Review.prompt
---
mode: agent
description: "3-pass code review with confidence scoring and structured feedback"
application: "Review code for correctness, security, performance, and maintainability"
tools: ["read_file", "grep_search", "semantic_search"]
currency: 2026-04-22
---
# Code Review
Review code using the 3-Pass methodology:
## Pass 1 — Orientation
Does the approach make sense? Is the scope right?
- What is this code trying to do?
- Is this the right place for this logic?
- Does it fit the existing architecture?
## Pass 2 — Logic
Edge cases, null handling, error paths, concurrency.
- What happens with empty/null inputs?
- Are error cases handled gracefully?
- Any race conditions or state issues?
- Are assumptions validated?
## Pass 3 — Polish
Naming, duplication, test coverage, documentation.
- Are names clear and consistent?
- Is there duplicated code that could be extracted?
- Are there tests for the new/changed code?
- Are complex parts documented?
## Comment Prefixes
Use these prefixes in feedback:
| Prefix | Meaning |
|--------|---------|
| `[blocking]` | Must fix before merge |
| `[suggestion]` | Would improve, not required |
| `[question]` | Need clarification |
| `[nit]` | Minor style/preference |
| `[praise]` | Good pattern, worth noting |
## Confidence Levels
Include confidence in recommendations:
- 🔴 **HIGH** (90%+) — Certain this is an issue
- 🟠 **MEDIUM-HIGH** (70-90%) — Likely an issue
- 🟡 **MEDIUM** (50-70%) — Possible issue, verify
- 🔵 **LOW** (30-50%) — Uncertain, consider checking
Review this code:when to use it
Community prompt sourced from the open-source GitHub repo fabioc-aloha/alex-cognitive-architecture (NOASSERTION). A "Review.prompt" 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
codingcommunitydeveloper
source
fabioc-aloha/alex-cognitive-architecture · NOASSERTION
more in Coding
Coding✓ tested
Senior code review (strict mode)
senior staff engineer running a merciless but fair review
Coding✓ tested
Debug by hypothesis, not by guessing
debugging partner who forms theories before touching code
Coding✓ tested
Generate tests from described behavior
test engineer who writes tests that would actually catch regressions