hermes-agent/skills/software-development/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

name, description, version, author, license, metadata

name	description	version	author	license	metadata
requesting-code-review	Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging. Validates work meets requirements through systematic review process.	1.1.0	Hermes Agent (adapted from obra/superpowers)	MIT	hermes tags related_skills code-review quality validation workflow review subagent-driven-development writing-plans test-driven-development

Requesting Code Review

Overview

Dispatch a reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. Review early, review often.

Core principle: Fresh perspective finds issues you'll miss.

When to Request Review

Mandatory:

• After each task in subagent-driven development
• After completing a major feature
• Before merge to main
• After bug fixes

Optional but valuable:

• When stuck (fresh perspective)
• Before refactoring (baseline check)
• After complex logic implementation
• When touching critical code (auth, payments, data)

Never skip because:

• "It's simple" — simple bugs compound
• "I'm in a hurry" — reviews save time
• "I tested it" — you have blind spots

Review Process

Step 1: Self-Review First

Before dispatching a reviewer, check yourself:

• Code follows project conventions
• All tests pass
• No debug print statements left
• No hardcoded secrets or credentials
• Error handling in place
• Commit messages are clear

# Run full test suite
pytest tests/ -q

# Check for debug code
search_files("print(", path="src/", file_glob="*.py")
search_files("console.log", path="src/", file_glob="*.js")

# Check for TODOs
search_files("TODO|FIXME|HACK", path="src/")

Step 2: Gather Context

# Changed files
git diff --name-only HEAD~1

# Diff summary
git diff --stat HEAD~1

# Recent commits
git log --oneline -5

Step 3: Dispatch Reviewer Subagent

Use delegate_task to dispatch a focused reviewer:

delegate_task(
    goal="Review implementation for correctness and quality",
    context="""
    WHAT WAS IMPLEMENTED:
    [Brief description of the feature/fix]

    ORIGINAL REQUIREMENTS:
    [From plan, issue, or user request]

    FILES CHANGED:
    - src/models/user.py (added User class)
    - src/auth/login.py (added login endpoint)
    - tests/test_auth.py (added 8 tests)

    REVIEW CHECKLIST:
    - [ ] Correctness: Does it do what it should?
    - [ ] Edge cases: Are they handled?
    - [ ] Error handling: Is it adequate?
    - [ ] Code quality: Clear names, good structure?
    - [ ] Test coverage: Are tests meaningful?
    - [ ] Security: Any vulnerabilities?
    - [ ] Performance: Any obvious issues?

    OUTPUT FORMAT:
    - Summary: [brief assessment]
    - Critical Issues: [must fix — blocks merge]
    - Important Issues: [should fix before merge]
    - Minor Issues: [nice to have]
    - Strengths: [what was done well]
    - Verdict: APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES
    """,
    toolsets=['file']
)

Step 4: Act on Feedback

Critical Issues (block merge):

• Security vulnerabilities
• Broken functionality
• Data loss risk
• Test failures
• Action: Fix immediately before proceeding

Important Issues (should fix):

• Missing edge case handling
• Poor error messages
• Unclear code
• Missing tests
• Action: Fix before merge if possible

Minor Issues (nice to have):

• Style preferences
• Refactoring suggestions
• Documentation improvements
• Action: Note for later or quick fix

If reviewer is wrong:

• Push back with technical reasoning
• Show code/tests that prove it works
• Request clarification

Review Dimensions

Correctness

• Does it implement the requirements?
• Are there logic errors?
• Do edge cases work?
• Are there race conditions?

Code Quality

• Is code readable?
• Are names clear and descriptive?
• Is it too complex? (Functions >20 lines = smell)
• Is there duplication?

Testing

• Are there meaningful tests?
• Do they cover edge cases?
• Do they test behavior, not implementation?
• Do all tests pass?

Security

• Any injection vulnerabilities?
• Proper input validation?
• Secrets handled correctly?
• Access control in place?

Performance

• Any N+1 queries?
• Unnecessary computation in loops?
• Memory leaks?
• Missing caching opportunities?

Review Output Format

Standard format for reviewer subagent output:

## Review Summary

**Assessment:** [Brief overall assessment]
**Verdict:** APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES

---

## Critical Issues (Fix Required)

1. **[Issue title]**
   - Location: `file.py:45`
   - Problem: [Description]
   - Suggestion: [How to fix]

## Important Issues (Should Fix)

1. **[Issue title]**
   - Location: `file.py:67`
   - Problem: [Description]
   - Suggestion: [How to fix]

## Minor Issues (Optional)

1. **[Issue title]**
   - Suggestion: [Improvement idea]

## Strengths

- [What was done well]

Integration with Other Skills

With subagent-driven-development

Review after EACH task — this is the two-stage review:

1. Spec compliance review (does it match the plan?)
2. Code quality review (is it well-built?)
3. Fix issues from either review
4. Proceed to next task only when both approve

With test-driven-development

Review verifies:

• Tests were written first (RED-GREEN-REFACTOR followed?)
• Tests are meaningful (not just asserting True)?
• Edge cases covered?
• All tests pass?

With writing-plans

Review validates:

• Implementation matches the plan?
• All tasks completed?
• Quality standards met?

Red Flags

Never:

• Skip review because "it's simple"
• Ignore Critical issues
• Proceed with unfixed Important issues
• Argue with valid technical feedback without evidence

Quality Gates

Must pass before merge:

• No critical issues
• All tests pass
• Review verdict: APPROVE
• Requirements met

Should pass before merge:

• No important issues
• Documentation updated
• Performance acceptable

Remember

Review early
Review often
Be specific
Fix critical issues first
Quality over speed

A good review catches what you missed.