Requesting Code Review

Delegate a code-reviewer worker via teams to catch issues before they cascade.

Core principle: Review early, review often.

When to Request Review

Mandatory:

• After each task in teams-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. Delegate code-reviewer worker via teams:

Use teams(action: 'delegate', ...) with code-reviewer worker, 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)

[teams delegate code-reviewer worker] WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from plan ticket (tagged plan) BASE_SHA: a7981ec HEAD_SHA: 3df7661 DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types

[Worker 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

Teams-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