2025-10-16 07:19:00 -07:00
---
2025-10-17 09:40:36 -07:00
name: requesting-code-review
2025-12-11 20:41:15 -08:00
description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
2025-10-16 07:19:00 -07:00
---
# Requesting Code Review
Lift superpowers:code-reviewer agent into the requesting-code-review skill
The plugin had a single named agent (`agents/code-reviewer.md`) used by
two skills, while every other reviewer/implementer subagent in the repo
is dispatched as `general-purpose` with the prompt template living
alongside its skill. That asymmetry had no upside and several costs:
- Two sources of truth for the code review checklist (the agent file
and `requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md`), both drifting
independently.
- `Codex` users could not use the named agent directly; the codex-tools
reference doc had a workaround section explaining how to flatten the
named agent into a `worker` dispatch.
- No third-party reliance on `superpowers:code-reviewer` inside this
repo.
Changes:
- Merge `agents/code-reviewer.md` (persona + checklist) and
`skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md` (placeholder
template) into a single self-contained Task-dispatch template,
matching the shape of `implementer-prompt.md`,
`spec-reviewer-prompt.md`, etc.
- Update `skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md` and
`skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md`
to dispatch `Task (general-purpose)` instead of the named agent.
- Drop the now-obsolete "Named agent dispatch" workaround sections from
`codex-tools.md` and `copilot-tools.md` — superpowers no longer ships
any named agents, so those instructions documented nothing.
- Delete `agents/code-reviewer.md` and the empty `agents/` directory.
Tier 3 coverage for the change: a new behavioral test
`tests/claude-code/test-requesting-code-review.sh` plants real bugs
(SQL injection, plaintext password handling, credential logging) into
a tiny project, runs the actual `requesting-code-review` skill against
the working tree, and asserts the dispatched reviewer flags every
planted issue at Critical/Important severity and refuses to approve
the diff.
Verified end-to-end on this branch:
- The new test passes (5/5 assertions; reviewer caught all planted
bugs and several others).
- The existing SDD integration test still passes (7/7 subagents
dispatched, all as `general-purpose`; spec compliance still
rejects extra features; produced code is correct).
- Session JSONLs confirm zero remaining `superpowers:code-reviewer`
dispatches anywhere in the SDD pipeline.
2026-04-28 11:59:36 -07:00
Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.
2025-10-16 07:19:00 -07:00
**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)
```
Lift superpowers:code-reviewer agent into the requesting-code-review skill
The plugin had a single named agent (`agents/code-reviewer.md`) used by
two skills, while every other reviewer/implementer subagent in the repo
is dispatched as `general-purpose` with the prompt template living
alongside its skill. That asymmetry had no upside and several costs:
- Two sources of truth for the code review checklist (the agent file
and `requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md`), both drifting
independently.
- `Codex` users could not use the named agent directly; the codex-tools
reference doc had a workaround section explaining how to flatten the
named agent into a `worker` dispatch.
- No third-party reliance on `superpowers:code-reviewer` inside this
repo.
Changes:
- Merge `agents/code-reviewer.md` (persona + checklist) and
`skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md` (placeholder
template) into a single self-contained Task-dispatch template,
matching the shape of `implementer-prompt.md`,
`spec-reviewer-prompt.md`, etc.
- Update `skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md` and
`skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md`
to dispatch `Task (general-purpose)` instead of the named agent.
- Drop the now-obsolete "Named agent dispatch" workaround sections from
`codex-tools.md` and `copilot-tools.md` — superpowers no longer ships
any named agents, so those instructions documented nothing.
- Delete `agents/code-reviewer.md` and the empty `agents/` directory.
Tier 3 coverage for the change: a new behavioral test
`tests/claude-code/test-requesting-code-review.sh` plants real bugs
(SQL injection, plaintext password handling, credential logging) into
a tiny project, runs the actual `requesting-code-review` skill against
the working tree, and asserts the dispatched reviewer flags every
planted issue at Critical/Important severity and refuses to approve
the diff.
Verified end-to-end on this branch:
- The new test passes (5/5 assertions; reviewer caught all planted
bugs and several others).
- The existing SDD integration test still passes (7/7 subagents
dispatched, all as `general-purpose`; spec compliance still
rejects extra features; produced code is correct).
- Session JSONLs confirm zero remaining `superpowers:code-reviewer`
dispatches anywhere in the SDD pipeline.
2026-04-28 11:59:36 -07:00
**2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:**
2025-10-16 07:19:00 -07:00
Lift superpowers:code-reviewer agent into the requesting-code-review skill
The plugin had a single named agent (`agents/code-reviewer.md`) used by
two skills, while every other reviewer/implementer subagent in the repo
is dispatched as `general-purpose` with the prompt template living
alongside its skill. That asymmetry had no upside and several costs:
- Two sources of truth for the code review checklist (the agent file
and `requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md`), both drifting
independently.
- `Codex` users could not use the named agent directly; the codex-tools
reference doc had a workaround section explaining how to flatten the
named agent into a `worker` dispatch.
- No third-party reliance on `superpowers:code-reviewer` inside this
repo.
Changes:
- Merge `agents/code-reviewer.md` (persona + checklist) and
`skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md` (placeholder
template) into a single self-contained Task-dispatch template,
matching the shape of `implementer-prompt.md`,
`spec-reviewer-prompt.md`, etc.
- Update `skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md` and
`skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md`
to dispatch `Task (general-purpose)` instead of the named agent.
- Drop the now-obsolete "Named agent dispatch" workaround sections from
`codex-tools.md` and `copilot-tools.md` — superpowers no longer ships
any named agents, so those instructions documented nothing.
