requesting-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
- License 许可
- MIT
- 所属仓库
- mrtolkien/GHOST
- 最近更新
- 2026-04-24
- Stars
- ★ 5
- Forks
- 0
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- requesting-review
- available
- coding
- description
- Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
02 资源文件 1
- 参考文档code-reviewer.md3.3 KB
03 SKILL.md 正文
Requesting Code Review
Dispatch a code-reviewer agent to catch issues before they cascade.
Core principle: Review early, review often.
When to Request Review
Mandatory:
- After each task in agent-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. Start a code-reviewer agent:
Use agent(action: "start", ...) with a code-reviewer agent. Provide:
{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)
[Start code-reviewer agent]
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
[Agent 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
Agent-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
Code Reviewer Prompt Template
When starting a code-reviewer agent, read the code-reviewer.md extra. It includes the
full review checklist, output format, and {PLACEHOLDER} variables to fill in.
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
04 同仓库更多 Skills
system-management
Use when reading or changing GHOST configuration (providers, models, timing, compaction, services, any config.toml key), adding or switching LLM providers, answering questions about GHOST's own features or capabilities, a CLI tool is missing or "not found", services need starting/stopping/debugging, updating GHOST to a newer version, managing the Nix shell environment, or troubleshooting GHOST setup.
writing-skills
Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment
writing-plans
Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code. Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste.
verification
Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs. Requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims. Evidence before assertions, always.
tdd
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code. Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes