React Email Template Development
Build React-based email templates, preview them locally and review components, styling and localization.
Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history.
Core principle: Review early, review often.
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
1. Get git SHAs:
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or: git merge-base origin/main HEAD
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:
Dispatch a general-purpose subagent, filling the template at code-reviewer.md
Placeholders:
- {DESCRIPTION} - Brief summary of what you built
- {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS} - What it should do
- {BASE_SHA} - Starting commit
- {HEAD_SHA} - Ending commit
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)
[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 code reviewer subagent]
DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
BASE_SHA: a7981ec
HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
[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]
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "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. |
| "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. |
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: code-reviewer.md
Source: obra · MIT · SHA-256 shown alongside the download.
License file included. A license and checksum are not a security certification. Review package instructions and scripts before running them.
obra-requesting-code-review/SKILL.md3090 bytesAn adaptation record is bundled. Inspect the declared changes and archived original before use. Review adaptation and original-file hashes →
Machine-readable installation guide →Records are supplied by the site administrator and bound to a specific package. They are not third-party safety certification. This page does not execute skills.
No published scenario records yet. Resource availability and download counts do not imply measured task performance.
Be the first to share your experience.
Sign in to leave a review →Build React-based email templates, preview them locally and review components, styling and localization.
Inspect documented Resend CLI operations for email, domains, templates and account administration.
Plan transactional email, templates, delivery events and account operations with Resend SDK references.
1 current outcome record · Read scope
Reference for the Claude API / Anthropic SDK — model ids, pricing, params, streaming, tool use, MCP, agents, caching, token counting, model …