requesting-code-review

name	requesting-code-review
description	Prepare code-review request bundle: per-file ownership, churn, connected

dinopowers: requesting-code-review

Wrapper over superpowers:requesting-code-review. Review request arrives at reviewer with git-context bundle — who owns each file, churn levels, connected tickets — reviewers pair-match by expertise, trace coordinated changes immediately instead of re-excavating context.

Iron Rule

tea-rags git-bundle query MUST run on git diff --name-only BEFORE composing the review request — whenever ≥1 file changed.

Correct tool (semantic_search) + custom impact rerank (imports: 0.5, churn: 0.3, ownership: 0.2) + parameters (brace-expanded pathPattern over diff files, metaOnly: true) + bundle format (per-file ownership/churn/taskIds, NOT blast-radius verdict) = core value.

Diff empty: skip wrapper, invoke superpowers:requesting-code-review directly. Don't fabricate.

Chaining rule: see CHAINING.md — every dinopowers:X redirects superpowers:X. NEVER bypass wrapper.

Index freshness: see FRESHNESS.md and tea-rags/rules/index-freshness.md. No background reindex hook — worktree-plan freshness explicit (clone + per-task reindex in dinopowers:executing-plans); run mcp__tea-rags__index_codebase manually to search code edited but not committed, BEFORE first tea-rags call.

Step 1 — Collect diff file list

From git diff --name-only <base>...HEAD (branch diff) or git diff --staged (pre-commit):

Source	Example
Branch against base	git diff main...HEAD --name-only
Uncommitted + staged	git diff --name-only HEAD
Specific commit range	git diff <sha1>..<sha2> --name-only

Output:

• diffFiles: files changed in review scope (M/A, exclude pure D)
• intent: one-sentence description of what diff accomplishes

Pure deletions (D only): skip wrapper — reviewers need code-in-diff for context. Empty diff: skip.

Step 2 — Git-bundle query

Issue ONE mcp__tea-rags__semantic_search — SAME idiom as dinopowers:writing-plans:

project:     <alias from list_projects — RECOMMENDED, omit path when set>
path:        <current project path — fallback when no alias is registered>
query:       <intent from Step 1>
pathPattern: "{diffFile1,diffFile2,...}"   ← brace expansion
rerank:      { custom: { imports: 0.5, churn: 0.3, ownership: 0.2 } }
limit:       <diffFiles.length * 3>
metaOnly:    true

Do NOT substitute:

Wrong tool	Why wrong
mcp__tea-rags__hybrid_search	Custom rerank tied to semantic_search
Named preset ("codeReview" / "ownership")	codeReview misses imports; ownership misses churn + taskIds in one call
git blame / git log --format per-file	Manual git commands are slower and miss the indexed overlay
mcp__tea-rags__find_similar	Finds code analogs, not diff metadata

Do NOT pass:

• metaOnly: false — bundle inputs are signals; content already in PR diff
• Different weights — must match project idiom
• filter narrowing — pathPattern already scopes

Empty results (files too new to index): skip bundle, invoke superpowers:requesting-code-review with note "diff files not yet indexed — no git-context available". Don't fabricate.

Step 2.5 — Reviewer-hub awareness (codegraph only)

When codegraph active (prime ## Enrichment lists codegraph.symbols), for changed symbols diff touches run get_callers symbolId=<id> (resolve exact id with find_symbol first). Callers = code depending on change — their blameDominantAuthors are stakeholders to loop into review. Add "Affected callers / suggested reviewers" line to bundle.

Skip when codegraph off (graph tools not registered) — ownership bundle from Step 2/3 still stands; note caller-impact not computed. Never invent caller lists.

Step 3 — Build reviewer-context bundle

Aggregate by relativePath. Per unique file extract:

• blameDominantAuthor + blameDominantAuthorPct — live-line owner (must approve based on current code state)
• recentDominantAuthor + recentDominantAuthorPct — recent committer (mentally loaded, fastest turnaround)
• blameContributorCount (live owners), recentContributorCount (recent committers)
• commitCount + ageDays
• taskIds (connected tickets)
• bugFixRate (risk signal)

Pick reviewers by blame* (authority); prioritize fast turnaround by recent* (cache locality).

