The scenario
Use the actual selected diff, its task description and relevant callers. Other working-tree changes may be unrelated.
Required context: a selected repository matching this scenario, relevant task evidence, and access to its instructions and checks. Use redacted or synthetic data where appropriate.
Adapt the complete prompt
Edits stay in this browser tab. Saving bookmarks the original example; export your edited version to keep it elsewhere.
Why this is a strong example
The review contract rewards supported findings rather than a long list of speculative suggestions.
A concrete outcome
Review the selected pull request for correctness, security boundaries and missing regression coverage.
The result can be assessed against an observable task rather than prompt length or confidence.
Boundaries and a method
Stay read-only. Prioritize findings with a location, failure conditions and evidence. Separate optional style preferences and unsupported redesigns from defects.
This leaves implementation judgment while constraining the changes that would exceed the task.
Evidence that can disagree
Trace each serious finding to a reproducible path or clearly label it a hypothesis. State review scope and any checks you could not perform.
These checks describe what would make acceptance justified; asking for them does not mean they ran.
A safe way to encounter uncertainty
If the repository contradicts these assumptions, required access is unavailable, or a consequential product decision is missing, explain the conflict and pause the dependent work. Preserve unrelated changes.
Consequential uncertainty stays visible rather than being converted into an invented requirement.