Requesting Code Review Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work. 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/superpowers/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