---

name: requesting-code-review description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements

Requesting Code Review

Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade.

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:

CopyBASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

2. For C# .NET Projects (ECTSystem):

Copy# Verify build and tests before requesting review
dotnet build ECTSystem.sln --no-restore
dotnet test AF.ECT.Tests --filter "YourNewTests" --no-build

# Get SHAs
BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Previous task" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

# Get diff summary
git diff $BASE_SHA $HEAD_SHA --stat

3. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:

Use Task tool with superpowers:code-reviewer type, fill template at code-reviewer.md

Placeholders:

• {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED} - What you just built
• {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS} - What it should do
• {BASE_SHA} - Starting commit
• {HEAD_SHA} - Ending commit
• {DESCRIPTION} - Brief summary

4. 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

Copy[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 superpowers:code-reviewer subagent]
  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/plans/deployment-plan.md
  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types

[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]

C# .NET Example (ECTSystem):

Copy[Just completed Task 2: Add GetWorkflowCount gRPC method]

You: Let me request code review before proceeding.

dotnet build ECTSystem.sln --no-restore
  ✓ Build succeeded, 0 errors, 0 warnings
  
dotnet test AF.ECT.Tests --filter "GetWorkflowCount" --no-build
  ✓ 3 tests passed

BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "feat: Add GetUser" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
git diff $BASE_SHA $HEAD_SHA --stat
  AF.ECT.Shared/Protos/workflow.proto
  AF.ECT.Server/Services/WorkflowServiceImpl.cs
  AF.ECT.Tests/Unit/WorkflowServiceTests.cs

[Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent]
  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: GetWorkflowCount gRPC method with filtering by status
  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/plans/2025-01-10-workflow-enhancements.md
  BASE_SHA: d4a9c2f
  HEAD_SHA: e8f1a3b
  DESCRIPTION: Added gRPC method with InMemory + SQL Server tests, audit logging

[Subagent returns]:
  Strengths: Good test coverage (both InMemory and integration), proper exception handling, audit logging included
  Issues:
    Important: Missing validation for status enum value
    Minor: Magic number 1000 for max results
  Assessment: Fix validation, then ready to proceed

You: [Add enum validation, extract MAX_RESULTS constant]
dotnet test AF.ECT.Tests --filter "GetWorkflowCount" --no-build
  ✓ 5 tests passed (added validation tests)

[Dispatch code-reviewer subagent again]
Code reviewer: ✅ Approved - ready for next task
[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 batch (3 tasks)
• 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