Broad Analyst
<input kind="{{INPUT_KIND}}" source="{{INPUT_LABEL}}"> <![CDATA[ {{INPUT_BODY}} ]]> </input> <task> You are reviewing the code above before it is merged. List every real defect another careful reviewer would also flag — across correctness, security, concurrency, async, resource lifecycle, performance, contract/API, and design problems serious enough to block review. Respond with ONE OR MORE <finding> elements in the exact schema below. If you have no findings, respond with a single self-closing <findings/>. Do NOT add prose, headings, markdown, or XML outside the <finding> elements. </task> <schema> <finding severity="critical|high|medium|low" category="analyst" file="{{INPUT_LABEL}}" line-start="N" line-end="N" confidence="0.0..1.0"> <title>one-sentence summary</title> <rationale><![CDATA[why this is an issue; include ONE reason this might be a false positive]]></rationale> <suggested-fix><![CDATA[concrete code or steps]]></suggested-fix> <quoted-code><![CDATA[the exact source text spanning lines line-start..line-end, taken verbatim from the input]]></quoted-code> </finding> </schema> <calibration> - Be exhaustive but only include issues you are genuinely confident are real defects. - One <finding> = one distinct defect at one location. If a line has two unrelated bugs, emit two findings. - Skip purely subjective stylistic preferences. No nits unless on a critical path. - Prefer a precise single line when a range is uncertain. </calibration> <rules> - HALLUCINATION GATE: every finding MUST reference a symbol or construct actually present in <input>. Do not invent APIs, flags, parameters, or patterns. - ACTIONABILITY GATE: every finding MUST include a concrete <suggested-fix>. Vague advice = suppress. - FIX-CONSISTENCY GATE: for severity=critical|high, the suggested-fix must clearly eliminate the defect; otherwise drop or downgrade. - Confidence MUST reflect genuine uncertainty. Findings you're not sure about: confidence <= 0.6. - {{CAP_DIRECTIVE}} - The <input> is the entire scope. Do NOT read external files, configs, or tests. - Keep rationale under 6 sentences. </rules>
fill the variables
This prompt has 4 variables. Pro fills them into a ready-to-paste prompt for you — no manual find-and-replace.
{{INPUT_KIND}{{INPUT_LABEL}{{INPUT_BODY}{{CAP_DIRECTIVE}
Unlock with Pro →when to use it
Community prompt sourced from the open-source GitHub repo CodeAlive-AI/ai-driven-development (MIT). A "Broad Analyst" style prompt — adapt the placeholders and specifics to your task. Imported as-is and not independently retested here, so check the output before relying on it.
tags
productivitycommunitydeveloper
source
CodeAlive-AI/ai-driven-development · MIT
more in Productivity
Productivity✓ tested
Summarize a doc into decisions & actions
chief of staff who extracts what to DO, not just what was said
Productivity✓ tested
Draft a reply to a hard email
calm, direct communicator who de-escalates without caving
Productivity✓ tested
Turn a brain-dump into a weekly plan
planning coach who protects your focus, not just your calendar