mirror of
https://github.com/obra/superpowers.git
synced 2026-05-13 20:49:06 +08:00
11ad1f4829
Replace Claude-Code-specific tool names in skill prose, prompt
templates, and OpenCode-facing docs with action-language descriptions
that resolve to each runtime's native tool via the per-platform refs.
Changes by category:
- Prose mentions ("Use TodoWrite to track...", "Use Task tool with
general-purpose type") → action language ("Track each item as a
todo", "Dispatch a general-purpose subagent")
- Prompt template headers (6 files): "Task tool (general-purpose):"
→ "Subagent (general-purpose):" — preserves the type information
without naming Claude Code's specific dispatch tool
- DOT flowchart node labels: "Invoke Skill tool" → "Invoke the
skill"; "Create TodoWrite todo per item" → "Create a todo per
item"
- OpenCode INSTALL.md and docs/README.opencode.md: replace the old
"TodoWrite → todowrite, Task → @mention" mapping (which both
taught a vocabulary skills no longer use AND was wrong about
@mention being a real OpenCode syntax) with an action-language
mapping verified against the installed OpenCode CLI's tool
inventory.
The platform-tools refs landed in Phase B already document each
runtime's resolution; skills now speak in the actions those refs
map. Tool names that genuinely belong only in the per-platform
dispatch section ("In Claude Code: Use the `Skill` tool") and the
Claude-Code-specific Bash run_in_background flag note in
visual-companion remain — those are intentional carve-outs.
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:**
|
|
|
|
Dispatch a `general-purpose` subagent, filling the 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
|