mirror of https://github.com/obra/superpowers.git synced 2026-05-01 14:49:06 +08:00

Files

Jesse Vincent 471fe326c8 Lift superpowers:code-reviewer agent into the requesting-code-review skill

The plugin had a single named agent (`agents/code-reviewer.md`) used by
two skills, while every other reviewer/implementer subagent in the repo
is dispatched as `general-purpose` with the prompt template living
alongside its skill. That asymmetry had no upside and several costs:

- Two sources of truth for the code review checklist (the agent file
  and `requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md`), both drifting
  independently.
- `Codex` users could not use the named agent directly; the codex-tools
  reference doc had a workaround section explaining how to flatten the
  named agent into a `worker` dispatch.
- No third-party reliance on `superpowers:code-reviewer` inside this
  repo.

Changes:
- Merge `agents/code-reviewer.md` (persona + checklist) and
  `skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md` (placeholder
  template) into a single self-contained Task-dispatch template,
  matching the shape of `implementer-prompt.md`,
  `spec-reviewer-prompt.md`, etc.
- Update `skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md` and
  `skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md`
  to dispatch `Task (general-purpose)` instead of the named agent.
- Drop the now-obsolete "Named agent dispatch" workaround sections from
  `codex-tools.md` and `copilot-tools.md` — superpowers no longer ships
  any named agents, so those instructions documented nothing.
- Delete `agents/code-reviewer.md` and the empty `agents/` directory.

Tier 3 coverage for the change: a new behavioral test
`tests/claude-code/test-requesting-code-review.sh` plants real bugs
(SQL injection, plaintext password handling, credential logging) into
a tiny project, runs the actual `requesting-code-review` skill against
the working tree, and asserts the dispatched reviewer flags every
planted issue at Critical/Important severity and refuses to approve
the diff.

Verified end-to-end on this branch:
- The new test passes (5/5 assertions; reviewer caught all planted
  bugs and several others).
- The existing SDD integration test still passes (7/7 subagents
  dispatched, all as `general-purpose`; spec compliance still
  rejects extra features; produced code is correct).
- Session JSONLs confirm zero remaining `superpowers:code-reviewer`
  dispatches anywhere in the SDD pipeline.

2026-04-30 14:26:30 -07:00

2.7 KiB

Raw Blame History

name, description

name	description
requesting-code-review	Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements

Requesting Code Review

Dispatch a 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 general-purpose type, fill 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 commit

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 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]

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 task or at natural checkpoints
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

2.7 KiB Raw Blame History