AI Prompts for Code Review

Review the following code for bugs, logic errors, and edge cases that could cause unexpected behavior. For each issue you find, explain: what the bug is, what input or condition would trigger it, and how to fix it. Code: [PASTE CODE]

This function is supposed to handle [DESCRIBE INTENDED BEHAVIOR]. Find the edge cases and boundary conditions it does not handle correctly. For each one, write a test case that would expose the failure and suggest the fix: [PASTE FUNCTION]

Review this code for error handling coverage. Where could this code fail silently, throw an unhandled exception, or return incorrect results without raising an error? For each gap, suggest the specific error handling that should be added: [PASTE CODE]

Walk through this function step by step for these specific inputs: [LIST INPUTS]. Show me what each variable holds at each step and whether the final output is correct. If you find a point where the logic diverges from the intended behavior, explain exactly what is happening: [PASTE FUNCTION]

Review this asynchronous code for race conditions, timing issues, and potential deadlocks. Identify any paths where the execution order matters and could produce different results. Suggest how to make the behavior deterministic: [PASTE CODE]

Review this code for security vulnerabilities including SQL injection, XSS, CSRF, insecure direct object references, hardcoded credentials, and improper input validation. For each vulnerability found, explain the risk and provide a concrete fix: [PASTE CODE]

Review this code for performance issues. Identify any unnecessary loops, repeated computations, N+1 query patterns, memory leaks, or blocking operations that could become bottlenecks at scale. For each issue, estimate the impact and suggest the optimization: [PASTE CODE]

Review these database queries for efficiency. Check for missing indexes, unnecessary full table scans, overly broad SELECT statements, and queries that should be batched. For each issue, explain the performance impact and write the optimized version: [PASTE QUERIES]

This code accepts external input. Review it for input validation and sanitization gaps. Where is user input used without validation? Where could malformed input cause unexpected behavior or security issues? Provide specific validation code for each gap: [PASTE CODE]

Review these API endpoints for security issues: missing authentication checks, overly permissive authorization, sensitive data exposed in responses, rate limiting gaps, and improper HTTP methods. For each issue, describe the attack vector and the fix: [PASTE ENDPOINTS/CODE]

Review this code for readability. Flag any variable names, function names, or structures that are unclear or misleading. Suggest specific renames and restructures that would make the code easier to understand for someone reading it for the first time: [PASTE CODE]

Review this code for violations of SOLID principles. Specifically look for: single-responsibility violations (classes doing too much), open-closed violations (code that requires modification to extend), and dependency inversion issues (tight coupling to concrete implementations). Suggest specific refactors: [PASTE CODE]

Review these tests for coverage and quality. Are there important code paths not tested? Are the tests testing behavior or implementation details? Do the tests actually fail when the code is broken? Identify the most critical gaps and write the missing test cases: [PASTE CODE AND TESTS]

Identify code duplication in this codebase section. For each instance of duplicated logic, suggest the refactored version that extracts the shared behavior. Only suggest abstractions where the duplication is genuinely identical or where a clear pattern exists: [PASTE CODE]

Review the documentation and comments in this code. Identify: comments that are out of date, comments that only describe what the code does rather than why, missing documentation for non-obvious behavior, and public APIs that lack adequate documentation. Rewrite the problematic comments and suggest what documentation to add: [PASTE CODE]

I want to flag this issue in a code review: [DESCRIBE THE ISSUE]. The code is: [PASTE CODE]. Write a review comment that is specific and actionable, explains the why not just the what, suggests the fix or direction, and is phrased to be constructive rather than critical. The developer is [JUNIOR/SENIOR/PEER].

I am reviewing code from a junior developer. The code works but has these issues: [LIST ISSUES]. Write review comments that: clearly explain the problems and the reasoning, frame the feedback as learning opportunities, suggest specific resources for the concepts they need to understand, and encourage while being honest. [PASTE RELEVANT CODE SECTIONS]

A reviewer left this comment on my code: [PASTE COMMENT]. I respectfully disagree because [YOUR REASONING]. Write a professional response that explains my position clearly, acknowledges the reviewer's point, and either proposes a compromise or asks for further discussion without being defensive.

I completed a review of a pull request that includes changes to [DESCRIBE CHANGES]. The issues I found are: [LIST ISSUES]. Write a review summary comment that: leads with the overall assessment, groups issues by severity (blocking, important, minor), explains my approval decision, and is constructive rather than gatekeeping.

I am about to submit a pull request for [DESCRIBE CHANGES]. Help me conduct a self-review before submitting. Give me a checklist specific to this type of change that covers: correctness, edge cases, security, performance, tests, documentation, and anything a reviewer is likely to flag. I want to catch my own issues before someone else does.