requesting-code-review

name	requesting-code-review
description	Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements

Requesting Code Review

Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.

Core principle: Review early, review often.

When to Request Review

Mandatory:

• After each task in subagent-driven development
• 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:

# For task review, use the commit recorded before the task started.
# For whole-branch review, use the branch merge-base.
BASE_SHA=$(git merge-base main HEAD 2>/dev/null || git merge-base master HEAD)
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

Do not use HEAD~1 unless you are certain the work is exactly one commit. For multi-commit work, HEAD~1 silently drops earlier commits from review.

2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:

Dispatch a worker-capable reviewer subagent, filling the template at code-reviewer.md.

In Codex, use the worker-capable multi-agent tool exposed in the active session (see codex-tools.md). Wait for the reviewer result and close the finished subagent after handling it.

If no worker-capable multi-agent tool is available, do not claim independent review was performed. Stop and tell your human partner which review path is blocked. Ask them to enable Codex multi-agent support or provide another review channel before proceeding past Critical or Important work.

Placeholders:

• {DESCRIPTION} - Brief summary of what you built
• {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS} - What it should do
• {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=<commit recorded before Task 2 started>
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

[Dispatch code reviewer subagent; in Codex, use the active worker subagent tool]
  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661

[Subagent 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

Subagent-Driven Development:

• Review after EACH task
• Catch issues before they compound
• Fix before moving to next task

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

See template at: code-reviewer.md