requesting-code-review

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

請求代碼審查

Requesting Code Review

促進超能力：code-reviewer子代理在問題級聯發生之前發現問題。

**核心原則：**早複習、常複習。

Superpower Enhancement: The code-reviewer sub-agent detects issues before they cascade into problems.

Core Principle: Review early, review often.

何時請求審查

When to Request a Review

強迫的：

子代理程式驅動開發中的每個任務之後
完成主要功能後
合併到主程式之前

可選但有價值：

當卡住時（新視角）
重構前（基線檢查）
修復複雜的錯誤後

Mandatory:

After each task in sub-agent driven development
After completing a main feature
Before merging into the main branch

Optional but Valuable:

When stuck (for a new perspective)
Before refactoring (baseline check)
After fixing complex bugs

如何請求

How to Request

1.獲取git SHA：

bash

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

2.調度代碼審閱者子代理：

使用具有超能力的任務工具：代碼審閱者類型，填寫模板

code-reviewer.md

佔位符：

```
{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}
```
- 你剛剛建造的
```
{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}
```
- 它應該做什麼
```
{BASE_SHA}
```
- 開始提交
```
{HEAD_SHA}
```
- 結束提交
```
{DESCRIPTION}
```
- 簡要總結

3.根據反饋採取行動：

立即修復關鍵問題
在繼續之前修復重要問題
注意稍後的小問題
如果審稿人錯了就退回（有推理）

1. Get git SHA:

bash

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

2. Dispatch the code-reviewer sub-agent:

Use the superpower task tool: code-reviewer type, fill in the template

code-reviewer.md

Placeholders:

```
{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}
```
- What you just built
```
{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}
```
- What it's supposed to do
```
{BASE_SHA}
```
- Starting commit
```
{HEAD_SHA}
```
- Ending commit
```
{DESCRIPTION}
```
- Brief summary

3. Act on Feedback:

Fix critical issues immediately
Fix important issues before proceeding
Note minor issues for later
Push back if the reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)

例子

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 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]

[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]

與工作流程集成

Integrate with Workflows

子代理驅動的開發：

每項任務後回顧
在問題複雜化之前發現問題
在進行下一個任務之前修復

執行計劃：

每批後回顧（3個任務）
獲取反饋、申請、繼續

臨時開發：

合併前審查
卡住時回顧

Sub-agent Driven Development:

Review after each task
Detect issues before they complicate
Fix before moving to the next task

Execution Plan:

Review after each batch (3 tasks)
Get feedback, apply, continue

Ad Hoc Development:

Review before merging
Review when stuck

Red Flags

Never:

Skip reviews because "it's simple"
Ignore critical issues
Proceed with unresolved important issues
Argue against valid technical feedback

If the Reviewer is Wrong:

Push back with technical reasoning
Show code/tests proving it works
Ask for clarification

Please refer to the template: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

危險信號

—

絕不：

跳過評論，因為“很簡單”
忽略關鍵問題
繼續處理未解決的重要問題
用有效的技術回饋進行爭論

如果審稿人錯誤：

用技術推理進行反擊
顯示證明其有效的程式碼/測試
要求澄清

請參考模板：requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

—