菜单
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
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
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
Use when a design, plan, or decision needs adversarial scrutiny before proceeding. Interrogates every branch of the decision tree, providing recommended answers and forcing explicit agreement or pushback. Triggers on "grill me", "stress test this", "poke holes", "challenge this design", or when brainstorming/writing-plans suggests review.
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code
Use when checking if beads-superpowers is outdated, before a plugin release, or when auditing for missing capabilities — covers upstream drift, test execution, documentation, plugin health, and content integrity
Use when implementation on a branch is complete and it is about to be merged or PR'd — or when finishing-a-development-branch reaches its docs-audit gate — and after code changes are committed, to ensure all project documentation accurately reflects shipped code. Covers README, ARCHITECTURE, CONTRIBUTING, CHANGELOG, CLAUDE.md, TODOS, and VERSION files. Triggers on "update docs", "sync documentation", "post-ship docs", "document release", "documentation audit".
| name | requesting-code-review |
| description | Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements |
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:
Use Task tool with general-purpose type, fill 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:
[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 via code-reviewer.md template]
WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from .internal/plans/deployment-plan.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
You: [Fix progress indicators]
[Continue to Task 3]
Used by:
Pairs with:
Capture what you learned. At close, record durable, evidence-backed insights (still true next month, tied to a file, test, or command). Never record guesses, one-offs, or secrets (tokens, keys, PII — every memory is injected into all future sessions). Update in place (bd remember --key <key>) rather than adding a near-duplicate.
bd remember "<kind>: <durable, evidence-backed insight>" # kind: lesson / pattern / design / root-cause / research
Never:
If reviewer wrong:
See template at: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md