pb-requesting-code-review

name	pb-requesting-code-review
description	Two-axis review of the diff since a fixed point — Standards (does the code follow this repo's coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/PRD asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel subagents. Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging.

pb-requesting-code-review

Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:

• Standards — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
• Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / PRD / spec?

Both axes run as parallel subagents so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.

Core principle: Review early, review often. A change can pass one axis and fail the other — reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.

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

Process

1. Pin the fixed point

Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc. If they didn't specify one, default to main or origin/main.

Capture the diff command once: git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline.

Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (git rev-parse <fixed-point>) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel subagents.

2. Identify the spec source

Look for the originating spec, in this order:

1. A spec under specs/ matching the branch name or feature.
2. A path the user passed as an argument.
3. Issue references in the commit messages.
4. If nothing is found, the Spec subagent will skip and report "no spec available".

3. Identify the standards sources

Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, or CODING_STANDARDS.md.

On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the smell baseline below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:

• The repo overrides. A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
• Always a judgement call. Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation — and skip anything tooling already enforces.

Each smell reads what it is → how to fix; match it against the diff:

• Mysterious Name — a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it.
• Duplicated Code — the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.
• Feature Envy — a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies.
• Data Clumps — the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type.
• Primitive Obsession — a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.
• Repeated Switches — the same switch/if-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.
• Shotgun Surgery — one logical change forces scattered edits across many files. → gather what changes together into one module.
• Divergent Change — one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason.
• Speculative Generality — abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it.
• Message Chains — long a.b().c().d() navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method.
• Middle Man — a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct.
• Refused Bequest — a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.

4. Spawn both subagents in parallel

Send a single message with two subagent tool calls. Use the general subagent for both.

Standards subagent prompt — include:

• The full diff command and commit list.
• The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, plus the smell baseline from step 3 pasted in full — the subagent has no other access to it.
• The brief: "Report — per file/hunk where relevant — (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls — documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."

Spec subagent prompt — include:

• The diff command and commit list.
• The path or fetched contents of the spec.
• The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words."

If the spec is missing, skip the Spec subagent and note this in the final report.

5. Aggregate

Present the two reports under ## Standards and ## Spec headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do not merge or rerank findings — the two axes are deliberately separate.

End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue within each axis (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes — that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.

Quick Reference (Simple Version)

For quick reviews where you don't need the full two-axis process:

1. Pin the fixed point:

git diff main...HEAD --stat          # see what changed
git log main..HEAD --oneline         # see commits

2. Run a single review pass (collapses both axes):

• Diff against the spec or requirement
• Check for repo standard violations and code smells
• Report findings

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)

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

Integration with pb-spec

• pb-build Evaluator: The Evaluator persona is the primary review mechanism. This skill supplements it for post-build review.
• pb-improve: Review generated plans before execution
• Standalone: Use for any code review need