process-review-requesting-code-review

name	process-review-requesting-code-review
description	Use when completing a task, finishing a major feature, before merging to main, when stuck, or after fixing a complex bug, and you want a code review of the changes

Requesting Code Review

Adapted from the superpowers plugin (MIT).

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.

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:

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

2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:

Dispatch a general-purpose subagent, filling the template at code-reviewer.md

Placeholders:

• [DESCRIPTION] - Brief summary of what you built
• [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)

Before merging: scan the push range for leaked secrets, private infrastructure, or personal data (see bitranox:compuse-git) - a reviewer should flag these too.

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 code reviewer subagent]
  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/plans/deployment-plan.md
  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:

• Review after each task or at natural checkpoints
• 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

These thoughts mean STOP - you are rationalizing:

Excuse	Reality
"It's simple, it doesn't need review"	Simple diffs ship the confident bugs. Size is not risk.
"I already tested it"	Tests check what you thought of; review catches what you didn't.
"The reviewer will just nitpick"	Then the nitpicks are cheap. Critical findings are not.
"I'll request review after one more fix"	The fix is exactly what needs reviewing.
"I wrote it, I know it's right"	Authorship is the reason you cannot see it.

If reviewer wrong:

• Push back with technical reasoning
• Show code/tests that prove it works
• Request clarification

See template at: code-reviewer.md