requesting-code-review

Requesting Code Review

Adapted skill — discipline originating in Superpowers v5.1.0 (MIT, Jesse Vincent), rewritten in mattpocock-skills style. Drives the independent review in /mp-implement-issue step 8 and the code-quality reviewer in /mp-implement Phase 3 (via subagent-driven-development).

An independent reviewer checks the work before merge — self-review doesn't count. Review early, review often: after each task or slice, and always before merge to main.

The reviewer is a subagent with fresh context, so it gets a crafted brief, not your session history. Fresh eyes on the work product are what make the review independent; your reasoning so far is noise to it.

Fix the range first

BASE_SHA=$(git merge-base origin/main HEAD)  # the slice's branch point
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

Confirm the base resolves (git rev-parse $BASE_SHA) and the three-dot diff (git diff $BASE_SHA...$HEAD_SHA) is non-empty before dispatching. A bad ref or empty diff fails here, not inside the subagent.

Dispatch the reviewer

Spawn a subagent with this brief filled in:

You are reviewing a change before merge. Work from this brief and the repo only.

## What was built
{DESCRIPTION}
## Requirements
{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS — issue body, acceptance criteria, or plan file}
## Diff under review
git diff {BASE_SHA}...{HEAD_SHA}   (commits: git log {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA} --oneline)

Report findings as Critical (must fix) / Important (fix before proceeding) /
Minor (later), each with file:line, why it matters, and the fix. Severity is
actual, not diplomatic. End with a verdict: ready to merge, or what changes first.

Split big reviews into axes

A review can split into independent axes (e.g. Standards vs Spec) as parallel subagents, so neither axis pollutes the other. /mp-implement-issue step 8 does exactly this and carries its own inlined briefs — there, follow step 8 instead of the template above.

Act on the findings

What to do with the Critical / Important / Minor findings — evaluate each technically, fix, or push back with evidence — is governed by receiving-code-review.