Requesting code review

Skill ComeOnOliver/skillshub/skills/aiskillstore/marketplace/codingcossack/requesting-code-review

🧠 The right skill, one API call. AI agent skills registry with token-efficient skill resolution. 5,000+ skills from 500+ top repos.

Install

npx -y skills add ComeOnOliver/skillshub --skill requesting-code-review

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use when you need to request a code review for a PR/MR and want a consistent review brief (context, scope, risk areas, test instructions, acceptance criteria) before merge.

SKILL.md

2.4 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Requesting Code Review

Dispatch code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade.

Core principle: Review early, review often.

How to Request

1. Get git SHAs:

# For PR/branch review (recommended):
BASE_SHA=$(git merge-base origin/main HEAD)
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

# For single commit only:
# BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)

2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:

Use Task tool with template at templates/code-reviewer.md

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

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]

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

[Dispatch code-reviewer subagent with references/code-reviewer.md]
  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

[Fix progress indicators, continue to Task 3]

Integration with Workflows

Subagent-Driven Development:

Review after EACH task
Catch issues before they compound
Fix before moving to next task

Executing Plans:

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

Ad-Hoc Development:

Review before merge
Review when stuck

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