requesting-code-review

name	requesting-code-review
description	Use at stage 7 after all tasks complete and before merging, to verify the entire feature meets requirements. Dispatches the code-reviewer subagent with branch-level constructed context (SHAs, plan excerpt, product spec reference, review log). Per-task quality review is a separate Stage 5 path via code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md; do not invoke this skill per-task.

Announce on entry

I'm using the requesting-code-review skill to dispatch the code-reviewer subagent with constructed context. I will not merge or mark the feature complete until Critical and Important findings are resolved.

Hard gate

Do NOT merge, mark complete, or advance to finishing-a-development-branch
until all preconditions are satisfied: (1) the implementation is committed on
the feature branch with BASE_SHA and HEAD_SHA captured, (2) the plan and spec
excerpts the reviewer needs are available as file paths or pasted context,
(3) the `agents/code-reviewer.md` definition exists in this version of the
plugin, AND (4) any per-task review logs from stage 5 are present for the
reviewer to consult. If any check fails, STOP. Route (1) back to the calling
Execute skill; route (3) to whoever ships the agent definitions. This applies
to EVERY project regardless of perceived simplicity or obviousness.

Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.

Core principle

Review early, review often. A reviewer looking at a small change returns specific findings. A reviewer looking at a 2000-line feature returns generic findings. The plugin's stage-5 per-task quality review is the "early and often" pattern; this stage-7 skill is the branch-level pass that catches cross-task interactions, not the first review of the code.

When to use

digraph when_to_use {
    "Tasks complete on feature branch" [shape=doublecircle];
    "Stage 5 reviews all passed?" [shape=diamond];
    "Route back; fix stage 5 findings first" [shape=box];
    "Dispatch branch-level code-reviewer" [shape=box];

    "Tasks complete on feature branch" -> "Stage 5 reviews all passed?";
    "Stage 5 reviews all passed?" -> "Route back; fix stage 5 findings first" [label="no"];
    "Stage 5 reviews all passed?" -> "Dispatch branch-level code-reviewer" [label="yes"];
}

This skill is strictly branch-level. Per-task quality review runs via skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md which dispatches the same underlying agents/code-reviewer.md with {MODE}=per-task; do NOT invoke requesting-code-review from the per-task loop. The skill body below is branch-level and will STOP on per-task precondition failures.

Precondition check (STOP if not satisfied)

0. Resolve <feature-name> from the plan filename.

1. Tasks complete. Every task in the plan at docs/leyline/plans/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<feature-name>.md is checked off and the review log at docs/leyline/plans/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<feature-name>-review-log.md has entries for each task. If tasks remain, STOP and route back to the calling Execute skill.

2. Capture SHAs.

   base_sha=$(grep -E '^- Base ref and commit SHA:' "docs/leyline/plans/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<feature-name>-baseline.md" | sed 's/.*: *//')
   head_sha=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
   [ -n "$base_sha" ] && [ -n "$head_sha" ] || { echo "malformed inputs"; exit 1; }
   

3. Agent definition present. test -f agents/code-reviewer.md. If missing, STOP; do not fabricate a review by dispatching the subagent without its definition.

Dispatch procedure

1. Construct the inputs per the agent's expected-inputs list:
   • {MODE} - literal branch-level.
   • {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED} - a one-paragraph description pulled from the plan's Goal + Architecture fields.
   • {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS} - plan path, product spec path, UX spec path (if applicable), AND review log path.
   • {BASE_SHA} / {HEAD_SHA} / {DESCRIPTION}.
2. Dispatch agents/code-reviewer.md with those inputs. Do not paraphrase or summarize the plan; the agent reads it.
3. Branch-level large-diff handling. If the agent returns a "split needed" report (per-task mode only) it is dispatch-mismatched; re-dispatch with {MODE}=branch-level. At branch level the agent partitions its own review by file group inside a single dispatch; the caller does not split.
4. Receive the structured report. The agent returns pre-numbered F1..Fn findings across the six review blocks plus an iron-law sweep. Record the full report verbatim; do not soften, do not filter, do not renumber.
5. Hand off to receiving-code-review with the full report.

