What is requesting-code-review?
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
obra/superpowers
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
npx skills add https://github.com/obra/superpowers --skill "skills/requesting-code-review"Quick start
Install it or open the source, trigger it with a clear task, then follow the source workflow.
npx skills add https://github.com/obra/superpowers --skill "skills/requesting-code-review"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.
No structured workflow was detected; follow the original SKILL.md below.
Continue to the workflowDirect answers
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
It is most relevant to software development workflows. Confirm the original prerequisites before using it in production.
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.
The upstream source does not declare a dedicated Agent platform.
No obvious permission action was detected by the static rules. This is not proof that the Skill is safe.
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
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
Useful in these contexts
Core capabilities
Distilled from the source
About 2 min · 6 sections
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
Quality breakdown
Based on traceable docs and repository signals; stars are not treated as quality.
Compare before choosing
These links are selected from shared tasks, functions, stacks, platforms, and same-name variants. Compare the source owner, documentation, permissions, and maintenance signals.
Use when asking for a review or creating a PR — self-review first, frame the right context, test plan included — even when the user just says 'open a PR' or 'ready to merge'.
Use when the user says "review this", "check my code", or wants feedback on changes. Reviews for correctness, quality, security, and coding standards.
Turn ambiguous or high-impact product and engineering changes into scoped, verifiable acceptance criteria before or alongside implementation. Use when a user asks to clarify a feature, define acceptance criteria, de-risk a security/data/migration/integration change, prepare implementation requirements for another agent, or make a complex request testable. Do not trigger for trivial edits, straightforward fixes, active debugging, code review, or implementation requests whose acceptance conditions
Umbrella workflow for 67 public skills: Full Send, copy, design, code review, SEO, launch packaging, MCP QA, iOS and Android app shipping, and creator workflows. Loads the full public skill pack.
Use when working with Git — branch naming, commit messages, PR creation, rebasing, or the code review process — even when the user says 'push this' or 'merge the branch' without naming Git.
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