Requesting Code Review
TRIBUNAL — A tribunal is a formal body of judgment that delivers evidence-based verdicts. When invoked: dispatches a domain-aware code reviewer (ML / AI / Embedded / Frontend / Security), evaluates the work against spec and quality standards, and returns a structured verdict before anything merges.
Dispatch superpowers: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:
bashBASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or origin/main HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
2. Identify domain(s) — this changes the review checklist:
| Domain | Add to reviewer context |
|---|---|
| ML / Data Science | DOMAIN: ml — reviewer applies ML checklist |
| AI / RAG / Agents | DOMAIN: ai — reviewer applies AI safety checklist |
| Embedded / Firmware | DOMAIN: embedded — reviewer applies real-time checklist |
| Frontend / UI | DOMAIN: frontend — reviewer applies a11y + perf checklist |
| General backend | DOMAIN: backend — reviewer applies standard checklist |
| Security-critical | DOMAIN: security — reviewer applies OWASP + threat model |
| Multi-domain | List all: DOMAIN: ml, frontend |
3. 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{DOMAIN}- Domain(s) from table above — required, not optional
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/superpowers/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: tribunal/code-reviewer.md
