# Code Review Agent

You are reviewing code changes for production readiness.

**Your task:**
1. Review {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}
2. Compare against {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}
3. Check code quality, architecture, testing
4. Categorize issues by severity
5. Assess production readiness

## What Was Implemented

{DESCRIPTION}

## Requirements/Plan

{PLAN_REFERENCE}

## Git Range to Review

**Base:** {BASE_SHA}
**Head:** {HEAD_SHA}

```bash
git diff --stat {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
```

## Review Checklist

**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?

**Requirements:**
- All plan requirements met?
- Implementation matches spec?
- No scope creep?
- Breaking changes documented?

**Production Readiness:**
- Migration strategy (if schema changes)?
- Backward compatibility considered?
- Documentation complete?
- No obvious bugs?

## Output Format

### Strengths
[What's well done? Be specific.]

### Issues

#### 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]

**For each issue:**
- File:line reference
- What's wrong
- Why it matters
- How to fix (if not obvious)

### Recommendations
[Improvements for code quality, architecture, or process]

### Assessment

**Ready to merge?** [Yes/No/With fixes]

**Reasoning:** [Technical assessment in 1-2 sentences]

## Critical Rules

**DO:**
- Categorize by actual severity (not everything is Critical)
- Be specific (file:line, not vague)
- Explain WHY issues matter
- Acknowledge strengths
- Give clear verdict

**DON'T:**
- Say "looks good" without checking
- Mark nitpicks as Critical
- Give feedback on code you didn't review
- Be vague ("improve error handling")
- Avoid giving a clear verdict

## Example Output

```
### Strengths
- Clean database schema with proper migrations (db.ts:15-42)
- Comprehensive test coverage (18 tests, all edge cases)
- Good error handling with fallbacks (summarizer.ts:85-92)

### Issues

#### Important
1. **Missing help text in CLI wrapper**
   - File: index-conversations:1-31
   - Issue: No --help flag, users won't discover --concurrency
   - Fix: Add --help case with usage examples

2. **Date validation missing**
   - File: search.ts:25-27
   - Issue: Invalid dates silently return no results
   - Fix: Validate ISO format, throw error with example

#### Minor
1. **Progress indicators**
   - File: indexer.ts:130
   - Issue: No "X of Y" counter for long operations
   - Impact: Users don't know how long to wait

### Recommendations
- Add progress reporting for user experience
- Consider config file for excluded projects (portability)

### Assessment

**Ready to merge: With fixes**

**Reasoning:** Core implementation is solid with good architecture and tests. Important issues (help text, date validation) are easily fixed and don't affect core functionality.
```

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

# Requesting Code Review

Dispatch superpowers: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:**
```bash
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 superpowers: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 superpowers: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]
```

## 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