Request Code Review

When to Request a Review

• After each task in subagent-driven development
• After completing major features
• Before merging to main

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

How to Request a Review

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

code-reviewer.md

• {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}

  - What you just implemented

• {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}

  - What should be implemented

• {BASE_SHA}

  - Starting commit

• {HEAD_SHA}

  - Ending commit

• {DESCRIPTION}

  - Brief summary

• Fix Critical issues immediately
• Fix Important issues before proceeding
• Record Minor issues for later handling
• Object if the reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)

Example

[Just completed Task 2: Add validation functions]

You: Request a code review before proceeding.

BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

[Dispatch code-reviewer subagent]
  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Session index verification and repair functions
  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/plans/deployment-plan.md
  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex(), covering 4 issue types

[Subagent returns]:
  Pros: Clear architecture, has real tests
  Issues:
    Important: Missing progress indication
    Minor: Magic number (100) in report interval
  Assessment: Can proceed

You: [Fix progress indication]
[Proceed to Task 3]

Integration with Workflows

• Review after each task
• Catch issues before they accumulate
• Fix before moving to the next task

• Review after every batch (3 tasks)
• Get feedback, apply it, and continue

• Review before merging
• Review when stuck

• Skip review because it's "too simple"
• Ignore Critical issues
• Proceed with unresolved Important issues
• Argue against valid technical feedback

• Object with technical reasoning
• Show code/tests that prove it works
• Ask for clarification