requesting-code-review

# Requesting Code Review Dispatch code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. **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=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or origin/main HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD) ``` **2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:** Use Task tool with code-reviewer type, fill template at `code-reviewer.md` **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 **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] WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/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: skills/collaboration/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md