| name | code-review |
| description | Review code quality, receive feedback with technical rigor, verify completion claims. Use before PRs, after implementing features, when claiming task completion, for subagent reviews. |
Code Review
Guide proper code review practices emphasizing technical rigor, evidence-based claims, and verification over performative responses.
Overview
Code review requires three distinct practices:
- Receiving feedback - Technical evaluation over performative agreement
- Requesting reviews - Systematic review via code-reviewer subagent
- Verification gates - Evidence before any completion claims
Each practice has specific triggers and protocols detailed in reference files.
Core Principle
Always honoring YAGNI, KISS, and DRY principles.
Be honest, be brutal, straight to the point, and be concise.
Technical correctness over social comfort. Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Evidence before claims.
When to Use This Skill
Receiving Feedback
Trigger when:
- Receiving code review comments from any source
- Feedback seems unclear or technically questionable
- Multiple review items need prioritization
- External reviewer lacks full context
- Suggestion conflicts with existing decisions
Reference: references/code-review-reception.md
Requesting Review
Trigger when:
- Completing tasks in subagent-driven development (after EACH task)
- Finishing major features or refactors
- Before merging to main branch
- Stuck and need fresh perspective
- After fixing complex bugs
Reference: references/requesting-code-review.md
Verification Gates
Trigger when:
- About to claim tests pass, build succeeds, or work is complete
- Before committing, pushing, or creating PRs
- Moving to next task
- Any statement suggesting success/completion
- Expressing satisfaction with work
Reference: references/verification-before-completion.md
Quick Decision Tree
SITUATION?
│
├─ Received feedback
│ ├─ Unclear items? → STOP, ask for clarification first
│ ├─ From human partner? → Understand, then implement
│ └─ From external reviewer? → Verify technically before implementing
│
├─ Completed work
│ ├─ Major feature/task? → Request code-reviewer subagent review
│ └─ Before merge? → Request code-reviewer subagent review
│
└─ About to claim status
├─ Have fresh verification? → State claim WITH evidence
└─ No fresh verification? → RUN verification command first
Receiving Feedback Protocol
Response Pattern
READ → UNDERSTAND → VERIFY → EVALUATE → RESPOND → IMPLEMENT
Key Rules
- ❌ No performative agreement: "You're absolutely right!", "Great point!", "Thanks for [anything]"
- ❌ No implementation before verification
- ✅ Restate requirement, ask questions, push back with technical reasoning, or just start working
- ✅ If unclear: STOP and ask for clarification on ALL unclear items first
- ✅ YAGNI check: grep for usage before implementing suggested "proper" features
Source Handling
- Human partner: Trusted - implement after understanding, no performative agreement
- External reviewers: Verify technically correct, check for breakage, push back if wrong
Full protocol: references/code-review-reception.md
Requesting Review Protocol
When to Request
- After each task in subagent-driven development
- After major feature completion
- Before merge to main
Process
- Get git SHAs:
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) and HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
- Dispatch code-reviewer subagent via Task tool with: WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED, PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS, BASE_SHA, HEAD_SHA, DESCRIPTION
- Act on feedback: Fix Critical immediately, Important before proceeding, note Minor for later
Full protocol: references/requesting-code-review.md
Verification Gates Protocol
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
Gate Function
IDENTIFY command → RUN full command → READ output → VERIFY confirms claim → THEN claim
Skip any step = lying, not verifying
Requirements
- Tests pass: Test output shows 0 failures
- Build succeeds: Build command exit 0
- Bug fixed: Test original symptom passes
- Requirements met: Line-by-line checklist verified
Red Flags - STOP
Using "should"/"probably"/"seems to", expressing satisfaction before verification, committing without verification, trusting agent reports, ANY wording implying success without running verification
Full protocol: references/verification-before-completion.md
Integration with Workflows
- Subagent-Driven: Review after EACH task, verify before moving to next
- Pull Requests: Verify tests pass, request code-reviewer review before merge
- General: Apply verification gates before any status claims, push back on invalid feedback
Bottom Line
- Technical rigor over social performance - No performative agreement
- Systematic review processes - Use code-reviewer subagent
- Evidence before claims - Verification gates always
Verify. Question. Then implement. Evidence. Then claim.
