requesting-code-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

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)

```

[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]

```

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

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