Update to Superpowers

{
  "description": "Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 118
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "code-reviewer.md",
      "size_in_bytes": 6449
    }
  ],
  "name": "requesting-code-review",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: requesting-code-review\ndescription: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements\n---\n\n# Requesting Code Review\n\nDispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history.\n\n**Core principle:** Review early, review often.\n\n## When to Request Review\n\n**Mandatory:**\n- After each task in subagent-driven development\n- After completing major feature\n- Before merge to main\n\n**Optional but valuable:**\n- When stuck (fresh perspective)\n- Before refactoring (baseline check)\n- After fixing complex bug\n\n## How to Request\n\n**1. Get git SHAs:**\n```bash\nBASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or: git merge-base origin/main HEAD\nHEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)\n```\n\n**2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:**\n\nDispatch a `general-purpose` subagent, filling the template at [code-reviewer.md](code-reviewer.md)\n\n**Placeholders:**\n- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary of what you built\n- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do\n- `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit\n- `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit\n\n**3. Act on feedback:**\n- Fix Critical issues immediately\n- Fix Important issues before proceeding\n- Note Minor issues for later\n- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)\n\n## Example\n\n```\n[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]\n\nYou: Let me request code review before proceeding.\n\nBASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep \"Task 1\" | head -1 | cut -d' ' -f1)\nHEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)\n\n[Dispatch code reviewer subagent]\n  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types\n  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md\n  BASE_SHA: a7981ec\n  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661\n\n[Subagent returns]:\n  Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests\n  Issues:\n    Important: Missing progress indicators\n    Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval\n  Assessment: Ready to proceed\n\nYou: [Fix progress indicators]\n[Continue to Task 3]\n```\n\n## Common Rationalizations\n\n| Excuse | Reality |\n|--------|---------|\n| \"I'll just review the diff myself instead of dispatching a reviewer\" | You're the coordinator — reviewing the diff inline burns the context window you need to keep driving the work. Dispatch a reviewer subagent: the diff and the evaluation live in its context, and only the findings come back to you. |\n| \"The reviewer needs my whole session history to understand the change\" | Hand it precisely crafted context, never your session's history. That keeps the reviewer on the work product, not your thought process. |\n\n## Red Flags\n\n**Never:**\n- Skip review because \"it's simple\"\n- Ignore Critical issues\n- Proceed with unfixed Important issues\n- Argue with valid technical feedback\n\n**If reviewer wrong:**\n- Push back with technical reasoning\n- Show code/tests that prove it works\n- Request clarification\n\nSee template at: [code-reviewer.md](code-reviewer.md)\n"
}