sh-review

name	sh-review
description	Request self-review of completed work and handle external code review feedback with technical rigor

Code Review

This skill covers both sides of code review: requesting review of your own work and responding to review feedback from others.

---

Part 1: Requesting Review

Dispatch a review to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation -- never your session's history.

Core principle: Review early, review often.

When to Request Review

Mandatory:

• After completing a major feature
• Before merge to main
• After each task in parallel agent workflows

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. Prepare review context:

• What was implemented
• What it should do (plan or requirements reference)
• Base and head commits
• Brief summary of changes

3. Dispatch review subagent (if available) or perform self-review by:

• Re-reading the diff with fresh eyes
• Checking each requirement against the implementation
• Running the full test suite
• Verifying edge cases

4. Act on feedback:

• Fix Critical issues immediately
• Fix Important issues before proceeding
• Note Minor issues for later
• Push back if feedback is wrong (with reasoning)

Integration with Workflows

Parallel agents (/sh:parallel):

• Review after EACH task
• Catch issues before they compound
• Fix before moving to next task

Executing plans (/sh:execute):

• Review after each batch (3 tasks)
• Get feedback, apply, continue

Ad-Hoc Development:

• Review before merge
• Review when stuck

---

Part 2: Receiving Review Feedback

Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.

Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.

The Response Pattern

WHEN receiving code review feedback:

1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each

Forbidden Responses

NEVER:

• "You're absolutely right!"
• "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!"
• "Let me implement that now" (before verification)

INSTEAD:

• Restate the technical requirement
• Ask clarifying questions
• Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
• Just start working (actions > words)

Handling Unclear Feedback

IF any item is unclear:
  STOP - do not implement anything yet
  ASK for clarification on unclear items

WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.

Source-Specific Handling

From your human partner:

• Trusted -- implement after understanding
• Still ask if scope unclear
• No performative agreement
• Skip to action or technical acknowledgment

From external reviewers:

BEFORE implementing:
  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
  4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?

IF suggestion seems wrong:
  Push back with technical reasoning

IF conflicts with human partner's prior decisions:
  Stop and discuss with human partner first

YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features

IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
  grep codebase for actual usage

  IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
  IF used: Then implement properly

Implementation Order

FOR multi-item feedback:
  1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
  2. Then implement in this order:
     - Blocking issues (breaks, security)
     - Simple fixes (typos, imports)
     - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
  3. Test each fix individually
  4. Verify no regressions

When To Push Back

Push back when:

• Suggestion breaks existing functionality
• Reviewer lacks full context
• Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
• Technically incorrect for this stack
• Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
• Conflicts with human partner's architectural decisions

How to push back:

• Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
• Ask specific questions
• Reference working tests/code

Acknowledging Correct Feedback

When feedback IS correct:

Good: "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
Good: "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
Good: [Just fix it and show in the code]

Bad: "You're absolutely right!"
Bad: "Great point!"
Bad: ANY gratitude expression

Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.

Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback

If you pushed back and were wrong:

Good: "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
Bad:  Long apology or defending why you pushed back

State the correction factually and move on.

---

Common Mistakes

Mistake	Fix
Performative agreement	State requirement or just act
Blind implementation	Verify against codebase first
Batch without testing	One at a time, test each
Assuming reviewer is right	Check if breaks things
Avoiding pushback	Technical correctness > comfort
Partial implementation	Clarify all items first
Skipping review because "it's simple"	Simple code breaks too

The Bottom Line

Requesting: Review early, review often. Precisely crafted context for the reviewer.

Receiving: External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow. Verify. Question. Then implement.

No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.