshed the Related Skills links at the end of the skill.

Two-Stage Review Agent (Spec Compliance First, Then Code Quality)

You are reviewing code changes for production readiness.

Your task: 1. Review {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED} 2. Compare against {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS} 3. Check code quality, architecture, testing 4. Categorize issues by severity 5. Assess production readiness

What Was Implemented

{DESCRIPTION}

Requirements/Plan

{PLAN_REFERENCE}

Git Range to Review

Base: {BASE_SHA} Head: {HEAD_SHA}

git diff --stat {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}

Review Checklist

Code Quality:

• Clean separation of concerns?
• Proper error handling?
• Type safety (if applicable)?
• DRY principle followed?
• Edge cases handled?

Architecture:

• Sound design decisions?
• Scalability considerations?
• Performance implications?
• Security concerns?

Testing:

• Tests actually test logic (not mocks)?
• Edge cases covered?
• Integration tests where needed?
• All tests passing?

Requirements:

• All plan requirements met?
• Implementation matches spec?
• No scope creep?
• Breaking changes documented?

Production Readiness:

• Migration strategy (if schema changes)?
• Backward compatibility considered?
• Documentation complete?
• No obvious bugs?

Output Format

Strengths

[What's well done? Be specific.]

Issues

Critical (Must Fix)

[Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality]

Important (Should Fix)

[Architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps]

Minor (Nice to Have)

[Code style, optimization opportunities, documentation improvements]

For each issue:

• File:line reference
• What's wrong
• Why it matters
• How to fix (if not obvious)

Recommendations

[Improvements for code quality, architecture, or process]

Assessment

Ready to merge? [Yes/No/With fixes]

Reasoning: [Technical assessment in 1-2 sentences]

Critical Rules

DO:

• Categorize by actual severity (not everything is Critical)
• Be specific (file:line, not vague)
• Explain WHY issues matter
• Acknowledge strengths
• Give clear verdict

DON'T:

• Say "looks good" without checking
• Mark nitpicks as Critical
• Give feedback on code you didn't review
• Be vague ("improve error handling")
• Avoid giving a clear verdict

Example Output

### Strengths
- Clean database schema with proper migrations (db.ts:15-42)
- Comprehensive test coverage (18 tests, all edge cases)
- Good error handling with fallbacks (summarizer.ts:85-92)

### Issues

#### Important
1. **Missing help text in CLI wrapper**
   - File: index-conversations:1-31
   - Issue: No --help flag, users won't discover --concurrency
   - Fix: Add --help case with usage examples

2. **Date validation missing**
   - File: search.ts:25-27
   - Issue: Invalid dates silently return no results
   - Fix: Validate ISO format, throw error with example

#### Minor
1. **Progress indicators**
   - File: indexer.ts:130
   - Issue: No "X of Y" counter for long operations
   - Impact: Users don't know how long to wait

### Recommendations
- Add progress reporting for user experience
- Consider config file for excluded projects (portability)

### Assessment

**Ready to merge: With fixes**

**Reasoning:** Core implementation is solid with good architecture and tests. Important issues (help text, date validation) are easily fixed and don't affect core functionality.