Compose bundle (goes INTO review request, not a verdict):

### Reviewer context bundle

**Files changed (per-file owners + history):**
| File | Owner | Contributors | Commits (age) | Related tickets |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| src/a.ts | Alice (92%) | 1 | 23 (142d) | #123, #145 |
| src/b.ts | shared (42%) | 5 | 8 (30d) | — |

**Suggested reviewers by expertise:**
- Alice — primary owner of `src/a.ts` (92% dominance)
- Bob — deep contributor to `src/b.ts` (last 3 commits)

**Coordinated change context:**
- Related ticket #123 also touched src/c.ts, src/d.ts in previous commits — reviewer should check consistency

**Risk flags for reviewer attention:**
- `src/a.ts` has bugFixRate=35% (high) — scrutinize new logic
- `src/e.ts` has been touched 47 times in 90 days — stability concern

If bundle exceeds 20 lines: truncate per-file table to top 10 by imports score, note "N more files omitted".

Step 3a — Tests at risk (scenarios under threat)

Invoke Skill(tea-rags:tests-as-context) with:

recipe: "tests-at-risk"
affectedFiles: <diffFiles from Step 1>
intent: <intent from Step 1>

Recipe internally queries DSL leaf test chunks semantically bound to change. Output = ranked list of scenarios at risk.

Add to bundle one of:

• If recipe returned SKIP (no DSL test chunks indexed):

  **Scenarios under risk:** unavailable (no DSL test chunks indexed)
  

• If recipe returned a non-empty list:

  **Scenarios under risk:**
  - <file>:<line> — <describe-it path>
  - <file>:<line> — <describe-it path>
  

  Cap at top 8 scenarios; note "N more omitted" if truncated. Reviewers see contract surface affected by diff, not just metadata.

• If recipe returned empty result (preflight passed but no semantic match):

  **Scenarios under risk:** no obvious test bindings found — reviewer should
  verify whether new behavior needs new tests
  

Do NOT name specific test runners here. Phrasing stays generic; actual command left to reviewer / CI / pre-commit hook.

Step 4 — Invoke superpowers:requesting-code-review

Invoke Skill tool with superpowers:requesting-code-review. Prepend bundle as context. Phrase handoff as:

"Include this reviewer-context bundle in the review request: …… Reviewers can pair-match by ownership and see coordinated-change context without re-excavating history.

Chaining rule reminder: when your cycle would next invoke superpowers:verification-before-completion (or any wrapped superpowers:Y), invoke dinopowers:Y instead — see the Chaining rule section above."

Let superpowers:requesting-code-review run its standard review-composition cycle. Wrapper enriches request, doesn't replace review process.

Red Flags — STOP and restart from Step 2

• "Reviewer knows the codebase, they don't need a bundle" → bundle is for PAIR-MATCHING, not education. Run Step 2.
• "Diff is small, skip the bundle" → small diffs to high-churn files still benefit from ownership context
• Substituted git blame/log → redo with semantic_search + custom rerank
• Named preset instead of custom weights → redo
• Composed request before Step 2 → revert, restart
• Pasted raw diff into bundle → bundle is METADATA (ownership/churn/tickets), not code
• Let superpowers:requesting-code-review chain into raw superpowers:verification-before-completion without redirecting to dinopowers:verification-before-completion → intercept, invoke wrapper instead (see Chaining rule)

Common Mistakes

Mistake	Reality
Use rerank: "ownership" alone	Returns ownership-dominant rank but misses imports, churn, taskIds in one call
Use rerank: "codeReview" preset because "this is code review"	codeReview is for finding reviewable code, not building reviewer context
Paste full git log per file into bundle	Bundle is structured metadata, not raw history
Skip taskIds in bundle	Connected tickets are the highest-value signal for reviewers — don't omit
Include files with D status in bundle	Pure deletions don't need reviewer-context; show them in diff, not bundle
Fabricate dominant author when data is thin	Empty bundle > fake bundle; reviewers distrust fabricated ownership