The scenario
Some findings may be genuine defects, some may lack caller evidence, and some may be preferences outside the task.
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
It prevents reviewer output from becoming automatic authority to change the project.
A concrete outcome
Assess the supplied review findings before making any implementation changes.
The result can be assessed against an observable task rather than prompt length or confidence.
Boundaries and a method
For each finding, inspect its evidence and classify it. Investigate or request missing information; do not delete or rewrite code based only on the reviewer’s confidence.
This leaves implementation judgment while constraining the changes that would exceed the task.
Evidence that can disagree
Return a disposition with supporting paths, unresolved questions and the smallest justified next action for every finding.
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.