mathias
62cfe46927
The vendored skills were written against a generic `Task()` and an operator called "your human partner". Neither exists here. An agent following dispatching-parallel-agents literally would call a tool that is not in its list. `Task tool` becomes the `Agent` tool with `subagent_type` across all six prompt templates and the Gemini mapping table, and the dispatch example gains the three options that actually matter for parallel work: issuing every dispatch in ONE message (several Agent uses in a single turn run concurrently; one per turn serialises them), `isolation: "worktree"` so two agents cannot fight over the same tree, and per-agent `model` override for cheap mechanical fan-out. `Workflow` is named as the structured alternative — phases, per-finding verify, fan-in — with its opt-in condition stated, because a skill that told an agent to reach for it unprompted would be teaching a policy violation. "your human partner" becomes "the operator" in five skills. Beyond phrasing, it was factually wrong in executing-plans, which told the reader to *ask* whether subagents are available; on this fleet Claude Code has them and Crush/Pi/OpenCode do not, so it now says which skill to use where. Closes #17 Bump-Type: patch
3.2 KiB
name, surfaces, summary, use_when, description
| name | surfaces | summary | use_when | description | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| requesting-code-review |
|
Requesting a code review well | Asking another agent/human to 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.
This skill is the commissioning half. What the reviewer should look for is code-review; how to handle what comes back is superpowers-receiving-code-review.
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 the Agent tool with subagent_type: "general-purpose", filling the template at
code-reviewer.md. A reviewer needs no write access and benefits from none — if the
harness offers a read-only agent type, prefer it.
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