requesting-code-review

name	requesting-code-review
description	Request and process code reviews with proper context. Use after completing significant implementation work.

Requesting Code Reviews

Review early, review often - catch issues before they compound.

When Reviews Are Required

Scenario	Timing
Each task in subagent-driven work	After each task
Major feature completion	Before integration
Before merging to main	Pre-merge
When stuck on a problem	As needed
Before refactoring	Pre-refactor
After complex bug fix	Post-fix

How to Request Review

1. Gather Context

# Get commit range for review
git log --oneline -5
git diff main..HEAD --stat

2. Dispatch Reviewer

Task(code-reviewer, prompt="
Review the changes in commits [base]..[head]

**What was implemented:**
[Description of changes]

**Requirements reference:**
[Link or description of requirements]

**Areas of concern:**
[Any specific areas you want extra attention]

**Files changed:**
[List key files]
")

3. Process Feedback

Severity	Action Required
Critical	Fix immediately - blocks all other work
High	Resolve before proceeding to next task
Medium	Address in current session if time permits
Low/Minor	Document for future improvement

Review Request Template

## Code Review Request

**Commits:** [base-sha]..[head-sha]
**Branch:** [branch-name]

### Summary

[1-2 sentences on what changed]

### Changes by File

| File         | Change Type    | Description    |
| ------------ | -------------- | -------------- |
| path/to/file | Added/Modified | [What changed] |

### Requirements

[Link to issue/spec or brief description]

### Testing Done

- [ ] Unit tests pass
- [ ] Integration tests pass
- [ ] Manual testing completed

### Areas Needing Attention

- [Specific concern 1]
- [Specific concern 2]

### Questions for Reviewer

- [Any specific questions]

Handling Feedback

Agree with Feedback

1. Acknowledge the issue
2. Fix immediately (Critical/High) or document (Medium/Low)
3. Respond with what was changed

Disagree with Feedback

1. Never dismiss without explanation
2. Provide technical justification with evidence
3. Reference code patterns or documentation
4. Explain trade-offs considered
5. Be open to being wrong

Example Response

## Review Response

### Critical Issues

- **[File:Line]**: Fixed - [what was changed]

### High Priority

- **[File:Line]**: Fixed - [what was changed]

### Disagreement: [Issue]

I believe [current approach] is correct because:

1. [Technical reason]
2. [Evidence from codebase]
   However, open to discussion if I'm missing something.

### Deferred

- **[Minor issue]**: Added to tech debt tracker for future

Integration Points

• After executing-plans batches
• After systematic-debugging fixes
• Before finishing branches (merge/PR)