Request a focused code review after implementation or before merging. Give a separate reviewer agent the requirements, change summary, and commit range, then address findings according to their severity before continuing.
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
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.
Mandatory:
Optional but valuable:
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 commit3. Act on feedback:
[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]
| 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. |
Never:
If reviewer wrong:
See template at: code-reviewer.md
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Turn development ideas into clear designs through guided discussion. The skill clarifies goals, requirements, and constraints, then adapts the process to a feasibility investigation, a small existing-code change, or a larger architectural design.
Find academic papers, retrieve publication details, and build BibTeX reference files for scholarly writing. Check identifiers, missing information, duplicate entries, and mismatches between manuscript citations and the bibliography, with tools for formatting and validation.
Assign independent bugs or test failures to separate agents that work at the same time. Define each agent’s scope and expected report, then check for conflicting changes and run the full test suite before integrating fixes.
Carry out a written implementation plan in a separate session, reviewing it before starting and tracking each task through verification. The workflow pauses for blockers and hands completed work to a development branch finishing process.
Plan experiments before collecting data by choosing how to assign samples, combine conditions, and order runs. Generate reproducible allocation schedules and experimental layouts while checking for design flaws that could make results difficult to interpret.
Explore scientific data files to understand their structure, statistical patterns, and quality. References cover over 200 formats, with workflows for producing Markdown reports that summarize findings and recommend preprocessing, visualizations, and further analysis.