mirror of
https://github.com/obra/superpowers.git
synced 2026-05-03 23:59:05 +08:00
471fe326c8
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.
104 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
104 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: requesting-code-review
|
|
description: 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:**
|
|
```bash
|
|
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
|