mirror of
https://github.com/obra/superpowers.git
synced 2026-05-01 14:49:06 +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.
1.1 KiB
1.1 KiB
Code Quality Reviewer Prompt Template
Use this template when dispatching a code quality reviewer subagent.
Purpose: Verify implementation is well-built (clean, tested, maintainable)
Only dispatch after spec compliance review passes.
Task tool (general-purpose):
Use template at requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md
DESCRIPTION: [task summary, from implementer's report]
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task N from [plan-file]
BASE_SHA: [commit before task]
HEAD_SHA: [current commit]
In addition to standard code quality concerns, the reviewer should check:
- Does each file have one clear responsibility with a well-defined interface?
- Are units decomposed so they can be understood and tested independently?
- Is the implementation following the file structure from the plan?
- Did this implementation create new files that are already large, or significantly grow existing files? (Don't flag pre-existing file sizes — focus on what this change contributed.)
Code reviewer returns: Strengths, Issues (Critical/Important/Minor), Assessment