Review
Audit diffs for correctness, security, and readiness before shipping.
Diff review A focused correctness pass on the change you just made. Review Adversarial review Best practices
Review my current diff for correctness bugs and edge cases only. List findings by severity (high/medium/low). Skip style nits and formatting.Edge-case hunt Find the tests you forgot to write. Review Find edge cases Common workflows
Analyze these code paths and list the tests I'm missing — error conditions, boundary values, and unexpected inputs I haven't covered. Don't write them yet, just enumerate the gaps.Explain-back Understand unfamiliar code and catch surprises in it. Review Ask like a senior Best practices
Explain what @<file> does in plain language, step by step. Then flag anything that looks unintentional or inconsistent with the rest of the module.Fresh-context adversarial review An unbiased review that won't rubber-stamp your own code. Review Adversarial review Best practices
In a fresh context, review this diff and report only gaps that affect correctness or the stated requirements — ignore style. For each finding give the file, the risk, and a concrete fix.Performance sniff Catch scaling problems before they hit production. Review Ask like a senior Best practices
Scan @<file> for performance issues that matter at scale — N+1 queries, needless allocations in hot paths, blocking calls in async code. Only flag things with real impact, and estimate the cost of each.PR-ready check Self-review a PR the way a demanding reviewer would. Review Adversarial review Common workflows
Act as a strict reviewer. Does this change actually do what the PR description claims? Call out untested paths, missing error handling, and anything that would block approval.Review against the plan Verify the change actually matches the agreed plan. Review Review vs plan Best practices
Review the diff against PLAN.md: is every requirement implemented, are the listed edge cases tested, and did anything change that was out of scope? List gaps and scope creep separately.Security pass A targeted security review of sensitive code. Review Adversarial review Best practices
Audit @<file> for injection, auth, and secret-handling issues. For each finding give the concrete risk, a reproduction path, and a specific fix. Ignore theoretical issues that can't happen given how it's called.Structured review rubric Get a review you can parse by concern. Review Structure with XML Prompting
Review this diff and structure your findings with XML tags — <correctness>, <security>, <performance>, <style> — so I can scan each category separately. Put the most serious issues first within each.Writer / Reviewer split Get reviewer eyes that aren't biased toward the author. Review Adversarial review Best practices
You didn't write this code. Review <file> for edge cases, race conditions, and consistency with our existing patterns. Be skeptical and assume there's at least one problem.No prompts match your filters.