Parallel dispatch

When any task in the plan touched a user-facing surface, the caller MUST dispatch requesting-code-review AND requesting-design-review concurrently, not sequentially. Sequential dispatch leaks the first skill's report (and the receive loop's context) into the second reviewer's framing. Concrete orchestration:

1. The upstream Execute skill (subagent-driven-development or executing-plans) invokes dispatching-parallel-agents with two problem packets:
   • Packet A: requesting-code-review constructed context.
   • Packet B: requesting-design-review constructed context.
2. dispatching-parallel-agents confirms the four independence preconditions hold (different files touched, no shared state, no coordination required, each packet standalone). They always hold for code vs design review on the same branch: code-reviewer reviews all changed files; design-reviewer reviews the subset touching surfaces; the two do not write anything, so there is no file-write contention.
3. Both skills run their dispatch steps in parallel batches (Claude Code: multiple tool-call content blocks in one message).
4. Both reports return independently; each is handed to its own receiving-* skill.

When no task touched a surface, only requesting-code-review runs. dispatching-parallel-agents is not invoked.

Checklist

1. Run the precondition check.
2. Construct the inputs.
3. Dispatch the subagent.
4. Record the full report verbatim.
5. If surfaces were touched, confirm requesting-design-review was dispatched in parallel (or dispatch it now).
6. Invoke receiving-code-review with the report.

Anti-patterns

• "Skip The Branch-Level Review; Per-Task Reviews Covered It" - per-task reviews see one task at a time. Cross-task interactions (shared state, unintended coupling, inconsistent voice, repeated bug patterns) are invisible at per-task scope.
• "Summarize The Plan For The Reviewer" - the reviewer reads the plan file. Summaries introduce the author's framing.
• "Dispatch Without The SHAs" - the reviewer cannot see the diff. Every finding becomes generic.
• "Filter The Report Before Handing Off" - the receiving skill owns triage. Pass the full report.
• "Dispatch Both Reviewers Sequentially To Save Tokens" - parallel dispatch is the design. Sequential review leaks the first report's findings into the second reviewer's context.
• "The Human Partner Said The Review Is Optional" - ask them to record the override verbatim in the review log; the iron laws the reviewer checks still hold.

Red flags

Thought	Reality
"Small feature, skip branch review"	Branch review sees what per-task review cannot.
"Fabricate the inputs since the agent file is missing"	A review against a missing agent is fiction. STOP.
"Share context between the two reviewers for efficiency"	Parallel design requires isolation. Do not share.
"Summarize the plan for the reviewer"	The reviewer reads the plan. Do not mediate.

Forbidden phrases

Do not say:

• "Skipping the branch review; per-task covered it"
• "Soft-filtering the report before handing it off"
• "Dispatching sequentially to save time"
• "Small change; one reviewer is enough"

Output artifacts

• The dispatched agent's structured report, pasted into the review log under a ## Branch-level code review section.
• A handoff to receiving-code-review with the full report as input.

Successor

Invoking receiving-code-review with the full report. Findings will be triaged there; Critical and Important must resolve before stage 8.

Missing-successor fallback

If receiving-code-review is missing in this version of the plugin, STOP. Do not implement findings directly from the report without the receive-skill's discipline; performative-agreement failures happen exactly when the receive-skill is skipped.

Do not exit without naming and invoking the named successor.

Related

• ../../dev/stages/07-review.md - canonical stage definition
• ../../agents/code-reviewer.md - the dispatched subagent
• ../receiving-code-review/SKILL.md - the response-discipline successor
• ../requesting-design-review/SKILL.md - the parallel branch when surfaces were touched
• ../subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md - calls this skill per-task via code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md