requesting-code-review

alexsandrocruz's avatarfrom alexsandrocruz

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

⭐2stars🔀1forks📁View on GitHub🕐Updated Oct 23, 2025
[Code Review]

When & Why to Use This Skill

This Claude skill automates the code review process by dispatching a specialized subagent to evaluate implementations against specific requirements or plans. It helps developers maintain high code quality, catch critical bugs early in the development cycle, and ensure that new features align perfectly with the intended architecture and project goals through automated git-based analysis.

Use Cases

  • Subagent-Driven Development: Automatically reviewing individual tasks as they are completed to prevent technical debt and errors from compounding in complex projects.
  • Pre-Merge Quality Gate: Verifying major feature implementations against original requirements before merging into the main branch to ensure production stability.
  • Complex Bug Fix Verification: Using the subagent to provide a fresh perspective on complicated fixes, ensuring the solution is robust and doesn't introduce regressions.
  • Architectural Alignment: Checking that new code follows established design patterns and project-specific documentation (like deployment plans) before proceeding to the next development phase.
namerequesting-code-review
descriptionUse 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 zenpowers: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:

# For Windows (PowerShell)
$BASE_SHA = git rev-parse HEAD~1  # or origin/main
$HEAD_SHA = git rev-parse HEAD

# For Unix/macOS/WSL (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 zenpowers: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 zenpowers: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