Claude for code review, done properly.
The tested prompt, the codes that help, and the setup software development pros run. Copy, adapt, ship.
Thorough code reviews take time most teams don't have. Reviewers miss edge cases, security issues, and performance problems because they're scanning too quickly.
Three reasons this actually lands.
The prompt, the codes, the fit. Each one on its own is a nice-to-have. Together, they change the workflow.
One tested prompt, copy-paste ready. Rules baked in, placeholders marked, tone locked down. No prompt-engineering trial runs, no back-and-forth.
Prefix with REASON, V=2, REFINE for compound effects. Each code is a documented technique, not a magic word.
Tuned for software development workflows. Not a generic template, and not another "you are a helpful assistant" hack.
Without the pattern vs with it.
What the day looks like when you keep winging the prompt, and what it looks like when you stop.
Generic prompt. Claude writes something that could be about anyone, in any industry, from anywhere. Sounds like a template because it is one.
The CLSkills prompt with placeholders for your context. Claude writes it like a specialist who actually knows the work. Publishable after one edit pass.
You paste, Claude answers, you rewrite, you paste again. Ten minutes of back-and-forth per output. Three hours across a batch of five.
Prompt loaded once. You feed the specifics, Claude returns the finished output. Two minutes per, twenty across five. Same tone, same structure, every time.
Middle-of-the-road copy that reads AI-flavoured. Recipients notice. Response rates stay low. You end up rewriting most of it anyway.
A structured review that catches issues human reviewers miss — especially security edge cases and performance problems. Each finding references specific lines with clear severity ratings.
Copy this, replace the placeholders, ship.
Review this code for production readiness. Language: [LANGUAGE] Context: [WHAT THIS CODE DOES] Deployment target: [WEB APP / API / CLI / LIBRARY] ```[language] [PASTE CODE] ``` Review checklist: 1. **Correctness**: Logic errors, edge cases, off-by-one errors 2. **Security**: Injection risks, auth issues, data exposure 3. **Performance**: N+1 queries, unnecessary allocations, missing indexes 4. **Readability**: Naming, structure, comments where needed 5. **Error handling**: Missing try/catch, unhelpful error messages, silent failures 6. **Testing gaps**: What tests should exist for this code? Format: Rate each area (✅ Good / ⚠️ Needs attention / 🔴 Critical) with specific line references.
Replace the [BRACKETED] placeholders with your context.
Stack these prefixes for compound gains.
Prepend one or more of these to the prompt above. Each code is documented on its own page with before and after examples.
Every prompt, once.
The Cheat Sheet is every tested code, with a before and an after.
Nearby prompts for the same role.
React bugs are notoriously hard to debug — infinite re-renders, stale closures, hydration mismatches. Error messages point to the wrong comp…
CLAUDE FORPython's dynamic typing and silent failures make bugs hard to catch. A function returns None instead of a value, a dictionary key is missing…
CLAUDE FORWriting tests is tedious and most developers skip edge cases. Coverage reports show green but the tests don't actually catch real bugs becau…
CLAUDE FORLegacy code works but is unmaintainable. New developers can't understand it, adding features creates bugs, and nobody wants to touch it. But…