← Index11 entries · By Task
Section IV · For the Task

Prompts for reviewing code

Prompts for getting senior-engineer-level code reviews on diffs and pull requests.

§ Overview

Code review is the kind of careful, repetitive scrutiny that AI is genuinely good at, especially on the parts humans skim when they're tired. Drop a diff or a pull request into the Perform a Thorough Code Review on a Pull Request prompt and you get senior-engineer-style feedback that's categorized and references specific files, so it reads like a real review rather than a vague "looks good." It's a fast second pair of eyes before a teammate spends theirs.

This collection treats review as a cluster of related checks. The Run a Security Review on Code prompt aligns findings to OWASP with severity ratings, the Audit Code for Performance Bottlenecks and Optimize a Slow Function prompts surface hot paths with explicit tradeoffs, and the Generate Unit Tests prompts let you probe coverage gaps the diff quietly introduced. The Refactor Code for Readability prompt and the Write a Clear Git Commit Message prompt round out the loop. AI's biggest value here is catching the boring-but-costly stuff: an unhandled error path, an off-by-one, a missing test for the branch you just added.

§ Field Notes

What makes a good prompt for reviewing code

A good code-review prompt gives the model context it can't infer from the diff alone: the language and framework, what the change is supposed to do, and what you specifically want scrutinized, whether that's security, performance, or readability. Asking it to categorize findings and rate severity stops it from burying a real bug under five style nitpicks.

The other half is grounding. Provide enough surrounding code that the model isn't guessing about types or call sites, and ask it to flag assumptions it's making. A review that says "if `userId` can be null here, this throws" is far more useful than one that confidently asserts a bug that doesn't exist in code it never saw.

§ Pro Tips

Get sharper results

  • 01Tell the model what the change is meant to accomplish before pasting the diff, so it reviews against intent rather than guessing the purpose from syntax.
  • 02Ask explicitly for severity-ranked findings (blocking, should-fix, nit) so you can triage instead of treating every comment as equally urgent.
  • 03Run the security and performance prompts as separate passes rather than one mega-review, since a focused prompt catches more than a kitchen-sink one.
  • 04Have it propose unit tests for any branch it flags as risky, turning a review comment into a concrete regression guard you can actually commit.
§ FAQ

Common questions

Can AI replace a human reviewer on my team?

No, and it shouldn't try to. It's excellent at catching mechanical issues, missing edge cases, and inconsistent patterns, which frees your human reviewers to focus on architecture, intent, and tradeoffs the model can't judge. Treat it as the first pass that makes the human pass faster.

Why does the AI flag bugs that aren't actually there?

Usually because it can't see the full context, like a validation that happens upstream or a type guarantee from a function you didn't paste. Give it more surrounding code and ask it to state its assumptions, then dismiss findings that rest on context it was missing.

How much code can I review at once?

Smaller is better. A focused diff or a single file gets sharper, more reliable feedback than dumping an entire pull request. For large changes, break the review into logical chunks and review each against its specific purpose.

§ The Prompts · 11
№ 002coding

Perform a Thorough Code Review on a Pull Request

Get a senior-engineer-style code review with categorized, file-referenced feedback.

For
claude·chatgpt
№ 021coding

Refactor Code for Readability and Maintainability

Refactor any code for readability and maintainability without changing its behavior.

For
claude·chatgpt
№ 022coding

Generate Unit Tests for a Function

Generate comprehensive unit tests with happy path, edge cases, and failure modes.

For
claude·chatgpt
№ 023coding

Write a Clear Git Commit Message

Generate a Conventional Commits-compliant git commit message with context and rationale.

For
claude·chatgpt
№ 027coding

Audit Code for Performance Bottlenecks

Identify performance bottlenecks in code and get ranked, impact-focused optimization suggestions.

For
claude·chatgpt
№ 028coding

Run a Security Review on Code

Get an OWASP-aligned security review with severity ratings and remediation snippets.

For
claude·chatgpt
№ 098coding

Design a Clean REST API for a New Resource

Get a complete REST endpoint design with shapes, errors, and idempotency notes.

For
claude·chatgpt
№ 099coding

Write Unit Tests for an Existing Function

Generate a thorough unit test suite covering happy path, branches, edges, and errors.

For
claude·chatgpt
№ 100coding

Optimize a Slow Function With Specific Tradeoffs

Get a ranked list of optimizations with complexity analysis and explicit tradeoffs.

For
claude·chatgpt
№ 176coding

Refactor a long, tangled function into smaller, testable units

Breaks an overgrown function into smaller, single-responsibility units while preserving behavior and the public signature.

For
chatgpt·claude
№ 181coding

Turn a diff into a clear, reviewer-friendly PR description

Converts a diff and context into a structured, reviewer-friendly pull request description and title.

For
chatgpt·claude