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

Run a focused code review pass before changes cascade. Use the review rubric in code-reviewer.md; if a separate reviewer harness is available, give it only the relevant context, not the whole session history. Otherwise perform the review yourself from a clean diff.

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. Run the review pass:

Use the rubric at code-reviewer.md. Prefer a separate reviewer process if available; otherwise review the diff directly in the current session.

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

[Run code review using code-reviewer.md]
  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
    PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/codemini/plans/deployment-plan.md
  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661

[Review 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

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: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md