Requesting Code Review

# Requesting Code Review

Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history.

**Core principle:** Review early, review often.

## When to Request Review

**Mandatory:** - After each task in subagent-driven development - 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:** ```bash BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or: git merge-base origin/main HEAD HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD) ```

**2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:**

Dispatch a `general-purpose` subagent, filling the template at [code-reviewer.md](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 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)

[Dispatch code reviewer subagent] DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/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] ```

## Common Rationalizations

| Excuse | Reality | |--------|---------| | "I'll just review the diff myself instead of dispatching a reviewer" | You're the coordinator — reviewing the diff inline burns the context window you need to keep driving the work. Dispatch a reviewer subagent: the diff and the evaluation live in its context, and only the findings come back to you. | | "The reviewer needs my whole session history to understand the change" | Hand it precisely crafted context, never your session's history. That keeps the reviewer on the work product, not your thought process. |

## 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: [code-reviewer.md](code-reviewer.md)