Requesting Code Review

Dispatch code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade.

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 code-reviewer type, fill template at code-reviewer.md

Placeholders:

{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED} - What you just built
{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS} - What it should do
{BASE_SHA} - Starting commit
{HEAD_SHA} - Ending commit
{DESCRIPTION} - Brief summary

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]
  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/plans/deployment-plan.md
  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types

[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]

Task Tool Template

Task({
  task_id: 'task-1',
  subagent_type: 'general-purpose',
  model: 'sonnet',
  description: 'Code review for {DESCRIPTION}',
  prompt: `You are the CODE-REVIEWER agent.

## Instructions
1. Read your agent definition: .claude/agents/specialized/code-reviewer.md
2. Read memory: .claude/context/memory/learnings.md

## Review Request

### What Was Implemented
{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}

### Requirements/Plan
{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}

### Git Range to Review
**Base:** {BASE_SHA}
**Head:** {HEAD_SHA}

Run these commands to see the changes:
\`\`\`bash
git diff --stat {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
\`\`\`

## Memory Protocol
Record findings to .claude/context/memory/learnings.md when done.
`,
});

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 batch (3 tasks)
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

Iron Laws

ALWAYS capture BASE_SHA and HEAD_SHA before dispatching a review — without the exact commit range, the reviewer cannot produce accurate diff analysis.
NEVER skip code review because a change "seems simple" — small changes introduce the same classes of bugs as large ones; the author cannot see their own blind spots.
ALWAYS fix Critical issues before proceeding to the next task — unfixed critical issues compound and become harder to isolate as more code is layered on top.
NEVER argue with technically correct reviewer feedback — push back only when you have codebase evidence showing the reviewer lacks context or is factually wrong.
ALWAYS request review at every mandatory checkpoint (after each subagent task, after major features, before merge) — review requested too late cannot prevent compounding errors.

Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Why It Fails	Correct Approach
Skipping review for "small" changes	Small changes introduce the same classes of bugs as large ones; "simple" is subjective and unreliable	Request review at every mandatory checkpoint regardless of perceived complexity
Dispatching reviewer without git SHAs	Reviewer cannot produce an accurate diff without a commit range; the review is inaccurate or incomplete	Capture BASE_SHA and HEAD_SHA before every review dispatch
Proceeding past Critical issues	Critical issues compound; later tasks build on broken foundations that are expensive to fix retroactively	Fix all Critical issues before advancing to the next task
Treating reviewer feedback as optional	Optional review degrades code quality over time and compounds technical debt that can't be traced	Follow severity escalation: Critical → fix now, Important → fix before next task, Minor → note for later
Requesting review after batches of tasks instead of after each task	Errors from Task 1 contaminate Tasks 2–N; reviewers cannot isolate which task introduced which issue	Review after each individual task before starting the next one

Memory Protocol (MANDATORY)

Before starting: Read .claude/context/memory/learnings.md

After completing:

New pattern -> .claude/context/memory/learnings.md
Issue found -> .claude/context/memory/issues.md
Decision made -> .claude/context/memory/decisions.md

ASSUME INTERRUPTION: If it's not in memory, it didn't happen.