- Delete `agents/code-reviewer.md` and the empty `agents/` directory.
Tier 3 coverage for the change: a new behavioral test
`tests/claude-code/test-requesting-code-review.sh` plants real bugs
(SQL injection, plaintext password handling, credential logging) into
a tiny project, runs the actual `requesting-code-review` skill against
the working tree, and asserts the dispatched reviewer flags every
planted issue at Critical/Important severity and refuses to approve
the diff.
Verified end-to-end on this branch:
- The new test passes (5/5 assertions; reviewer caught all planted
bugs and several others).
- The existing SDD integration test still passes (7/7 subagents
dispatched, all as `general-purpose`; spec compliance still
rejects extra features; produced code is correct).
- Session JSONLs confirm zero remaining `superpowers:code-reviewer`
dispatches anywhere in the SDD pipeline.
2026-04-28 11:59:36 -07:00
Use Task tool with `general-purpose` type, fill template at `code-reviewer.md`
2025-10-16 07:19:00 -07:00
**Placeholders:**
Lift superpowers:code-reviewer agent into the requesting-code-review skill
The plugin had a single named agent (`agents/code-reviewer.md`) used by
two skills, while every other reviewer/implementer subagent in the repo
is dispatched as `general-purpose` with the prompt template living
alongside its skill. That asymmetry had no upside and several costs:
- Two sources of truth for the code review checklist (the agent file
and `requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md`), both drifting
independently.
- `Codex` users could not use the named agent directly; the codex-tools
reference doc had a workaround section explaining how to flatten the
named agent into a `worker` dispatch.
- No third-party reliance on `superpowers:code-reviewer` inside this
repo.
Changes:
- Merge `agents/code-reviewer.md` (persona + checklist) and
`skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md` (placeholder
template) into a single self-contained Task-dispatch template,
matching the shape of `implementer-prompt.md`,
`spec-reviewer-prompt.md`, etc.
- Update `skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md` and
`skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md`
to dispatch `Task (general-purpose)` instead of the named agent.
- Drop the now-obsolete "Named agent dispatch" workaround sections from
`codex-tools.md` and `copilot-tools.md` — superpowers no longer ships
any named agents, so those instructions documented nothing.
- Delete `agents/code-reviewer.md` and the empty `agents/` directory.
Tier 3 coverage for the change: a new behavioral test
`tests/claude-code/test-requesting-code-review.sh` plants real bugs
(SQL injection, plaintext password handling, credential logging) into
a tiny project, runs the actual `requesting-code-review` skill against
the working tree, and asserts the dispatched reviewer flags every
planted issue at Critical/Important severity and refuses to approve
the diff.
Verified end-to-end on this branch:
- The new test passes (5/5 assertions; reviewer caught all planted
bugs and several others).
- The existing SDD integration test still passes (7/7 subagents
dispatched, all as `general-purpose`; spec compliance still
rejects extra features; produced code is correct).
- Session JSONLs confirm zero remaining `superpowers:code-reviewer`
dispatches anywhere in the SDD pipeline.
2026-04-28 11:59:36 -07:00
- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary of what you built
2025-10-16 07:19:00 -07:00
- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do
- `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit
- `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit
**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)
Lift superpowers:code-reviewer agent into the requesting-code-review skill
The plugin had a single named agent (`agents/code-reviewer.md`) used by
two skills, while every other reviewer/implementer subagent in the repo
is dispatched as `general-purpose` with the prompt template living
alongside its skill. That asymmetry had no upside and several costs:
- Two sources of truth for the code review checklist (the agent file
and `requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md`), both drifting
independently.
- `Codex` users could not use the named agent directly; the codex-tools
reference doc had a workaround section explaining how to flatten the
named agent into a `worker` dispatch.
- No third-party reliance on `superpowers:code-reviewer` inside this
repo.
Changes:
- Merge `agents/code-reviewer.md` (persona + checklist) and
`skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md` (placeholder
template) into a single self-contained Task-dispatch template,
matching the shape of `implementer-prompt.md`,
`spec-reviewer-prompt.md`, etc.
- Update `skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md` and
`skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md`
to dispatch `Task (general-purpose)` instead of the named agent.
- Drop the now-obsolete "Named agent dispatch" workaround sections from
`codex-tools.md` and `copilot-tools.md` — superpowers no longer ships
any named agents, so those instructions documented nothing.
- Delete `agents/code-reviewer.md` and the empty `agents/` directory.
Tier 3 coverage for the change: a new behavioral test
`tests/claude-code/test-requesting-code-review.sh` plants real bugs
(SQL injection, plaintext password handling, credential logging) into
a tiny project, runs the actual `requesting-code-review` skill against
the working tree, and asserts the dispatched reviewer flags every
planted issue at Critical/Important severity and refuses to approve
the diff.
Verified end-to-end on this branch:
- The new test passes (5/5 assertions; reviewer caught all planted
bugs and several others).
- The existing SDD integration test still passes (7/7 subagents
dispatched, all as `general-purpose`; spec compliance still
rejects extra features; produced code is correct).
- Session JSONLs confirm zero remaining `superpowers:code-reviewer`
dispatches anywhere in the SDD pipeline.
2026-04-28 11:59:36 -07:00
[Dispatch code reviewer subagent]
DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
2026-01-22 21:55:26 +00:00
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
2025-10-16 07:19:00 -07:00
BASE_SHA: a7981ec
HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
[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:**
2026-03-31 14:01:33 -07:00
- Review after each task or at natural checkpoints
2025-10-16 07:19:00 -07:00
- 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
2025-10-17 10:18:50 -07:00
See template at: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md