| name | requesting-code-review |
| description | Use when you need to request a code review for a PR/MR and want a consistent review brief (context, scope, risk areas, test instructions, acceptance criteria) before merge. |
Requesting Code Review
Dispatch code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade.
Core principle: Review early, review often.
How to Request
1. Get git SHAs:
BASE_SHA=$(git merge-base origin/main HEAD)
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:
Use Task tool with template at templates/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]
BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
[Dispatch code-reviewer subagent with references/code-reviewer.md]
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
[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
