Dispatch the superpowers:code-reviewer subagent to review your work and catch issues early. Review early, review often.
When to Request Review Mandatory Reviews You must request review:
After each task in subagent-driven development
After completing a major feature
Before merging to main
Optional but Valuable Consider requesting review:
When stuck (get a fresh perspective)
Before refactoring (establish a baseline)
After fixing a complex bug
How to Request Review
Get git SHAs
Identify the commit range to review: BASE_SHA = $( git rev-parse HEAD~1 ) # or origin/main HEAD_SHA = $( git rev-parse HEAD )
Dispatch code-reviewer subagent
Use the Task tool with superpowers:code-reviewer type, filling the template from code-reviewer.md. Required placeholders:
{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED} - What you just built{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS} - What it should do{BASE_SHA} - Starting commit{HEAD_SHA} - Ending commit{DESCRIPTION} - Brief summary
Act on feedback
Prioritize issues by severity:
Critical: Fix immediatelyImportant: Fix before proceedingMinor: Note for laterQuestionable: Push back with reasoning if reviewer is wrong Code Review Template The skill uses a template at requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md that structures the review:
# Code Review Agent You are reviewing code changes for production readiness. ## What Was Implemented {DESCRIPTION} ## Requirements/Plan {PLAN_REFERENCE} ## Git Range to Review Base: {BASE_SHA} Head: {HEAD_SHA} ## Review Checklist **Code Quality:** - Clean separation of concerns? - Proper error handling? - Type safety (if applicable)? - DRY principle followed? - Edge cases handled? **Architecture:** - Sound design decisions? - Scalability considerations? - Performance implications? - Security concerns? **Testing:** - Tests actually test logic (not mocks)? - Edge cases covered? - Integration tests where needed? - All tests passing? **Requirements:** - All plan requirements met? - Implementation matches spec? - No scope creep?
Example Review Request [Just completed Task 2: Add verification function] You: Let me request code review before proceeding. BASE_SHA=$(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]
The code reviewer provides structured feedback:
What’s well done, with specific file:line references Example: - Clean database schema with proper migrations (db.ts:15-42) - Comprehensive test coverage (18 tests, all edge cases) - Good error handling with fallbacks (summarizer.ts:85-92)
Critical (Must Fix):
Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality
Important (Should Fix):
Architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps
Minor (Nice to Have):
Code style, optimization opportunities, documentation improvements
Each issue includes:
File:line reference
What’s wrong
Why it matters
How to fix (if not obvious)
Clear verdict: Ready to merge? Yes/No/With fixes Technical reasoning in 1-2 sentences
Integration with Workflows
Subagent-Driven Development Review after each task to catch issues before they compound. Fix before moving to next task.
Executing Plans Review after each batch (3 tasks). Get feedback, apply fixes, continue.
Ad-Hoc Development Review before merge or when stuck on a problem.
Red Flags Never:
Skip review because “it’s simple”
Ignore Critical issues
Proceed with unfixed Important issues
Argue with valid technical feedback
If reviewer is wrong:
Push back with technical reasoning
Show code/tests that prove it works
Request clarification on unclear feedback
