requesting-code-review

Engineering Community

Repo stars 0
Author updated Aug 13, 2026, 12:53 AM
Author repo superpowers

Interpretation is structured for decision-making; original keeps the upstream SKILL.md unchanged.

Decide Fit First

Core job: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements Dispatch a code revi…
Best fit: Use it when the task has reusable inputs, steps, and validation criteria rather than a one-off answer.
Avoid forcing it: If the source lacks commands, platform support, or external-service evidence, keep those fields unknown instead of guessing.

Design Intent

Structure: The skill is organized around “When to Request Review”, “How to Request”, “Example”, “Common Rationalizations”, showing how the author expects the agent to judge fit, collect context, and produce verifiable output.
Trigger evidence: Prioritize the author’s wording around when to use it, what context to collect, and what output shape to produce.
Evidence boundary: Author text states facts, repository files prove commands and paths, and Fluxly only adds fit, limits, and usage judgment.

How To Use It

Inputs: Provide target material, scope, expected result, forbidden changes, and validation method.
Invocation: Name requesting-code-review directly; if the source includes slash commands, start with the command and then add task context.
Validation: Start small and check whether the result follows “When to Request Review / How to Request / Example” before expanding.

Boundaries And Review

Dependencies: It usually needs no extra API key, so start with a small validation task.
Permissions: Declared permissions include read; ask the agent to state file, command, and rollback boundaries before acting.
Quality bar: A useful result names the deliverable, evidence, and next action. Generic prose means the task needs tighter context.

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:

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

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

Fluxly profile Author and license come from source; runtime, permissions, and network are Fluxly detections or estimates

Fluxly category: Engineering
Author-declared agents: No explicit declaration found; this is not inferred or tested compatibility
Static check: 88 / 100 · heuristic scan, not runtime safety proof
Author / version / license: @obra · no license declared
Fluxly token estimate: Lean
Fluxly setup estimate: Plug-and-play
External API key: No requirement detected
Detected OS requirements: Unspecified
Runtime requirements: Unspecified
Detected file/system behavior: Read-only
Detected network behavior: Local-only
Install commands: None (reference only)

Profile is derived at build time from SKILL.md and install vectors. Subject to drift from author intent.

Heads up: 未限定 allowed-tools，默认拥有全部工具权限。

Output preview requesting-code-review.preview

The current SKILL.md does not define a fixed output example.

SKILL.md SKILL.md

# 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

…

Evidence boundary and execution chain

Author text anchors workflow facts; Fluxly only indexes current sections, terms, files, and commands.

sections -> When to Request Review → How to Request → Example → Common Rationalizations → Red Flags
terms    -> Core principle · Mandatory · Optional but valuable · 1. Get git SHAs · 2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent · Placeholders · 3. Act on feedback · Never
files/cmd -> general-purpose · {DESCRIPTION} · {PLANORREQUIREMENTS} · {BASESHA} · {HEADSHA}
body sha256 -> c96b761df987