requesting-code-review

name	requesting-code-review
description	Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements. Dispatches the repo-local code-reviewer subagent.

Requesting Code Review

Dispatch the repo-local 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.

Where the reviewer lives

The code-reviewer subagent definition is the single source of truth for the reviewer's checklist, severity rules, and output format. In this template it lives at agents/code-reviewer.md. The scaffold installs it into the downstream repo at:

• .claude/agents/code-reviewer.md for Claude Code sessions
• .codex/agents/code-reviewer.md for Codex sessions (only when Codex is set up)

The .claude/ copy is always installed by the template scaffold; the .codex/ copy is added only when Codex is enabled. If the Claude copy is missing, run update-skills against the repo to install it.

The prompt template at brief.md (alongside this SKILL.md) is only the dynamic brief — placeholders for what was built, the plan, and the SHA range. It deliberately does not repeat the checklist; the agent definition already has it.

When to Request Review

Mandatory:

• After each task in subagent-driven development
• After completing a major feature
• Before merge to main

Optional but valuable:

• When stuck (fresh perspective)
• Before refactoring (baseline check)
• After fixing a 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. Dispatch the code-reviewer subagent:

• Claude session: call the Task tool with subagent_type: code-reviewer and a prompt built from the template at requesting-code-review/brief.md (this file is shipped alongside the SKILL.md).
• Codex session: invoke the equivalent subagent dispatch with the same prompt template.

Placeholders to fill in the prompt:

• {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED} — what you just built
• {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS} — what it should do (cite the plan file or bead description)
• {BASE_SHA} — starting commit
• {HEAD_SHA} — ending commit
• {DESCRIPTION} — brief summary

The subagent will run git diff itself, read the changed files, and return a structured review (Strengths / Critical / Important / Minor / Assessment). It is read-only — it cannot modify code.

The reviewer always grounds itself in the repo's layered CLAUDE.md conventions (defined in the agent definition, noted here so callers know to expect it): for every changed file it reads the nearest CLAUDE.md walking up from the file's directory (e.g. apps/web/CLAUDE.md for web changes, packages/utils/CLAUDE.md for utils changes) plus the root CLAUDE.md, and judges the diff against those rules — including the root comment-discipline convention — not generic best practices.

3. Act on feedback:

• Fix Critical issues immediately
• Fix Important issues before proceeding
• Note Minor issues for later
• Push back if the reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)

Example

[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]

You: Let me request a code review before proceeding.

BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

[Dispatch code-reviewer subagent]
  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/plans/2026-04-30-deployment.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 (with fixes)

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 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

Files in this skill

• SKILL.md — this file
• brief.md — the prompt template (dynamic brief only) you fill in and pass to the subagent

The reviewer's standing instructions live separately at agents/code-reviewer.md in the template root and are deployed by the scaffold to .claude/agents/code-reviewer.md (and .codex/agents/code-reviewer.md when Codex is set up).

Pairing with verification-before-completion

The executor chain in executor-task and executor-task-worktree runs verification-before-completion first (run the verification commands and read the output), then requesting-code-review (dispatch the reviewer subagent). Both are required before beads-close — they are NOT alternatives. verification-before-completion proves the change passes its own checks; requesting-code-review gives an independent reviewer's perspective on quality, regressions, and architectural drift before the bead closes.