---

name: requesting-code-review description: "Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging"

Requesting Code Review

Invariant Principles

1. Phase gates are blocking - Never proceed to next phase without meeting exit criteria
2. Evidence over opinion - Every finding must cite specific code location and behavior
3. Critical findings are non-negotiable - No Critical finding may be deferred or ignored
4. SHA persistence - Always use reviewed_sha from manifest, never current HEAD
5. Traceable artifacts - Each phase produces artifacts for resume and audit capability

Phase-Gated Workflow

Reference: patterns/code-review-formats.md for output schemas.

Phase 1: PLANNING

Input: User request, git state Output: Review scope definition

1. Determine git range (BASE_SHA..HEAD_SHA)
2. List files to review (exclude generated, vendor, lockfiles)
3. Identify plan/spec document if available
4. Estimate review complexity (file count, line count)

Exit criteria: Git range defined, file list confirmed

Phase 2: CONTEXT

Input: Phase 1 outputs Output: Reviewer context bundle

1. Extract relevant plan excerpts (what should have been built)
2. Gather related code context (imports, dependencies)
3. Note any prior review findings if re-review
4. Prepare context for code-reviewer agent

Exit criteria: Context bundle ready for dispatch

Phase 3: DISPATCH

Input: Phase 2 context Output: Review findings from agent

Agent: agents/code-reviewer.md

The code-reviewer agent provides:

• Approval Decision Matrix (verdict determination)
• Evidence Collection Protocol (systematic evidence gathering)
• Review Gates (ordered checklist: Security, Correctness, Plan Compliance, Quality, Polish)
• Suggestion Format (GitHub suggestion blocks)
• Collaborative communication style

1. Invoke code-reviewer agent with context
2. Pass: files, plan reference, git range, description
3. Block until agent returns findings
4. Validate findings have required fields (location, evidence)

Exit criteria: Valid findings received

Phase 4: TRIAGE

Input: Phase 3 findings Output: Categorized, prioritized findings

1. Sort findings by severity (Critical first)
2. Group by file for efficient fixing
3. Identify quick wins vs substantial fixes
4. Flag any findings needing clarification

Exit criteria: Findings triaged and prioritized

Phase 5: EXECUTE

Input: Phase 4 triaged findings Output: Fixes applied

1. Address Critical findings first (blocking)
2. Address High findings (blocking threshold)
3. Address Medium/Low as time permits
4. Document deferred items with rationale

Exit criteria: Blocking findings addressed

Phase 6: GATE

Input: Phase 5 fix status Output: Proceed/block decision

1. Apply severity gate rules (see Gate Rules below)
2. Determine if re-review needed
3. Update review status
4. Report final verdict

Exit criteria: Clear proceed/block decision with rationale

Gate Rules

Reference: patterns/code-review-taxonomy.md for severity definitions.

Blocking Rules

Re-Review Triggers

MUST re-review when:

• Critical finding was fixed (verify fix correctness)

• =3 High findings fixed (check for regressions)

• Fix adds >100 lines of new code
• Fix modifies files outside original review scope

MAY skip re-review when:

• Only Low/Nit/Medium addressed
• Fix is mechanical (rename, formatting, typo)

Deferral Documentation

When deferring a High finding, document:

1. Finding ID and summary
2. Reason for deferral (time constraint, follow-up planned, risk accepted)
3. Follow-up tracking (ticket number, target date)
4. Explicit acknowledgment of risk

Artifact Contract

Each phase produces deterministic output files for traceability and resume capability.

Artifact Directory

Copy~/.local/spellbook/reviews/<project-encoded>/<timestamp>/

Where <project-encoded> follows spellbook conventions (path with slashes replaced by dashes).

Phase Artifacts

Manifest Schema

Copy{
  "timestamp": "ISO 8601",
  "project": "project name",
  "branch": "branch name",
  "base_sha": "merge base commit",
  "reviewed_sha": "head commit at review time",
  "files": ["list of reviewed files"],
  "complexity": {
    "file_count": 0,
    "line_count": 0,
    "estimated_effort": "small|medium|large"
  }
}

SHA Persistence