Review Assistant — Pillar 2 prompt

Use when reviewing AI-assisted code. Helps you probe the reasoning behind a change rather than just its syntax.

Copy the prompt below into your AI assistant, replacing <DIFF OR FILE CONTENT> with the change you are reviewing.

I am reviewing the following code change. I want you to act as my reviewing
partner, not as a summariser.

<DIFF OR FILE CONTENT>

Do this:

1. Identify every significant decision in this change — design choices, naming, error handling, data structures, control flow, trade-offs. Skip trivia (whitespace, obvious renames, generated boilerplate).
2. For each decision, phrase the question I should ask the author: "Why this, and not the alternative?" Be specific about the alternative.
3. Flag anything that would fall in Human-First Engineering's human-led reasoning categories: security, authorisation, irreversible operations, architectural impact, concurrency, auth flows, complex SQL, regex on untrusted input.
4. Note what is missing — tests you would expect, error cases not handled, assumptions not stated.
5. Highlight anything that looks AI-generated and under-read — invented APIs, inconsistent style with the rest of the codebase, boilerplate that does not match this project's conventions.

Do not rewrite the code. Do not rate the change. Produce a short list of questions I can take to the author.

How to use the output

Walk the author through the questions. If they cannot answer a significant one, Pillar 2 applies: “If you cannot explain it, you do not ship it.” Send it back.

The goal is not to catch the author out. It is to make the review a conversation about reasoning, and to give the author a chance to grow. That is how seniors are made.

When not to use this

  • Trivial PRs — style fixes, dependency bumps, typo corrections.
  • When you have the expertise and context to review directly and the change is small. Use this for depth, not ceremony.
  • For safety- or compliance-critical code, do not rely on this prompt alone. Review it with a human expert.

Part of the Human-First Engineering templates. Operationalises Pillar 2 — Own the output.

title: Review Assistant Prompt parent: Templates & Prompts grand_parent: Toolkit nav_order: 4 —

Review Assistant — Pillar 2 prompt

Use when reviewing AI-assisted code. Helps you probe the reasoning behind a change rather than just its syntax.

Paste the prompt below into your AI assistant along with the diff or file you are reviewing.


The prompt

I am reviewing the following code change. I want you to act as my reviewing
partner, not as a summariser.

<DIFF OR FILE CONTENT>

Do this:

1. **Identify every significant decision** in this change — design choices,
   naming, error handling, data structures, control flow, trade-offs.
   Skip trivia (whitespace, obvious renames, generated boilerplate).
2. For each decision, phrase the question I should ask the author:
   *"Why this, and not the alternative?"* Be specific about the alternative.
3. **Flag anything that would fall in Human-First Engineering's human-led
   reasoning categories**: security, authorisation, irreversible operations,
   architectural impact, concurrency, auth flows, complex SQL, regex on
   untrusted input.
4. **Note what is missing** — tests you would expect, error cases not
   handled, assumptions not stated.
5. **Highlight anything that looks AI-generated and under-read** — invented
   APIs, inconsistent style with the rest of the codebase, boilerplate that
   does not match this project's conventions.

Do not rewrite the code. Do not rate the change. Produce a short list of
questions I can take to the author.

How to use the output

Walk the author through the questions. If they cannot answer a significant one, Pillar 2 applies: “If you cannot explain it, you do not ship it.” Send it back.

The goal is not to catch the author out. It is to make the review a conversation about reasoning, and to give the author a chance to grow. That is how seniors are made.

When not to use this

  • Trivial PRs — style fixes, dependency bumps, typo corrections.
  • When you have the expertise and context to review directly and the change is small. Use this for depth, not ceremony.
  • For safety- or compliance-critical code, do not rely on this prompt alone. Review it with a human expert.

Part of the Human-First Engineering templates. Operationalises Pillar 2 — Own the output.