Files

T

mathiasandClaude Opus 5 56a947b2a0 refactor(plugin)!: ship as a Claude Code plugin, one dir link per harness

Skills move to skills/<name>/SKILL.md and the repo gains both manifests, so
it is now a marketplace hosting exactly one plugin whose root is the repo
root (source: "."). Claude Code installs it from git; no symlinks involved.

Why: install.sh wired the library into every consuming repo as an ABSOLUTE
symlink to $CHECKOUT_DIR. The checkout moved three times, most recently when
local-dev@1966d5a dropped the embedded .skills/ copy, and nothing migrated
the links — 243 dangling links across 12 repos, hidden from git by the
**/.claude/skills/ ignore rule. Worse, ~/dev spans two path roots
(/Users/mathias on the iCloud-shared Macs, /home/mathias on koala), so an
absolute link stored there is broken on one side by construction. Re-running
the installer cannot fix that; only removing the mechanism can.

install.sh keeps the harnesses with no plugin system and drops from 42 links
per harness to one directory link, via the convergent ~/.agents/skills
convention that Pi and OpenCode both read:

  ~/.agents/skills          -> $CHECKOUT_DIR/skills
  ~/.config/crush/skills    -> ~/.agents/skills
  ~/.config/opencode/skills -> ~/.agents/skills

wire_claude_repo is deleted outright rather than gated behind a flag — on a
mixed-root fleet it cannot be made correct. Antigravity and Vibe targets go
too; both unused. CHECKOUT_DIR keeps its host-local default deliberately:
pointing it into ~/dev would put a git working tree inside iCloud with two
concurrent writers.

Taskfile drops five near-identical wiring loops (they had already drifted)
and delegates to install.sh. `task check` gains frontmatter validation, a
stray-root-entry gate, and manifest/tag version parity — the loose
secret-hygiene.md sat unloadable for months because nothing checked layout.

Verified: claude plugin validate . passes clean; a probe skill loaded as
skills:zzprobe through --plugin-dir; task check green at 42 skills.

Refs: #23
Bump-Type: minor

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BeAp5LTscnz2W7Ubt4eJ6m

2026-08-23 14:29:51 +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