mathias/skills

Fork 0

Files

T

mathiasandClaude Opus 4.8 1e29c6d1af

release / tag (push) Failing after 1s

Details

feat(skills): import 17 skills from local-dev; fix stale host

Consolidating the divergence between this repo and local-dev's embedded
~/dev/.skills/ (the two had drifted; the 19 overlapping skills were byte-identical).

- Import the 17 skills that existed only in local-dev: discovery-framing,
  stage-gate-review, web-shot, and the 14 superpowers-* skills. This repo is now
  the superset / single source of truth.
- SKILLS_INDEX.md: add rows for the 17.
- install.sh + Taskfile.yml: git.d-ma.be host (was stale gitea.d-ma.be, which
  broke the one-line curl|bash installer post-rename).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-07-04 00:10:21 +02:00

2.7 KiB

Raw Blame History

name, description

name	description
requesting-code-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.

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 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

2.7 KiB Raw Blame History