RE

requesting-code-review

Automates code reviews by dispatching a subagent to evaluate work against requirements.

Install

mkdir -p .claude/skills/requesting-code-review && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/630" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/requesting-code-review && rm skill.zip

Installs to .claude/skills/requesting-code-review

Activation

This is the description your AI agent reads to decide when to run this skill — the better it matches your request, the more reliably it fires.

Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
107 chars✓ has a “when” trigger
Intermediate

Key capabilities

  • Dispatch code reviewer subagent
  • Verify feature implementation against requirements
  • Identify issues before merging
  • Provide fresh perspective on complex bugs

How it works

The skill dispatches a subagent with specific git SHAs and context. The reviewer evaluates the code against provided requirements and returns strengths, issues, and an assessment.

Inputs & outputs

You give it
Code changes and requirements
You get back
Reviewer feedback and assessment

When to use requesting-code-review

  • Verify feature implementation
  • Check code before merging
  • Get a fresh perspective on a complex bug

About this skill

Requesting Code Review

Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history.

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:

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

2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:

Dispatch a general-purpose subagent, filling the template at code-reviewer.md

Placeholders:

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

3. 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

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

[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]

Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"I'll just review the diff myself instead of dispatching a reviewer"You're the coordinator — reviewing the diff inline burns the context window you need to keep driving the work. Dispatch a reviewer subagent: the diff and the evaluation live in its context, and only the findings come back to you.
"The reviewer needs my whole session history to understand the change"Hand it precisely crafted context, never your session's history. That keeps the reviewer on the work product, not your thought process.

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: code-reviewer.md

When not to use it

  • Trivial changes that do not require verification
  • Ignoring critical feedback

Prerequisites

git

Limitations

  • Reviewer context is limited to provided SHAs
  • Requires clear plan or requirements for effective review

How it compares

It uses a dedicated subagent for objective evaluation rather than self-reviewing code.

Compared to similar skills

requesting-code-review side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.

SkillInstallsUpdatedSafetyDifficulty
requesting-code-review (this skill)53moReviewIntermediate
bat05moReviewIntermediate
ln-513-agent-reviewer05moNo flagsAdvanced
flow-next-prime02moReviewIntermediate

Try saying

Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.

Search skills

Search the agent skills registry