obra/superpowers

requesting-code-review

Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements

66Collecting
See how to use itView GitHub source
npx skills add https://github.com/obra/superpowers --skill "skills/requesting-code-review"

Quick start

Start using it in three steps

Install it or open the source, trigger it with a clear task, then follow the source workflow.

1

Install the Skill

npx skills add https://github.com/obra/superpowers --skill "skills/requesting-code-review"
2

Describe the task

Use requesting-code-review to help me with: [describe your task]. Before you begin, tell me what input you need, the steps you will follow, and the expected output.

3

Follow the workflow

No structured workflow was detected; follow the original SKILL.md below.

Continue to the workflow

Direct answers

Answers to review before you install

What is requesting-code-review?

Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements

Who should use requesting-code-review?

It is most relevant to software development workflows. Confirm the original prerequisites before using it in production.

How do you install requesting-code-review?

SkillSignal detected this source-specific command: npx skills add https://github.com/obra/superpowers --skill "skills/requesting-code-review". Inspect the repository and command before running it.

Which Agent platforms does it support?

The upstream source does not declare a dedicated Agent platform.

What permissions or risks should you review?

No obvious permission action was detected by the static rules. This is not proof that the Skill is safe.

What are the current evidence limits?

This page combines upstream documentation with deterministic repository, quality, and static-risk signals. It is not described as a manual test or security review.

SkillSignal brief

Decide whether it fits your work first

Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements

Useful in these contexts

Core capabilities

Code reviewEngineering

Distilled from the source

Understand this Skill in one minute

About 2 min · 6 sections

When it is worth using

  1. Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements

Repository stars
262,331
Repository forks
23,424
Quality
66/100
Source repository last pushed

Quality breakdown

Based on traceable docs and repository signals; stars are not treated as quality.

66/100
Documentation25/30
Specificity11/25
Maintenance18/20
Trust signals12/25

Compare before choosing

Related Agent Skills and source variants

These links are selected from shared tasks, functions, stacks, platforms, and same-name variants. Compare the source owner, documentation, permissions, and maintenance signals.

View original Skill.mdThis page is parsed directly from the repository SKILL.md without editorial rewriting. Collected: Jul 28, 2026 · about 2 min

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.

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]

Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"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.

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

Source repo
obra/superpowers
Skill path
skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md
Commit SHA
3dcbd5c4b48e
Repository license
MIT
Data collected