requesting-code-review

name	requesting-code-review
description	Use this skill at Step 8 of the v2 SOP after Verify passes, to request and receive a code review from a Reviewer-Agent (or human reviewer). Packages the diff with context (task documents, specs, COMPLIANCE_TAG, design rationale), invokes the review, and iterates with systematic-debugging until all feedback is closed. Chinese trigger examples: "请求 review", "Step 8", "代码审查", "请人 review", "review 这个 change". Do NOT use as substitute for Step 10 compliance review, do NOT skip when reviewer feedback contains High items. Success = all reviewer feedback closed, review thread archived.
compatibility	Requires file read of diff + change context. Reviewer can be Reviewer-Agent (heterogeneous model) or human.
metadata	{"version":"1.0","owner":"qa-line","category":"spec-helper","maturity":"production","sop_step":8,"hard_gate":false,"outputs":"openspec/changes/<slug>/REVIEW_THREAD.md (review packet + responses + close)"}

Requesting Code Review

The "second pair of eyes" gate. Functional, not compliance — that's Step 10.

Review packet contents

When asking for a review, always include:

• The diff (limited to the task's ≤ 2 files)
• The task document
• The relevant spec id(s)
• Reference to design.md and (if applicable) ARCH_INPUT_INDEX
• The PHI handling note (if L3/L4)

What the reviewer checks

Layer	Examples
Correctness	matches spec; covers acceptance criteria
Code health	readable, lean (no dead code, no extra comments)
Security	input validation, error handling at boundaries, injection surface
Maintainability	tests align, naming sensible
Reuse	did the author miss an existing utility (reference/legacy-utilities-index.md)?

Workflow

1. Compose review packet.
2. Dispatch to Reviewer-Agent (with heterogeneous model — DON'T use coder's model) or to a human.
3. Capture feedback in REVIEW_THREAD.md.
4. For each feedback item: classify Critical / Major / Minor.
5. Address Critical + Major via systematic-debugging.
6. Minor: address or accept-and-record.
7. Close when all Critical and Major are closed.

Common failure modes

1. Self-review on same model — coder and reviewer share model = correlated blind spots. Mitigation: enforce heterogeneity.
2. Drive-by approvals — reviewer skims and approves. Mitigation: require explicit checklist signoff.
3. Long-running review threads — drags. Mitigation: 24h SLA; auto-escalate.