requesting-code-review

name	requesting-code-review
description	Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements - runs review in a forked code-reviewer agent
context	fork
agent	code-reviewer

Requesting Code Review

Run code review in a forked code-reviewer agent to catch issues before they cascade.

Core principle: Review early, review often.

When to Request Review

Mandatory:

• After each task in agent-team-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 (optional):

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

2. Invoke the skill:

/requesting-code-review

This runs in a forked code-reviewer agent context (forked context introduced in Claude Code 2.1.0+; this kit targets 2.1.33+).

Fallback (older versions): If forked skills aren’t available, spawn the agent manually with the Task tool and use requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md as the prompt.

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)

/requesting-code-review

[Agent 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

Agent-Team-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

See template at: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md