requesting-code-review

name	requesting-code-review
description	Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
when_to_use	[feedback] Triggered after implementation is complete to request peer review.

Requesting Code Review

Dispatch agent-harness: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 agent:

Invoke the code-reviewer agent (defined in agents/code-reviewer.md). Give it precisely constructed work-product context:

• requirements / Definition of Done
• BASE_SHA and HEAD_SHA
• task brief, task report, and review package when available

Never pass the coordinator's full session history. Do not inline a review diff into the coordinator context: the reviewer reads the package and returns findings only.

Use this dispatch structure, omitting only unavailable optional work products:

agent-harness:code-reviewer
Requirements / DoD: ...
BASE_SHA: ...
HEAD_SHA: ...
Task brief: ...
Task report: ...
Review package: ...
Do not send: coordinator full session history or reasoning; inline diff
Reviewer: read the review package
Return: findings only, labeled Standards or Spec; severity Critical, Important, or Minor

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

Review on Two Axes

Every review request must ask the reviewer to check both axes:

1. Standards axis — Does the change follow repository rules, security expectations, existing patterns, and maintainability standards?
2. Spec axis — Does the change faithfully implement the originating spec, plan task, and Definition of Done?

Do not let one axis hide the other. A clean implementation that misses the spec is still a failed review. A spec-complete implementation with Critical quality or security issues is still a failed review.

3. Act on feedback:

• Fix Critical issues immediately on either axis
• Fix Important issues before proceeding on either axis
• Note Minor issues for later
• Push back if reviewer is wrong, with reasoning tied to the relevant axis
• Reviewer 返回且 Critical/Important 处理完毕后，emit 阶段 gate（不阻断）：

  scripts/log-phase-metric.sh --phase requesting-code-review --action gate --gate-result passed --spec-topic "$SPEC_TOPIC"
  

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 agent-harness:code-reviewer subagent]
  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/agent-harness/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