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.zipInstalls 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 requirementsKey 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
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
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "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
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.
| Skill | Installs | Updated | Safety | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| requesting-code-review (this skill) | 5 | 3mo | Review | Intermediate |
| bat | 0 | 5mo | Review | Intermediate |
| ln-513-agent-reviewer | 0 | 5mo | No flags | Advanced |
| flow-next-prime | 0 | 2mo | Review | Intermediate |
Try saying
Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.
More by obra
View all by obra →You might also like
bat
homeassistant-ai
Run bot acceptance tests to validate MCP tools work correctly from a real AI agent's perspective. Use when testing PRs, detecting regressions, or verifying tool changes end-to-end with Claude/Gemini CLIs.
ln-513-agent-reviewer
Rieki777
Runs parallel external agent reviews (Codex + Gemini) on code changes. Process-as-arrive, critical verification with debate. Returns filtered suggestions.
flow-next-prime
gmickel
Comprehensive codebase assessment for agent and production readiness. Scans 8 pillars (48 criteria), verifies commands work, checks GitHub settings. Reports everything, fixes agent readiness only. Triggers on /flow-next:prime.
skill-creator
anthropics
Guide for creating effective skills. This skill should be used when users want to create a new skill (or update an existing skill) that extends Claude's capabilities with specialized knowledge, workflows, or tool integrations.
python-testing-patterns
wshobson
Implement comprehensive testing strategies with pytest, fixtures, mocking, and test-driven development. Use when writing Python tests, setting up test suites, or implementing testing best practices.
dependency-upgrade
wshobson
Manage major dependency version upgrades with compatibility analysis, staged rollout, and comprehensive testing. Use when upgrading framework versions, updating major dependencies, or managing breaking changes in libraries.