requesting-code-review

name	requesting-code-review
description	Use when preparing a focused code-review request for a PR or diff after implementation evidence exists, especially to package scope, reviewer focus, PR URL, verification, known risks, and deferred work without deciding final submit readiness.
metadata	{"short-description":"Prepare focused review requests"}

Purpose

Use this skill to ask for review with enough context for a reviewer to make a decision quickly.

The skill packages review context. It does not decide submit readiness, replace quality-gate, or hide known gaps.

Boundaries

• quality-gate owns submit/no-submit readiness.
• requesting-code-review owns the review request package.
• receiving-code-review owns review feedback handling after comments arrive.
• branch-completion owns post-review branch and PR lifecycle actions.

Workflow

1. Confirm the review target.

   • PR URL or diff range.
   • Base and head branches or commits.
   • Whether the PR is draft or ready for review.

2. Gather evidence.

   • Change summary and intentional scope.
   • Files or subsystems changed.
   • Verification commands and results.
   • Required branch-skill artifacts, such as ExecPlan or workflow contract review reports.
   • Known risks, deferred work, and explicit non-goals.

3. State reviewer focus.

   • Ask for review of the changed surface, not a full repository audit.
   • Name the highest-risk responsibilities, boundaries, generated artifacts, or validation contracts.
   • Identify which topics are out of scope for this PR.

4. Send a review request that includes:

   • Raw PR URL or exact diff identifier.
   • Summary.
   • Verification.
   • Reviewer focus.
   • Deferred or intentionally excluded work.
   • Instruction for where review comments should be left when the user or workflow requires a specific channel.
   • When the PR body or review request itself is written in Japanese, apply $japanese-tech-writing.

Request Package

Review target: <raw PR URL or diff>

Scope:
- <what changed>
- <what did not change>

Verification:
- `<command>`: <result>

Reviewer focus:
- <boundary, behavior, generated artifact, or risk to inspect>

Known risks / deferred:
- <risk or none>

Please leave review comments on: <GitHub PR / specified channel>

Output expectation

• Fill the Request Package with the raw PR URL or exact diff identifier, base/head, and draft/ready state.
• Include scope (what changed and what did not), verification commands with results, and reviewer focus.
• Name known risks or deferred/excluded work explicitly, or state there are none.
• State where review comments should be left when a specific channel is required.
• Do not state a submit/no-submit decision; that belongs to quality-gate.