home / skills / mosif16 / codex-skills / requesting-code-review
This skill helps you conduct rigorous code reviews by dispatching the code-reviewer subagent after tasks to ensure alignment with plans and quality.
npx playbooks add skill mosif16/codex-skills --skill requesting-code-reviewReview the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.
---
name: requesting-code-review
description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements - dispatches superpowers:code-reviewer subagent to review implementation against plan or requirements before proceeding
---
# Requesting Code Review
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:**
```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)
## 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
This skill dispatches a code-reviewer subagent to validate recent changes against the plan or requirements before you proceed. It’s designed to catch issues early, guide remediation, and ensure readiness to merge. Use it as a routine gate after tasks, major features, or before merges to main.
You provide commit SHAs (BASE_SHA and HEAD_SHA), a concise description of what was implemented, and the plan or requirements the change should meet. The skill launches the superpowers:code-reviewer subagent, which inspects the diff, tests, and architecture against the supplied plan and returns strengths, categorized issues (Critical/Important/Minor), and an overall assessment. Use the feedback to prioritize fixes: address Critical immediately, resolve Important before proceeding, and track Minor for later.
What commit SHAs do I provide?
Provide BASE_SHA for the starting commit (or origin/main) and HEAD_SHA for the current tip so the subagent reviews the exact changes.
How should I handle reviewer disagreements?
Push back with technical reasoning, reproducible tests, or additional context. If reviewer is mistaken, show evidence; if not, accept and fix.