fd4c3c2fc7
- Introduced graphviz conventions for visualizing process flows in writing skills. - Added a comprehensive guide on persuasion principles to improve skill design effectiveness. - Implemented a script to render graphviz diagrams from markdown files to SVG format. - Created a detailed reference for testing skills with subagents, emphasizing TDD principles. - Established a task tracker template for live task management. - Developed a shell script to check the integrity of the antigravity profile and required files. - Added test scripts to validate the initialization of agent projects. - Created workflows for brainstorming, executing plans, and writing plans to streamline processes.
116 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
116 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: requesting-code-review
|
|
description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Requesting Code Review
|
|
|
|
Run a structured review pass to catch issues before they cascade.
|
|
|
|
**Core principle:** Review early, review often.
|
|
|
|
## When to Request Review
|
|
|
|
**Mandatory:**
|
|
|
|
- After each task in single-flow task execution
|
|
- 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. Run structured code review checklist:**
|
|
|
|
Use `requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md` template and review the diff against requirements. In Antigravity single-flow mode, do not dispatch generic coding agents.
|
|
|
|
**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)
|
|
|
|
[Run checklist-based review]
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
[Review 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
|
|
|
|
**Single-Flow Task Execution:**
|
|
|
|
- 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
|