Use when you need to request a code review for a PR/MR and want a consistent review brief (context, scope, risk areas, test instructions, acceptance criteria) before merge.
Coding
85 Stars
2 Forks
Updated Jan 19, 2026, 04:39 AM
Why Use This
This skill provides specialized capabilities for aiskillstore's codebase.
Use Cases
Developing new features in the aiskillstore repository
Refactoring existing code to follow aiskillstore standards
Understanding and working with aiskillstore's codebase structure
---
name: requesting-code-review
description: Use when you need to request a code review for a PR/MR and want a consistent review brief (context, scope, risk areas, test instructions, acceptance criteria) before merge.
---
# Requesting Code Review
Dispatch code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade.
**Core principle:** Review early, review often.
## How to Request
**1. Get git SHAs:**
```bash
# For PR/branch review (recommended):
BASE_SHA=$(git merge-base origin/main HEAD)
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
# For single commit only:
# BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)
```
**2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:**
Use Task tool with template at [templates/code-reviewer.md](templates/code-reviewer.md)
**Placeholders:**
- `{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}` - What you just built
- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do
- `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit
- `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit
- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary
**3. Act on feedback:**
- Fix Critical issues immediately
- Fix Important issues before proceeding
- Note Minor issues for later
- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)
## Example
```
[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]
BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
[Dispatch code-reviewer subagent with references/code-reviewer.md]
WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/plans/deployment-plan.md
BASE_SHA: a7981ec
HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
[Subagent returns]:
Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
Issues:
Important: Missing progress indicators
Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
Assessment: Ready to proceed
[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 batch (3 tasks)
- 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