The Full Loop of Request, Review, Receive
The Full Loop of Request, Review, Receive
superpowers core skill · code-review
In one line: Feeling good about your own code doesn't count. Have an independent subagent review it; and when you receive feedback, "verify before changing" — no mindless agreement.
Scenario: the coupon "redeem" feature is just written
The AI just finished the coupon-redeem code and says "tests pass, all good." But redemption is exactly where hidden bugs lurk: can the same coupon be used twice concurrently? Are the amount edges right? Reviewing your own work has blind spots — before merging, get an independent pair of eyes.
How to ask the AI
Request review — give it the commit range and "what it should do":
Use code-review on the coupon redeem I just wrote: dispatch a code-reviewer subagent, check BASE..HEAD
against the plan (docs/plans/coupon.md), focus on concurrent redemption and amount edges, report by Critical / Important / Minor.
When you receive review feedback, there's a right way too:
| ❌ Weak response | ✅ Strong response |
|---|---|
| You're absolutely right! Fixing now | (verify it's right first) Indeed no lock — fixed: added an optimistic lock |
| (five items) do the ones I understood | One item, "idempotency," is unclear — clarify first, then do them together |
| Reviewer says delete this, so delete | grep first to confirm the branch is truly unreachable, then decide |
Back up pushback with evidence (cite code / tests / concurrency load results), not stubbornness; if you were wrong, admit it in one line, no long apology.
How it'll walk you through it
For a request it takes the BASE/HEAD range and dispatches an independent code-reviewer subagent (it only gets the SHA range and requirement, not your chat, so it isn't swayed), outputting "Strengths / Issues (graded) / Assessment" — e.g. it catches "redeem isn't idempotent, concurrency allows double-redeem" (Critical). For reception you follow read -> verify against the codebase -> technical response -> fix one at a time, test each; when right, just say "Fixed. added a unique constraint on coupon id," no thank-you boilerplate.
Remember one line
code-review = independent subagent review + you receiving rationally. For features with concurrency/amount risk like coupon redemption, an independent subagent must look before merge; verify before changing when receiving — no mindless agreement, no stubbornness.