# Request Review

> Dispatch a fresh reviewer agent with a clean context to critique the code after audit-code passes. The reviewer has no shared state with the coding agent and gives a genuine second opinion. Use after audit-code passes, before committing, or when user wants an independent code review.

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-danielvm-git-bigpowers-request-review`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [danielvm-git](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/danielvm-git)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Cloud & Infrastructure](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/cloud-infrastructure)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [danielvm-git](https://github.com/danielvm-git)
- **Source:** https://github.com/danielvm-git/bigpowers/tree/main/.gemini/extensions/bigpowers/skills/request-review
- **Website:** https://github.com/danielvm-git/bigpowers

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-danielvm-git-bigpowers-request-review
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

# Request Review

Dispatch a fresh reviewer agent with a clean context. The reviewer has no shared state — it can give a genuine second opinion because it hasn't been involved in writing the code.

**Distinct from `audit-code`:** `audit-code` is the coding agent checking its own work (internal). This skill dispatches an external agent whose job is to find what the coding agent missed.

**Solo developer note:** This replaces the human reviewer. The reviewer agent IS the reviewer.

**Run `audit-code` first.** This skill assumes `audit-code` has already passed. Don't waste a reviewer's attention on hygiene issues you could have caught yourself.

## Process

### 1. Prepare the review brief

Write a self-contained brief for the reviewer agent. Include:

- What was built (feature description, not implementation)
- Which files changed (the diff context)
- What `specs/` artifacts are relevant (active `epics/eNN-*.yaml`, `requirements/SCOPE_LATEST.yaml`, `bugs/BUG-*.md`)
- What CONVENTIONS.md requires
- What the verify command is
- What you're most uncertain about (where you want fresh eyes)
- **Security focus** — If the epic has a `specs/security/epics//THREAT_MODEL.md`, include the relevant vulnerability categories as reviewer focal points. Also include the false-positive exclusion rules so the reviewer avoids known-safe patterns. Tag the review as `security-sensitive: true` if THREAT_MODEL risk is HIGH+.

### 2. Dispatch the reviewer agent

Use the Agent tool with a completely fresh context. The agent prompt must be self-contained — no references to "our conversation" or "what we discussed."

```
You are a code reviewer. Review the following code changes.

Context: [feature description]
CONVENTIONS.md rules: [paste relevant sections]
Active epic shard: [paste or summarize from specs/epics/]

Diff: [paste git diff or describe changed files]

Verify command: [runnable command]

Review for:
1. Correctness — does the code do what was intended?
2. CONVENTIONS.md compliance — are all rules followed?
3. Test quality — do tests verify behavior (not implementation)?
4. Design — are there simpler or more robust approaches?
5. Edge cases — what inputs or states could cause failures?
6. Security — any injection, auth, or data exposure risks?

For each finding, categorize as: must-fix / should-fix / consider.
Run the verify command and report the result.
```

### 3. Collect the report

When the reviewer returns:
- Read every finding before acting on any
- Note the verify command result
- Compute the quality score: `100 × (total_items − must_fix − should_fix) / total_items`
- Report the score to the user

> **HARD GATE** — If score < 94%, do NOT merge. Run `respond-review` to resolve must-fix and should-fix findings first. The 94% threshold also applies to the compliance SCORE computed by `npm run compliance` (scripts/audit-compliance.sh): SCORE = passing Gherkin scenarios / total × 100.

### 4. Hand off to respond-review

Pass the reviewer's report to `respond-review` to categorize findings and apply fixes.

Report to user: "Review complete. [N] findings: [X] must-fix, [Y] should-fix, [Z] consider. Running respond-review."

## Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

- **Author:** [danielvm-git](https://github.com/danielvm-git)
- **Source:** [danielvm-git/bigpowers](https://github.com/danielvm-git/bigpowers)
- **License:** MIT
- **Homepage:** https://github.com/danielvm-git/bigpowers

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-danielvm-git-bigpowers-request-review
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/danielvm-git
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.