Tag
A good code review catches more than syntax errors — it flags readability, performance, and edge cases before they ship. These prompts turn any diff into a structured review, ranked by what actually matters.
30 prompts · page 3 of 4
Takes review notes you've already worked out — the issues, not the raw diff — and turns them into 5 polished GitHub PR comments ready to post. Each one stays direct without being harsh, names the specific issue, explains its impact, and suggests a fix, capped at 80 words so reviewers actually read it. Useful when you already know what's wrong and just want the wording tightened before publishing.
A fixed, project-specific checklist for reviewing changes in a React/TypeScript plus FastAPI/Python codebase, not a generic "review this code" prompt. - Frontend: React Flow node patterns, Zustand store selectors, design tokens - Backend: Pydantic model layering, FastAPI auth dependencies, response models - Also covers security, performance, test coverage, docs, and commit hygiene - Reach for it before merging, to keep reviews consistent across the team
Built for the PR that looks trivial in the diff but quietly changes an assumption something downstream relies on. - Flags changed assumptions, edge cases, and null/empty handling - Checks off-by-one logic, state transitions, and API contract drift - For each issue: what changed, what it could break, and the smallest test that would have caught it
Reviews a pasted diff the way a security-focused application engineer would, prioritizing auth and authorization checks, input validation, secret handling, injection risks, unsafe defaults, and data exposure over general code quality. Every finding is labeled a confirmed vulnerability, a plausible risk, or something needing manual verification, and it won't speculate beyond what the code shows. Reach for it on changes touching permissions, secrets, or user input.
Reviews a PR the way a strict test reviewer would when the code looks fine but the test coverage feels shaky. It calls out missing negative and boundary tests, gaps in integration coverage, flaky test risks, and spots where implementation changed but the matching tests didn't. Returns the critical missing tests first, then useful additional ones, described as sample test cases in plain English.
Summarizes a pasted diff in exactly three bullets for a reviewer who has never seen this codebase: what changed, why it changed, and what could go wrong. It's built to name real classes, functions, and file paths rather than describe changes abstractly, and it doubles as a scope check — if the diff can't be summarized in three concrete bullets, the PR is probably too big.
Reviews a pasted PR or diff in two passes instead of one: the first pass lists every potential issue it can find, and the second pass critiques those findings and throws out anything weak or unsupported. The final output separates confirmed issues from possible risks and lists discarded findings with the reason they didn't hold up, which cuts down on the false alarms a single-pass review tends to produce.
Paste a diff along with your public API surface, schema context, and configuration context to get a structured audit of breaking changes before you ship a release. It checks renamed methods, changed signatures, request or response field changes, unmigrated schema changes, environment variable renames, and altered defaults, then returns a severity-ranked table with affected users, migration paths, and a deprecation strategy where one is needed.
Paste code along with its purpose, stack, module, and constraints to get a full-spectrum review covering correctness, security, performance, maintainability, error handling, accessibility, and test coverage in one pass. Returns a severity-ranked issues table, the top 3 priorities, positive observations, and specific tests to add — built to run right before merging a PR or handing code to a peer reviewer.