Requesting code review

Skill qiuy-collab/AutoFlow.skill/integrations/superpowers/requesting-code-review

Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirementsFrom its SKILL.md

Install

npx -y skills add qiuy-collab/AutoFlow.skill --skill requesting-code-review

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

One thing to look at

2 stars2 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

2.8 KB, 631 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

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. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.

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]

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 task or at natural checkpoints
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

See template at: code-reviewer.md

What ships with it: 1 file

5.1 KB alongside SKILL.md

code-reviewer.md5.1 KB

Gives 4 of the 12 instructions most code review skills give in 631 tokens

Counted across 668 of the 814 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-09-06

Provide technical reasoning when pushing backin 84 of 668, across 70 files
Fix critical issues immediatelyhere, and in 77 of 668, across 60 files
Dispatch a code reviewer subagenthere, and in 76 of 668, across 59 files
Fix important issues before proceedinghere, and in 73 of 668, across 56 files
Ask for clarification on unclear itemsin 68 of 668, across 56 files
Verify feedback against codebase before implementationin 66 of 668, across 55 files
Implement fixes one at a timein 64 of 668, across 53 files
Test each fix individuallyin 62 of 668, across 51 files
Restate technical requirements in own wordsin 57 of 668, across 46 files
Reply to inline comments in the specific threadin 51 of 668, across 40 files
Note minor issues for laterhere, and in 49 of 668, across 34 files
Group findings by severityin 48 of 668, across 47 files

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.