name: requesting-code-review description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements

Code Review

Perform systematic code review to catch issues before they cascade.

Core principle: Review early, review often.

When to Review

Mandatory:

• After completing major feature
• Before merge to main
• Before creating pull request

Optional but valuable:

• After each significant task in multi-task development
• When stuck (fresh perspective)
• Before refactoring (baseline check)
• After fixing complex bug

How to Perform Review

1. Get git SHAs:

BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

2. Review the changes:

# See what files changed
git diff --stat $BASE_SHA..$HEAD_SHA

# Review the actual changes
git diff $BASE_SHA..$HEAD_SHA

3. Check against requirements:

• Read the plan/requirements that guided this work
• Compare implementation against spec
• Verify all requirements are met

4. Evaluate code quality:

Code Quality:

• Clean separation of concerns?
• Proper error handling?
• Type safety (if applicable)?
• DRY principle followed?
• Edge cases handled?

Architecture:

• Sound design decisions?
• Scalability considerations?
• Performance implications?
• Security concerns?

Testing:

• Tests actually test logic (not mocks)?
• Edge cases covered?
• Integration tests where needed?
• All tests passing?

Production Readiness:

• Migration strategy (if schema changes)?
• Backward compatibility considered?
• Documentation complete?
• No obvious bugs?

5. Categorize issues found:

Critical (Must Fix):

• Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality

Important (Should Fix):

• Architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps

Minor (Nice to Have):

• Code style, optimization opportunities, documentation improvements

6. Fix issues:

• Fix Critical issues immediately
• Fix Important issues before proceeding
• Note Minor issues for later

Review Output Format

Document your review findings:

Strengths

[What's well done? Be specific with file:line references.]

Issues

Critical (Must Fix)

[List with file:line, what's wrong, why it matters, how to fix]

Important (Should Fix)

[List with file:line, what's wrong, why it matters, how to fix]

Minor (Nice to Have)

[List with file:line, what's wrong, why it matters]

Assessment

• Ready to merge? [Yes/No/With fixes]
• Reasoning: [1-2 sentence technical assessment]

Integration with Workflows

Executing Plans:

• Review after each batch (3 tasks)
• Fix issues before continuing

Ad-Hoc Development:

• Review before merge
• Review before PR creation

Red Flags

Never:

• Skip review because "it's simple"
• Ignore Critical issues
• Proceed with unfixed Important issues
• Say "looks good" without actually checking

Always:

• Be specific (file:line references)
• Explain WHY issues matter
• Give clear verdict (ready/not ready)
• Categorize by actual severity