๐ Full Skill Source โ This is the complete, unedited SKILL.md file. Nothing is hidden or summarized.
Code Review โ Request + Receive + Complete โ
Full review lifecycle in one skill: Request โ Receive โ Integrate.
Part A: Requesting Code Review โ
When to Request โ
Mandatory:
- After each task in
cm-execution - After completing major features
- Before merge to main
Optional but valuable:
- When stuck (fresh perspective)
- Before refactoring (baseline check)
- After fixing complex bugs
How to Request โ
Get git SHAs:
bashBASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)Dispatch reviewer subagent with:
- What was implemented
- Plan/requirements reference
- Base and head SHAs
- Brief description
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)
Part B: Receiving Code Review โ
When to Use โ
When receiving feedback โ whether from human reviewers, AI reviewers, or code review subagents.
The Protocol โ
1. READ feedback completely before responding
2. UNDERSTAND the technical reasoning
3. VERIFY if the feedback is technically correct
4. RESPOND with evidence, not agreementResponse Framework โ
| Feedback Type | Response |
|---|---|
| Technically correct | Fix it. Thank reviewer. |
| Unclear intent | Ask for clarification with specific questions |
| Technically questionable | Challenge with evidence (code, tests, docs) |
| Stylistic preference | Discuss trade-offs, defer to team convention |
Red Flags โ STOP โ
- Blindly implementing all suggestions without verification
- "Performative agreement" โ saying yes without understanding
- Implementing a suggestion that breaks existing tests
- Making changes you can't justify technically
Anti-Pattern: Performative Agreement โ
โ "Good catch! Fixed." (without verifying it's actually a problem)
โ
"I verified this: [evidence]. The suggestion is correct because [reason]. Fixed."
โ
"I investigated this: [evidence]. The current code is correct because [reason]."Part C: Finishing a Development Branch โ
When to Use โ
When implementation is complete and all tests pass.
The Process โ
Verify current state:
bashnpm run test:gate # All tests must pass git status # Working tree should be cleanPresent options to user:
Option When Command Merge to main Feature ready git checkout main && git merge feature-branchCreate PR Needs team review git push origin feature-branchKeep working More tasks remain Continue on branch Cleanup only Abandoned/merged git worktree remove pathExecute chosen option
Cleanup:
- Remove worktree if using
cm-git-worktrees - Delete feature branch if merged
- Update task tracking
- Remove worktree if using
Rules โ
- Never merge with failing tests
- Never force push main/production
- Always use
cm-identity-guardbefore git push
Integration โ
| Skill | Relationship |
|---|---|
cm-execution | Reviews after each task in execution |
cm-quality-gate | Tests must pass before finishing branch |
cm-identity-guard | Before git push |
cm-git-worktrees | Cleanup worktree after completion |
The Bottom Line โ
Review early. Verify feedback. Ship with evidence, not hope.