agentleFS
Sign inStart free
haojing8312haojing8312/WorkClaw/.claude/skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

requesting-code-review

Skill141 starsChanged 7 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

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

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. 6 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 6

    Common

    Most of the 147 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Common:

    After each task in subagent-driven development

    line 15
  2. Common:

    After completing major feature

    line 16
  3. Common:

    Before merge to main

    line 17
  4. Common:

    When stuck (fresh perspective)

    line 20
  5. Common:

    Before refactoring (baseline check)

    line 21
  6. Common:

    After fixing complex bug

    line 22
  7. Very specific:

    Use Task tool with superpowers:code-reviewer type, fill template at code-reviewer.md

    line 34

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 147 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Requesting Code Review

Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade.

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:

Use Task tool with superpowers:code-reviewer type, fill template at code-reviewer.md

Placeholders:

  • {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED} - What you just built
  • {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS} - What it should do
  • {BASE_SHA} - Starting commit
  • {HEAD_SHA} - Ending commit
  • {DESCRIPTION} - Brief summary

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 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

Subagent-Driven Development:

  • Review after EACH task
  • Catch issues before they compound
  • Fix before moving to next task

Executing Plans:

  • Review after each batch (3 tasks)
  • Get feedback, apply, continue

Ad-Hoc Development:

  • Review before merge
  • Review when stuck

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: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free