<< All versions

Skill v1.0.0

currentAutomated scan100/100
gadaalabs/claude-code-on-steroids/tribunal
──Details
PublishedOctober 24, 2026 at 01:39 PM
Content Hashsha256:ff832a804156fec2...
Git SHA9f896f87b22b
──Files
Files (1 file, 3.9 KB)
SKILL.md3.9 KBactive
SKILL.md · 123 lines · 3.9 KB

version: "1.0.0" name: tribunal description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements


Requesting Code Review

TRIBUNAL — A tribunal is a formal body of judgment that delivers evidence-based verdicts. When invoked: dispatches a domain-aware code reviewer (ML / AI / Embedded / Frontend / Security), evaluates the work against spec and quality standards, and returns a structured verdict before anything merges.

Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.

Core principle: Review early, review often.

When to Request Review

Mandatory:

  • After each task in subagent-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:

bash
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

2. Identify domain(s) — this changes the review checklist:

DomainAdd to reviewer context
ML / Data ScienceDOMAIN: ml — reviewer applies ML checklist
AI / RAG / AgentsDOMAIN: ai — reviewer applies AI safety checklist
Embedded / FirmwareDOMAIN: embedded — reviewer applies real-time checklist
Frontend / UIDOMAIN: frontend — reviewer applies a11y + perf checklist
General backendDOMAIN: backend — reviewer applies standard checklist
Security-criticalDOMAIN: security — reviewer applies OWASP + threat model
Multi-domainList all: DOMAIN: ml, frontend

3. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:

Use Task tool with superpowers:code-reviewer type, fill template at code-reviewer.md

Placeholders:

  • {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
  • {DOMAIN} - Domain(s) from table above — required, not optional

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)
[Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent]
WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
BASE_SHA: a7981ec
HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
[Subagent 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

Subagent-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

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

See template at: tribunal/code-reviewer.md

All versions