Requesting Code Review (Structured Review: Requirements Alignment + Production Readiness)
Goal: Make code review a repeatable process, not random comments.
Core principle: Review early, review often.
When Review is Required
Mandatory:
- •After completing important features
- •After each batch in
workflow-execute-plansends (default 3 tasks per batch) - •Before merging to main branch
Optional but valuable:
- •When stuck (get a fresh perspective)
- •Before major refactoring (establish baseline first)
- •After fixing complex bugs (verify no new regressions)
How to Initiate (Minimum Information Set)
1) Determine Review Scope (git SHA)
Prefer using "baseline before plan/task started" as BASE_SHA:
# Common approach: use main as baseline BASE_SHA=$(git merge-base HEAD main 2>/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD master) HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
If you want to review just the most recent commit within a small task:
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
2) Prepare Review Basis (Plan / Requirements)
Review must provide:
- •WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: What you just completed (1-3 bullet points)
- •PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Corresponding plan excerpt or requirements document path (e.g.,
run_dir/03-plans/feature-plan.md)
3) Get diff (Evidence)
git diff --stat "$BASE_SHA..$HEAD_SHA" git diff "$BASE_SHA..$HEAD_SHA"
Review Execution Methods (Choose One)
Method A: Sub-Agent Review (if your system supports it)
Use template: review-merge-readiness/code-reviewer.md, fill in placeholders and execute.
Method B: Self Review (works without sub-agent)
Check each item per template checklist and output same structured result (Strengths + Issues by severity + Verdict).
Review Output Format (Must Be Structured)
Output must include:
- •Strengths: Specific positives (at least 1)
- •Issues: Categorized by severity:
- •Critical (Must Fix): Security/data loss/functionality bugs/would cause production incidents
- •Important (Should Fix): Obviously poor architecture/missing error handling/test gaps/requirements misalignment
- •Minor (Nice to Have): Style/small optimizations/documentation polish
- •Assessment: Merge readiness (Yes/No/With fixes) + 1-2 sentence technical reasoning
Each Issue must include:
- •Location:
file:line - •What's wrong
- •Why it matters
- •How to fix (provide minimal change suggestion)
Relationship with Other Review Skills
- •
review-clean-code: More focused on "maintainability/cleanliness", suitable for deep code smell investigation - •
review-react-best-practices: More focused on React/Next.js performance patterns (waterfalls/bundle/re-renders). Use when the diff touches React UI, data fetching, or performance-sensitive areas. - •This skill: More focused on "requirements alignment/production readiness/merge verdict" conclusion-oriented review
If you just need a "can we merge?" verdict: use this skill.
If you want a deep health check: additionally invoke review-clean-code.