Back to skills
SkillHub ClubAnalyze Data & AIFull StackData / AIIntegration

requesting-code-review

A well-structured code review workflow skill that promotes systematic quality assurance through clear review triggers and integration with development processes.

Packaged view

This page reorganizes the original catalog entry around fit, installability, and workflow context first. The original raw source lives below.

Stars
30
Hot score
89
Updated
March 19, 2026
Overall rating
A7.8
Composite score
5.5
Best-practice grade
S96.0

Install command

npx @skill-hub/cli install commandcodeai-agent-skills-requesting-code-review

Repository

CommandCodeAI/agent-skills

Skill path: skills/requesting-code-review

A well-structured code review workflow skill that promotes systematic quality assurance through clear review triggers and integration with development processes.

Open repository

Best for

Primary workflow: Analyze Data & AI.

Technical facets: Full Stack, Data / AI, Integration.

Target audience: Development teams using AI-assisted coding workflows, particularly those implementing subagent-driven development patterns.

License: Unknown.

Original source

Catalog source: SkillHub Club.

Repository owner: CommandCodeAI.

This is still a mirrored public skill entry. Review the repository before installing into production workflows.

What it helps with

  • Install requesting-code-review into Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, or OpenCode workflows
  • Review https://github.com/CommandCodeAI/agent-skills before adding requesting-code-review to shared team environments
  • Use requesting-code-review for development workflows

Works across

Claude CodeCodex CLIGemini CLIOpenCode

Favorites: 0.

Sub-skills: 0.

Aggregator: No.

Original source / Raw SKILL.md

---
name: requesting-code-review
description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
---

# Requesting Code Review

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

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

**2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:**

Use Task tool with superpowers:code-reviewer type, fill template at `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]

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 superpowers:code-reviewer subagent]
  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

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 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

See template at: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md