AI Prompts for Cursor for Code Review

Review this code and give me a structured report. Format it as: (1) Summary: what this code does and what problem it solves; (2) Architecture: does the structure make sense, are there any design concerns; (3) Correctness: any bugs, logic errors, or missing edge cases; (4) Security: any vulnerabilities or unsafe patterns; (5) Performance: any obvious inefficiencies; (6) Style: any naming, formatting, or convention issues. Be specific about line numbers where relevant. Code: [PASTE CODE].

Summarize what this pull request changes and why, in terms a reviewer can act on. Cover: what the code does before and after, the core technical decision made, what risk the change introduces, and what a reviewer should focus most attention on. Do not list every file changed, synthesize the change into a clear narrative. PR diff or description: [PASTE].

Read this code change and identify the parts that carry the most risk. Rank them by: probability of introducing a bug, blast radius if something goes wrong, and difficulty of catching the issue in testing. For the top three risks, describe exactly what could go wrong and what I should check before approving this. Code: [PASTE].

The stated goal of this code is: [DESCRIBE WHAT IT SHOULD DO]. Read the implementation and tell me whether it actually accomplishes that goal. Specifically: does it handle all the cases the goal implies, are there scenarios the code misses, and is there anything in the implementation that suggests a misunderstanding of the requirements? Code: [PASTE].

Review this code and flag any decisions that are: technically correct but debatable, likely to be questioned in review, performance choices that trade readability for speed, or patterns that differ from how this problem is typically solved. These are the things I should discuss with the team before merging rather than approve silently. Code: [PASTE].

Do a security-focused review of this code. Check for: injection vulnerabilities (SQL, shell, HTML), authentication or authorization issues, insecure data handling (logging sensitive data, insecure storage, missing encryption), input validation gaps, CSRF or CORS misconfigurations, use of deprecated or unsafe APIs, and hardcoded secrets or credentials. Rate each finding as Critical, High, Medium, or Low and suggest the fix. Code: [PASTE].

What edge cases does this code not handle? Think about: null or undefined inputs, empty arrays or objects, very large inputs or numbers near integer limits, concurrent calls to the same function, network or database failures mid-operation, and inputs that are technically valid but unusual. For each edge case, describe what the current code would do and what it should do instead. Code: [PASTE].

Review this code for performance issues. Look for: unnecessary re-computation inside loops, missing memoization or caching where repeated calls are likely, database queries inside loops (N+1 problem), synchronous operations that should be async or parallelized, memory leaks from subscriptions or event listeners that are never cleaned up, and overly large data structures being passed by value. Code: [PASTE].

Review the tests for this code change. Identify: any meaningful behavior path that is not tested, any test that is testing implementation rather than behavior, any test that would not catch a real bug because it is too tightly coupled to the current implementation, and any happy path that is tested but edge cases that are not. Code being tested: [PASTE]. Test file: [PASTE].

This code changes or extends a public API. Review it for backward compatibility. Check: are any existing call signatures changed in a breaking way, are new required parameters added to existing functions, are any return types or shapes changed in ways that could break callers, and are there any implicit behavioral changes that callers depend on. Current API: [PASTE]. New code: [PASTE].

Write a clear, constructive code review comment for this issue I found. Issue: [DESCRIBE THE PROBLEM]. The comment should: describe what the current code does wrong or could do better, explain why it matters (not just that it is bad style), and suggest a specific fix or point toward a better approach. Tone: direct and helpful, not condescending. The author is [JUNIOR / MID-LEVEL / SENIOR].

For each issue in this code, write an inline review suggestion formatted as a GitHub PR comment. Each comment should include: the problematic line or block, a brief explanation of the issue, and a suggested change in a code block. Code with issues: [PASTE].

I have reviewed this PR and found the following issues: [LIST YOUR FINDINGS]. Write a top-line PR review comment that: summarizes the overall quality of the code, identifies the most important issues to address before merging, and lists optional suggestions that would be nice to have but are not blockers. Tone: collegial and specific, not generic praise or criticism.

I want to approve this PR but have some non-blocking comments. Write an approval message that: clearly approves the merge, notes the non-blocking suggestions I should raise, and makes it easy for the author to address them in a follow-up PR if they choose. My non-blocking findings: [DESCRIBE]. The PR does what it sets out to do and the core quality is good.

I found this issue during review: [DESCRIBE]. The author is a junior developer. Rewrite my explanation of this issue in a way that: is clearly educational rather than critical, explains the underlying principle not just the rule, includes a simple code example if helpful, and makes the author feel capable of fixing it rather than defensive.

Based on these review findings: [PASTE REVIEW COMMENTS OR YOUR LIST], make the corresponding changes to this code. For each change: show the before and after, note which review comment it addresses, and flag if any finding requires more information from the author before it can be fixed. Code: [PASTE].

The review identified these uncovered code paths: [LIST]. Write tests that cover each uncovered case. Use [TEST FRAMEWORK]. The tests should: be independent, test behavior not implementation, have descriptive names, and demonstrate that the code handles each case correctly. Code being tested: [PASTE].

The security review flagged this vulnerability: [DESCRIBE]. Here is the affected code: [PASTE]. Fix this vulnerability with the minimal change required. Show the fixed code, explain what made the original code vulnerable, and note whether this pattern appears elsewhere in the codebase and needs to be searched for and fixed there too.

A reviewer left this comment on my code: [PASTE COMMENT]. I need to respond. Either: (1) if they are correct, write a brief acknowledgment and show the fix; (2) if I disagree, write a respectful explanation of my reasoning and ask for their perspective; or (3) if I need more context, write a specific question that will help me understand what they want. Code in question: [PASTE].

Based on the review issues we found in this PR, create a reusable checklist I can run on future code changes before submitting for review. Organize it by category: correctness, security, performance, tests, style. Each item should be a specific yes/no question I can answer by reading the code. Issues found: [LIST].