requesting-code-review

name	requesting-code-review
description	Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
metadata	{"user-invocable":true,"disable-model-invocation":true}

Requesting Code Review

Get a code review to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation.

Core principle: Review early, review often.

When to Request Review

Mandatory:

• 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:

BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

2. Create review request:

Provide the reviewer with:

• Description: Brief summary of what you built
• Requirements: What it should do (link to plan/spec if available)
• Base SHA: Starting commit
• Head SHA: Ending commit

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)

[Request review]
  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
  REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/plans/deployment-plan.md
  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661

[Reviewer 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

When executing plans:

• Review after each task or at natural checkpoints
• 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