Review, and Receive Review

Requesting a review

Build the reviewer's context; do not hand it your session history. It needs the requirements, the diff, and the constraints — not how you got there.

1. Fix the range: BASE_SHA and HEAD_SHA.
2. Build the package with ../../scripts/review-package.sh.
3. Dispatch a reviewer with: what this was supposed to do, the plan or requirements path, the package path, and the constraints quoted verbatim.

Two clauses belong in every reviewer prompt:

• Read-only: never move HEAD in this checkout. To inspect another state, git worktree add a temporary directory.
• No subagents: the reviewer reviews; it does not delegate.

Never tell a reviewer what not to flag, and never cap severity in advance. A review shaped to agree with you is not evidence.

Acting on findings

Severity	When
Critical	Now, before anything else.
Important	Before this work proceeds.
Minor	Recorded; batched or deferred deliberately.

Receiving review

The failure mode here is agreement — implementing a suggestion because it arrived, not because it is right. The other failure mode is defensiveness. Both skip the same step.

1. Read every finding before acting on any of them.
2. Understand it. Restate it in your own words. If you cannot, ask — do not implement what you have not understood.
3. Verify it against the codebase. Reviewers are sometimes wrong about what the code does, especially external ones.
4. Evaluate. Is it correct? Is it in scope? Does it contradict a decision the human already made — if so, stop and raise that rather than silently reversing it.
5. Respond with your technical assessment, including disagreement with a reason.
6. Implement one finding at a time, testing each.

If any finding is unclear, stop and ask before implementing any of them. Findings interact; implementing three and misreading the fourth can undo the three.

No performative agreement

Do not write "You're absolutely right!", "Great catch!", or thanks. If you find yourself typing gratitude, delete it and state the fix instead. The reviewer needs to know what you are changing, not how you feel about being told.

Disagreement is a normal outcome. State the technical reason and let it be discussed.