requesting-code-review
- 作者仓库星标 0
- 作者更新于 2026年8月13日 00:53
- 作者仓库 superpowers
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
- 流狐分类
- 工程开发
- 作者声明 Agent
- 未找到明确声明；不据此推断已兼容或已测试
- 静态检查
- 88 / 100 · 启发式扫描，不代表运行安全
- 作者 / 版本 / 许可
- @obra · 未声明 license
- 流狐 Token 估算
- 低消耗
- 流狐接入估算
- 即装即用
- 是否需要外部 API Key
- 未发现要求
- 检测到的系统要求
- 未声明
- 底层运行要求
- 未声明
- 检测到的文件与系统行为
-
- 只读
- 检测到的网络行为
- 仅限本地
- 安装命令数
- 无（仅作为资料）
档案由构建时根据 SKILL.md 与安装命令自动衍生，可能与作者实际意图存在差异。
需要注意： 未限定 allowed-tools，默认拥有全部工具权限。
作者没有在当前 SKILL.md 中定义固定输出样例。 When to Request Review
Mandatory: After each task in subagent-driven development After completing major feature
How to Request
1. Get git SHAs: 2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent: Dispatch a general-purpose subagent, filling the template at code-reviewer.md
Example
Example
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…
Red Flags
Never: Skip review because "it's simple" Ignore Critical issues
# 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
… 证据边界与执行链路
作者原文负责流程事实；流狐只索引当前章节、要点、文件与命令。
章节 -> When to Request Review → How to Request → Example → Common Rationalizations → Red Flags
要点 -> Core principle · Mandatory · Optional but valuable · 1. Get git SHAs · 2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent · Placeholders · 3. Act on feedback · Never
文件/命令 -> general-purpose · {DESCRIPTION} · {PLANORREQUIREMENTS} · {BASESHA} · {HEADSHA}
内容 SHA-256 -> c96b761df987
原文结构
适用与边界
原文中的明确线索
general-purpose、{DESCRIPTION}、{PLANORREQUIREMENTS}、{BASESHA}、{HEADSHA}