requesting-code-review
- Repo stars 229,270
- Forks 20,393
- Author updated Jun 16, 2026, 05:34 AM
- Author repo superpowers
- Domain
- Engineering
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 88 / 100 · community maintained
- Author / version / license
- @obra · no license declared
- Token usage
- Lean
- Setup complexity
- Guided setup
- External API key
- Not required
- Operating systems
- Unspecified (assume cross-platform)
- Runtime requirements
- No special requirements
- Permissions
-
- Read-only
- Shell exec
- Write / modify
- Network behavior
- Local-only
- Install commands
- 26 variants
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。
---
name: requesting-code-review
description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets r…
category: engineering
runtime: no special runtime
---
# requesting-code-review output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and pres….
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow “When to Request Review / How to Request / Example” and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on “Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and pres…”.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes “When to Request Review / How to Request / Example” so the result follows the author’s structure.
- **03** Typical output includes task judgment, concrete steps, required commands or file edits, validation, and follow-up options.
- **04** Risk context follows the fingerprint: read files, run shell commands, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
## Running Rules
- read files, run shell commands, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding scope.
- Return the result, validation criteria, and next iteration options. The source does not require a stable slash command. After installation, invoke the skill by name and describe the task.
Name target files or source material, expected output, forbidden changes, and whether network or shell access is allowed. Permission fingerprint: read files, run shell commands, write/modify files.
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows “When to Request Review / How to Request / Example”. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: requesting-code-review
description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets r…
category: engineering
source: obra/superpowers
---
# requesting-code-review
## When to use
- Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements Dispatch a…
- Use it when the task has clear inputs, repeatable steps, and validation criteria.
## What to provide
- Target material, scope, expected result, and forbidden changes.
- Whether network, commands, file writes, or external services are allowed.
## Execution rules
- Organize steps around “When to Request Review / How to Request / Example” and keep inference separate from source facts.
- read files, run shell commands, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding the task.
## Output requirements
- Return the deliverable, key evidence, validation method, and next action.
- Mark missing information as unknown; do not invent commands, platforms, or dependencies. The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "requesting-code-review" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> When to Request Review / How to Request / Example
rules -> SKILL.md triggers / order / output contract
runtime -> no special runtime | read files, run shell commands, write/modify files | mostly runs locally
guardrails -> usually needs no extra API key + small-sample validation + diff/log review
output -> copyable result + checklist + next iteration
} 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. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.
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:
Use Task tool with general-purpose type, fill 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]
Integration with Workflows
Subagent-Driven Development:
- Review after EACH task
- Catch issues before they compound
- Fix before moving to next task
Executing Plans:
- Review after each task or at natural checkpoints
- Get feedback, apply, continue
Ad-Hoc Development:
- Review before merge
- Review when stuck
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: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review