code-reviewer

name	code-reviewer
description	Review completed implementation batches for spec compliance and code quality. Invoke after execution batches complete, before merging, or when a review gate is reached in the workflow.

Code Reviewer

Two responsibilities: requesting review (dispatching a reviewer subagent) and receiving review (acting on feedback with technical rigor). Review early, review often. Verify before implementing feedback.

Part 1: Requesting Review

Mandatory after: each task in SDD, each planned execution wave, each major feature, before merge. Optional: when stuck, before refactoring, after fixing complex bugs.

Procedure

1. Get SHAs: BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) and HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
2. Dispatch general-purpose subagent using template at skills/code-reviewer/code-reviewer-prompt.md
3. Fill placeholders: [DESCRIPTION] (what was built), [PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS] (contract/spec reference), [BASE_SHA], [HEAD_SHA], [WAVE_ID], and a distinct [REVIEW_REPORT_FILE].
4. Require the reviewer to write a non-empty persisted review report at .superpowers/sdd/reviews/<wave-id>.md, then record that exact in-overlay path in the wave receipt with ssf execution review <change-dir> --wave <wave-id> --base <base-sha> --head <head-sha> --report .superpowers/sdd/reviews/<wave-id>.md --verdict <pass|fail>. The execution plan initializes this directory; paths outside it are rejected for audit safety.
5. Act on feedback: Critical/Important findings require a fail receipt, focused repair, re-review, and replacement pass receipt before a dependent wave or closing can proceed. Note Minor for later, push back with reasoning if reviewer is wrong.

Minimality And Scope

For unrequested complexity, cite the missing task requirement and diff line. Use Important for merge-blocking complexity and Minor for safe, behavior-neutral redundancy; never score by line count.

Part 2: Receiving Review Feedback

The Response Pattern

1. READ feedback without reacting
2. UNDERSTAND and restate requirement
3. VERIFY against codebase reality
4. EVALUATE: technically sound for THIS codebase?
5. RESPOND: technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
6. IMPLEMENT: one item at a time, test each

Severity Levels

Level	Meaning	Action
Critical	Bugs, security, data loss, broken functionality	Fix immediately
Important	Architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps	Fix before next batch
Minor	Code style, optimization, documentation polish	Note for later

Forbidden Responses

Never: performative agreement ("You're right!", "Great point!"), blind implementation before verification, thanking the reviewer. Instead: restate the requirement, ask clarifying questions, push back with reasoning, or just fix it (actions > words).

Handling Unclear Feedback

If any item is unclear → STOP. Do not implement anything yet. Ask for clarification on unclear items. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.

Source-Specific Rules

From user: Trusted — implement after understanding. Still ask if scope unclear. No performative agreement.

From external reviewer: Before implementing, check: technically correct for this codebase? breaks existing functionality? reason for current implementation? works on all platforms? reviewer understands full context? If suggestion seems wrong, push back with technical reasoning.

When to Push Back

Suggestion breaks existing functionality, reviewer lacks context, violates YAGNI, technically incorrect for this stack, legacy/compatibility reasons, conflicts with user's architectural decisions. Push back with technical reasoning, not defensiveness.

Implementation Order

1. Clarify unclear items first
2. Fix blocking issues (breaks, security)
3. Fix simple issues (typos, imports)
4. Fix complex issues (refactoring, logic)
5. Test each fix individually, verify no regressions

Common Mistakes

Mistake	Fix
Performative agreement	State requirement or just act
Blind implementation	Verify against codebase first
Batch without testing	One at a time, test each
Proceeding without a wave receipt	Record pass/fail via ssf execution review before the next dependent wave
Assuming reviewer is right	Check if breaks things
Avoiding pushback	Technical correctness > comfort
Partial implementation	Clarify all items first

Exception Handling

• Parse failures: Report specific file, request regenerated review package
• Missing files: Regenerate via scripts/review-package. Empty diff = nothing to review
• User interruption: Re-read review report on resume, continue from next unreviewed batch

Standard User-Facing Handoff

End every user-facing phase report with this concise handoff. Only a successfully persisted closing state and abandoned are terminal.

Normal report

• Current stage: <detected workflow stage>.
• Completed / blocker: <completed work>.
• Next stage: <next workflow stage or skill>.
• Entry condition: <what must be true to enter it>.

Blocked report

• Current stage: <detected workflow stage>.
• Completed / blocker: <blocking fact or missing evidence>.
• Next stage: <stage that resumes after the blocker>.
• Entry condition: <the approval, artifact, validation, or fix required>.

Approval-wait report

• Current stage: <detected workflow stage>.
• Completed / blocker: <work ready for the named decision>.
• Next stage: <stage that follows approval>.
• Entry condition: <explicit user approval or recorded decision>.

Successful terminal report

• Current stage: successfully persisted closing or abandoned.
• Completed / blocker: <persisted terminal outcome>.
• Next stage: none.
• Entry condition: no further transition exists.