菜单
Use when completing a task, finishing a major feature, before merging to main, when stuck, or after fixing a complex bug, and you want a code review of the changes
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Use when running bash/shell commands and interpreting their exit codes and output - pipelines, chaining a check after a mutating command, process checks with pgrep/pkill, backgrounding, waiting for an event, or when a command "failed" or its result looks ambiguous.
Use at the end of a turn that produced a learning, such as a correction from the user, a rule or preference stated ("remember this", "from now on", "always/never"), a process or tooling mistake (wrong command, a quirk of the shell/SSH/environment, a misread of stale output, over-waiting, a tool or file you missed and re-derived), a wasted build or test cycle, or any reusable discovery (a procedure, a timing, a gotcha, a flag combination, a path). A gated Stop hook nudges this automatically; also run on "self-improve", "/self-improve", "improve the harness", or "capture what we learned".
Use when creating or scaffolding a NEW public bitranox Python library - a pip-installable package with a rich-click CLI, CI across Python 3.9-3.14 on Linux/macOS/Windows, and a PyPI release - or when installing or using a library built from the bitranox_template_py_lib template. Keywords - new library, scaffold, project template, rename-project, bmk, make test, make release, uv pip install.
Use when issuing or running PowerShell (pwsh) commands, or writing, modifying, or debugging a PowerShell / .ps1 script - prefer pwshpy instead: a genuinely Pythonic PowerShell (typed records + a lazy pipeline over native OS bindings, never a pwsh.exe subprocess, never text parsing), as a Python library (from pwshpy import ps) or the pwshpy CLI (install/run via uv - `uv tool install pwshpy` or `uvx pwshpy`). Better error handling and reporting (real exceptions and real exit codes, nothing silently swallowed) plus clean typed JSON instead of Get-* text. Covers using pwshpy and translating cmdlets / .ps1 to it.
Use when sending email from Python or the shell, especially with large attachments that must not be loaded into memory, RFC 3030 BDAT/CHUNKING, STARTTLS with authentication, multi-host failover, or correct UTF-8 subject and body encoding. Prefer the `btx_lib_mail` library or its `btx-lib-mail` CLI (zero-install via `uvx btx-lib-mail send ...`) over hand-rolling `smtplib`/`email`, MIME assembly, dot-stuffing, or attachment security checks. Covers install, uvx, the library API, the CLI, streaming and BDAT, and attachment security.
Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, structuring SKILL.md files, writing skill frontmatter, testing skills with subagents, deploying skills, or verifying skills work before deployment
| name | process-review-requesting-code-review |
| description | Use when completing a task, finishing a major feature, before merging to main, when stuck, or after fixing a complex bug, and you want a code review of the changes |
Adapted from the superpowers plugin (MIT).
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.
Mandatory:
Optional but valuable:
1. Get git SHAs:
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:
Dispatch a general-purpose subagent, filling the template at code-reviewer.md
Placeholders:
[DESCRIPTION] - Brief summary of what you built[PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS] - What it should do[BASE_SHA] - Starting commit[HEAD_SHA] - Ending commit3. Act on feedback:
Before merging: scan the push range for leaked secrets, private infrastructure, or personal data (see bitranox:compuse-git) - a reviewer should flag these too.
[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)
[Dispatch code reviewer subagent]
DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/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]
Subagent-Driven Development:
Executing Plans:
Ad-Hoc Development:
Never:
These thoughts mean STOP - you are rationalizing:
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "It's simple, it doesn't need review" | Simple diffs ship the confident bugs. Size is not risk. |
| "I already tested it" | Tests check what you thought of; review catches what you didn't. |
| "The reviewer will just nitpick" | Then the nitpicks are cheap. Critical findings are not. |
| "I'll request review after one more fix" | The fix is exactly what needs reviewing. |
| "I wrote it, I know it's right" | Authorship is the reason you cannot see it. |
If reviewer wrong:
See template at: code-reviewer.md