Requesting Code Review

作者 obra5bf4e7801107无许可证292K 个星标收录于 2026年9月23日更新于 2026年9月23日仓库昨天更新

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

AI 生成的概览

派发代码审查子代理,并为其准备精确上下文,在问题扩散前发现它们。

功能
指导代理如何发起代码审查:说明何时必须审查、何时可选审查,演示如何取得基准与最新的 git SHA,并说明如何用 code-reviewer.md 模板派发 general-purpose 审查子代理,填入描述、需求与 SHA 占位符。还说明如何按严重程度处理反馈,以及在审查意见有误时如何有理有据地反驳。产出是对工作成果的审查,而不是会话历史。
适用场景
适用于子代理驱动开发中每完成一个任务后、完成重大功能后,或合并到主分支之前。卡住时、重构前或修复复杂缺陷后也可使用。
运行要求
需要 git 以解析提交 SHA,并需要能够派发子代理;该技能不附带脚本,仅提供 code-reviewer.md 模板。

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=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or: git merge-base origin/main HEADHEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:

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

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

ExcuseReality
"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 [blocked]

来源与署名

来源:obra/superpowers位于skills/requesting-code-review提交5bf4e78

许可证: 无许可证

内容归原作者所有。SourceWeft 从公开仓库中收录这些内容。

举报或申请下架