Requesting Code Review (Structured Review: Requirements Alignment + Production Readiness) Goal: Make code review a repeatable process, not random comments. Core principle: Review early, review often. When Review is Required Mandatory: After completing important features After each batch in workflow-execute-plans ends (default 3 tasks per batch) Before merging to main branch Optional but valuable: When stuck (get a fresh perspective) Before major refactoring (establish baseline first) After fixing complex bugs (verify no new regressions) How to Initiate (Minimum Information Set) 1) Determine Review Scope (git SHA) Prefer using "baseline before plan/task started" as BASE_SHA :
Common approach: use main as baseline
BASE_SHA
- $(
- git
- merge-base HEAD main
- 2
- >
- /dev/null
- ||
- git
- merge-base HEAD master
- )
- HEAD_SHA
- =
- $(
- git
- rev-parse HEAD
- )
- If you want to review just the most recent commit within a small task:
- BASE_SHA
- =
- $(
- git
- rev-parse HEAD~1
- )
- HEAD_SHA
- =
- $(
- git
- rev-parse HEAD
- )
- 2) Prepare Review Basis (Plan / Requirements)
- Review must provide:
- WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED
-
- What you just completed (1-3 bullet points)
- PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS
-
- Corresponding plan excerpt or requirements document path (e.g.,
- run_dir/03-plans/feature-plan.md
- )
- 3) Get diff (Evidence)
- git
- diff
- --stat
- "
- $BASE_SHA
- ..
- $HEAD_SHA
- "
- git
- diff
- "
- $BASE_SHA
- ..
- $HEAD_SHA
- "
- Review Execution Methods (Choose One)
- Method A: Sub-Agent Review (if your system supports it)
- Use template:
- review-merge-readiness/code-reviewer.md
- , fill in placeholders and execute.
- Method B: Self Review (works without sub-agent)
- Check each item per template checklist and output same structured result (Strengths + Issues by severity + Verdict).
- Review Output Format (Must Be Structured)
- Output must include:
- Strengths
-
- Specific positives (at least 1)
- Issues
-
- Categorized by severity:
- Critical (Must Fix)
-
- Security/data loss/functionality bugs/would cause production incidents
- Important (Should Fix)
-
- Obviously poor architecture/missing error handling/test gaps/requirements misalignment
- Minor (Nice to Have)
-
- Style/small optimizations/documentation polish
- Assessment
-
- Merge readiness (Yes/No/With fixes) + 1-2 sentence technical reasoning
- Each Issue must include:
- Location:
- file:line
- What's wrong
- Why it matters
- How to fix (provide minimal change suggestion)
- Relationship with Other Review Skills
- review-clean-code
-
- More focused on "maintainability/cleanliness", suitable for deep code smell investigation
- review-react-best-practices
- More focused on React/Next.js performance patterns (waterfalls/bundle/re-renders). Use when the diff touches React UI, data fetching, or performance-sensitive areas. This skill: More focused on "requirements alignment/production readiness/merge verdict" conclusion-oriented review If you just need a "can we merge?" verdict: use this skill. If you want a deep health check: additionally invoke review-clean-code .