---

name: requesting-code-review category: workflow version: 1.0.0 description: Pre-review preparation with formatted diffs and clear PR descriptions author: obra/superpowers verified: true tags: [code-review, collaboration, git, workflow]

Requesting Code Review

Overview

Prepare pull requests for effective code reviews with clear descriptions, formatted diffs, and proper context for reviewers.

When to Use This Skill

✅ Before submitting PRs for review ✅ Preparing complex changes for team review ✅ Ensuring review feedback is actionable ✅ Making reviews faster and more effective

Pre-Review Checklist

Before Opening PR

• Code follows project style guidelines
• All tests pass locally
• Added/updated tests for new behavior
• Documentation updated (docs, comments, README)
• Commits are clean and logical
• PR description is clear and complete
• Self-review completed

Self-Review Process

1. Review your own diff first: What will confuse reviewers?
2. Check for obvious issues: typos, console.logs, TODO comments
3. Verify tests cover edge cases: what did you miss?
4. Update PR description: add context based on your review

PR Description Template

Copy## Summary
Brief description of what this PR does and why.

## Changes
- Bullet point of main changes
- Keep it high-level, details in the diff

## Context
Why this approach? Alternatives considered?

## Testing
- How did you test this?
- What scenarios are covered?
- Any manual testing steps?

## Screenshots (if UI changes)
[Before] | [After]

## Checklist
- [ ] Tests pass
- [ ] Documentation updated
- [ ] No merge conflicts
- [ ] Ready for review

## Review Focus Areas
Specific things to look at:
- Performance implications of X
- Security consideration in Y
- Alternative approach for Z

Formatting Diffs for Reviewers

Highlight Key Changes

Copy## Key Changes to Review

### Critical: Security Fix
📍 `src/auth.js:45-52`
- Added input sanitization for user tokens
- Prevents injection vulnerability

### Performance: Database Query
📍 `src/models/user.js:123-140`
- Added index on email column
- Reduced query time from 200ms to 15ms

### Breaking Change: API Response
📍 `api/users.js:89`
- Response format changed: `user_name` → `username`
- Migration guide in docs/api-migration.md

Visual Diff Annotations

Copy## Diff Annotations

```diff
 // Before
-function authenticate(token) {
-  return db.users.findOne({ token });
+// After
+function authenticate(token) {
+  if (!isValidTokenFormat(token)) {
+    throw new AuthError('Invalid token format');
+  }
+  return db.users.findOne({ token });
 }

Common Review Focus Areas

Performance Considerations

• Any database queries that could be optimized?
• Large files or expensive operations?
• Memory leaks or unnecessary allocations?
• Caching opportunities?

Security Concerns

• Input validation on user data?
• Authentication/authorization checks?
• Secrets or sensitive data exposure?
• Dependency vulnerabilities?

Code Quality

• Complex logic that could be simplified?
• Repeated code that should be extracted?
• Unclear names that need renaming?
• Missing error handling?

Testing Coverage

• Edge cases covered?
• Error scenarios tested?
• Integration tests included?
• Test assertions meaningful?

Handling Review Feedback

Receiving Feedback

• Assume good intentions
• Ask for clarification if needed
• Consider all feedback seriously
• Push back respectfully if you disagree

Implementing Changes

Copy## Feedback Resolution

✅ Implemented
- @reviewer: Added validation as suggested

✅ Implemented with modification
- @reviewer: Added logging but only in dev mode

💭 Discussion needed
- @reviewer: Concerned about performance impact, thoughts?

❌ Not applicable
- @reviewer: This is handled by existing validation in X

Integration with Claude

When preparing PRs, say:

• "Help me write a PR description for [changes]"
• "Review my PR description and suggest improvements"
• "Format this diff for easier review"
• "What should I highlight for reviewers?"

Claude will:

• Structure clear PR descriptions
• Highlight key changes effectively
• Identify areas needing focus
• Suggest improvements to organization
• Create readable diff summaries