Facilitate superpowers: the code-reviewer sub-agent catches issues before they cascade.
**Core principle:** Review early, review often.
When to Request Review
Mandatory:
- After each task in sub-agent-driven development
- After completing a major feature
- Before merging to main
Optional but valuable:
- When stuck (fresh perspective)
- Before refactoring (baseline check)
- After fixing a complex bug
How to Request
1. Get the git SHA:
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
2. Dispatch the code reviewer sub-agent:
Use the Task tool with superpowers: code-reviewer type, fill in the templatecode-reviewer.md
Placeholders:
{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}- What you just built{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}- What it should do{BASE_SHA}- Start commit{HEAD_SHA}- End commit{DESCRIPTION}- Brief summary
3. Act on feedback:
- Fix critical issues immediately
- Fix important issues before continuing
- Note minor issues for later
- Push back if the 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 superpowers:code-reviewer subagent]
WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/plans/deployment-plan.md
BASE_SHA: a7981ec
HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
[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]
Integration with Workflows
Sub-agent-driven development:
- Review after each task
- Catch issues before they become complicated
- Fix before moving to the next task
Executing the plan:
- Review after each batch (3 tasks)
- Get feedback, apply, continue
Ad-hoc development:
- Review before merging
- Review when stuck
Red Flags
Never:
- Skip review because it's "simple"
- Ignore critical issues
- Continue working on unresolved important issues
- Argue with valid technical feedback
If the reviewer is wrong:
- Push back with technical reasoning
- Show code/tests proving it works
- Ask for clarification
Please refer to the template: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md