# Requesting Code Review

> Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements

Source: https://skillsagentes.com/skills/obra/superpowers/requesting-code-review
Repository: https://github.com/obra/superpowers
Author: obra
License: MIT
Updated: anteayer
Context cost: 27 tok installed, 739 tok once triggered, 2.2k tok with every bundled file
Bundle: 2 files, 8 KB
Permissions requested: none declared

## Install

```bash
npx -y skills add obra/superpowers --skill requesting-code-review --agent claude-code
```

## What it does

- Dispatcha un subagente code reviewer con contexto crafteado (no el historial de la sesión) para revisar cambios entre dos SHAs de git
- Da un flujo para actuar sobre el feedback: arreglar Critical de inmediato, Important antes de seguir, anotar Minor para después
- Provee una plantilla (code-reviewer.md) con placeholders DESCRIPTION, PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS, BASE_SHA, HEAD_SHA

## Use it when

- Después de cada tarea en desarrollo dirigido por subagentes
- Al completar una feature mayor
- Antes de mergear a main
- Cuando estás atascado, antes de refactorizar, o después de arreglar un bug complejo

## What triggers it

- "Terminé la Tarea 2, pide una revisión de código antes de seguir"
- "Antes de mergear a main, dispatch un code reviewer subagent"
- "Revisa este cambio complejo con un reviewer fresco antes de refactorizar"

## Before you install

- Requiere un repositorio git con SHAs accesibles (BASE_SHA y HEAD_SHA) y la plantilla code-reviewer.md.
- Needs on PATH: awk, git

## Files

- SKILL.md — 3 KB
- code-reviewer.md — 6 KB

## SKILL.md

Reproduced verbatim from obra/superpowers under MIT. This section is the upstream document and is in English.

# 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=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
```

**2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:**

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

---

Skills Agentes — https://skillsagentes.com/skills/obra/superpowers/requesting-code-review