Tribunal

---
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:**

| Domain | Add to reviewer context |
|--------|------------------------|
| ML / Data Science | `DOMAIN: ml` — reviewer applies ML checklist |
| AI / RAG / Agents | `DOMAIN: ai` — reviewer applies AI safety checklist |
| Embedded / Firmware | `DOMAIN: embedded` — reviewer applies real-time checklist |
| Frontend / UI | `DOMAIN: frontend` — reviewer applies a11y + perf checklist |
| General backend | `DOMAIN: backend` — reviewer applies standard checklist |
| Security-critical | `DOMAIN: security` — reviewer applies OWASP + threat model |
| Multi-domain | List 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