superpowers-requesting-code-review

<!-- Coacus adaptation of a Superpowers workflow (MIT). Upstream: https://github.com/obra/superpowers @ 5bf4e78011075bcfc0dc295f0724994cd123ee71 Process artifacts are written under docs/temp/. Conventions: ../using-coacus/references/coacus-process-conventions.md --> # Requesting Code Review Dispatch a code reviewer subagent 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 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=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or: git merge-base origin/main HEAD HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD) ``` **2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:** Dispatch a `general-purpose` subagent, filling the template at [code-reviewer.md](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) ## 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/temp/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] ``` ## Two lenses, and one of them mutates Ask for review in **two independent lenses**, in parallel, with the same output contract (`Strengths` / `Issues` by severity with the exact input that proves each / `Recommendations` / a one-line verdict): - a **domain** lens — security, UX, data — asking what the surface does to the person who meets it; - a **QA** lens that replays single-edit mutants of the implementation against the assertions already written and reports which of them **fail to die**. The mutation score is the finding: "6 of 12 killed" names the six weak assertions, which is more actionable than "add more tests". State the contract in the prompt — read-only, no subagents, findings ordered by severity with the input that proves each — or the review returns adjectives. Where both lenses report the same defect independently, that is the strongest signal available; a defect only one lens reports is a judgment call. ## Consult before building, then review after For a part that decides user experience, security or structure, hold a **design consultation before any code**, and a review after each piece. - Brief read-only consultants (interface, experience, frontend, security) in parallel with the same material: the decisions already taken, the constraints, and the questions you want answered. Ask for ranked decisions with a one-line rationale and the open questions for the owner. - **Wait for every report before consolidating.** Reports that agree independently are the strongest signal; where they disagree, choose, and record the reason in the decision record. Decide the open questions yourself when an earlier decision already answers them; ask the owner only for what the record does not settle. - **Read what each reviewer says it did not read.** A report that admits it skipped files is evidence about those files only; check the skipped ones, and verify its factual claims against the code before accepting them. - Reviews found defects that no test would have: a setting that did nothing (the platform already decided it), a promise in a dialog that the code could not keep, an alert that could fire for a provider the user had removed, a combo row that undid a reset. Apply every finding that survives reproduction, and write down what was not applied and why. ## Common Rationalizations | Excuse | Reality | |--------|---------| | "I'll just review the diff myself instead of dispatching a reviewer" | You're the coordinator — reviewing the diff inline burns the context window you need to keep driving the work. Dispatch a reviewer subagent: the diff and the evaluation live in its context, and only the findings come back to you. | | "The reviewer needs my whole session history to understand the change" | Hand it precisely crafted context, never your session's history. That keeps the reviewer on the work product, not your thought process. | ## 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: [code-reviewer.md](code-reviewer.md)