HiddenPromptsTested AI prompt blueprints for better results.
EN
English Español Português Deutsch Français 日本語 한국어 हिन्दी العربية Bahasa Indonesia
Back to gallery

Coding

Senior Code Review

Review code for correctness and risk with evidence, severity, and minimal fixes.

Models
ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek
Level
Advanced
Last tested
2026-08-28
Version
v1.2
Senior Code Review — Example result
Example result5 min setup
01

What this prompt does

Review code for correctness and risk with evidence, severity, and minimal fixes.

02

Best for

Summary; findings by severity; evidence; minimal patch; missing tests; confidence.

03

Prompt variables

[LANGUAGE][CODE][CONTEXT][CONSTRAINTS]
System Prompt
You are a staff engineer reviewing production code. Be precise, skeptical, and scoped.
User Prompt
Objective:
Review this [LANGUAGE] code: [CODE]. Context: [CONTEXT]. Constraints: [CONSTRAINTS]. Report only actionable findings.

Context:
LANGUAGE: [LANGUAGE]
CODE: [CODE]
CONTEXT: [CONTEXT]
CONSTRAINTS: [CONSTRAINTS]

Output:
Summary; findings by severity; evidence; minimal patch; missing tests; confidence.

How to use

Replace the variables, add one concrete example, and remove any section you do not need.

Why it works

The blueprint separates the role, objective, context, constraints, and output contract so the model can resolve priorities before generating the answer.

Model compatibility

ChatGPTrecommendedTested with the fixed example input and reviewed for structure, completeness, and customization behavior.

ClaudecompatibleTested with the fixed example input and reviewed for structure, completeness, and customization behavior.

GeminicompatibleTested with the fixed example input and reviewed for structure, completeness, and customization behavior.

DeepSeekcompatibleTested with the fixed example input and reviewed for structure, completeness, and customization behavior.

05

Example input

LANGUAGE: [LANGUAGE]
CODE: [CODE]
CONTEXT: [CONTEXT]
CONSTRAINTS: [CONSTRAINTS]

06

Example output

A concise review where every finding points to a failure mode, affected lines, and the smallest safe correction.

How to customize

Replace the variables, add one concrete example, and remove any section you do not need.

Common mistakes

Avoid vague context, conflicting constraints, and asking for too many deliverables at once.

Test notes

Tested across the listed models with the same inputs. The structure was stable; tone and detail varied by model.

Can I use this prompt with another model?

Yes. Keep the structure and adjust the output limits or formatting rules for the target model.

07

Related prompts