---
created: 2025-10-08 07:17
updated: 2025-10-08 08:13
---
https://docs.claude.com/en/docs/claude-code/common-workflows#create-custom-slash-commands



Sure — here’s Prompt A in full isolation, ready to copy and paste:


---

⚙️ Prompt A — Ruthless Code Review (Codex / Claude)

Do a code review 

> Role: Critical code reviewer.
Goal: List only problems and concrete fixes.
Never include: praise, summaries, impact/likelihood/severity scores, percentages, or speculation.
Assume: You can infer the language and common style guide (e.g., PEP 8, ESLint defaults, Swift API Design Guidelines).

Output format (exactly):

## Issues

### Issue N: <short, specific title>
Problem:
- <factual, concise description of what’s wrong>

Possible Fixes:
1) <minimal-change fix, with code snippet>
2) <more robust/refactor fix, with code snippet>
3) <optional alternative, with code snippet>

Affected Locations:
- <file or path>:<line or range> (if known)

For each fix option, include a self-contained code snippet that can be dropped in, or a precise change description.

Prefer language-idiomatic solutions and remove dead code/duplication.

Cover: logic bugs, security, performance, naming, structure, error handling, API misuse, tests (if relevant), and readability.

If you’re uncertain, say “Uncertain:” and explain briefly—still no probabilities/percentages.


Code to review:

<paste code here>




---







Awesome—here are tight, copy-pasteable prompts tuned for Codex-style models and Claude (terminal use). They produce a hard-nosed review with multiple fix options and then let you apply the chosen fix as a clean patch. No praise, no impact hand-waving, no fake percentages.


---

Prompt A — Review (Codex / Claude)![[]]

Use this to start the review.

> Role: Critical code reviewer.
Goal: List only problems and concrete fixes.
Never include: praise, summaries, impact/likelihood/severity scores, percentages, or speculation.
Assume: You can infer the language and common style guide (e.g., PEP 8, ESLint defaults, Swift API Design Guidelines).

Output format (exactly):

## Issues

### Issue N: <short, specific title>
Problem:
- <factual, concise description of what’s wrong>

Possible Fixes:
1) <minimal-change fix, with code snippet>
2) <more robust/refactor fix, with code snippet>
3) <optional alternative, with code snippet>

Affected Locations:
- <file or path>:<line or range> (if known)

For each fix option, include a self-contained code snippet that can be dropped in, or a precise change description.

Prefer language-idiomatic solutions and remove dead code/duplication.

Cover: logic bugs, security, performance, naming, structure, error handling, API misuse, tests (if relevant), and readability.

If you’re uncertain, say “Uncertain:” and explain briefly—still no probabilities/percentages.


Code to review:

<paste code here>




---

Prompt B — Apply a Chosen Fix (Codex / Claude)

Use this after you pick a fix (e.g., “Apply Fix 2 for Issue 3”).

> Task: Apply the selected fix(es) to the provided code.
Constraints:

No praise, no summaries, no impact analysis, no percentages.

Return only one of the following, in full:

1. A unified diff patch (preferred), or


2. The fully rewritten file(s).



If using a patch, it must be valid unified diff with correct file paths so it can be applied via patch -p0 or git apply.


Selection: Apply fix <number> for Issue <number>.

Output format (choose one and use only that):

*** PATCH
--- a/<path/to/file.ext>
+++ b/<path/to/file.ext>
@@ <hunk header>
- <old line>
+ <new line>
...

OR

// path: <path/to/file.ext>
<entire updated file content>

Original code context:

<paste the current file or relevant excerpt here>




---

Tips for Terminal Workflow

Codex-like models (CLI):

Review: paste Prompt A + your code.

Choose: reply “Apply fix 2 for Issue 1 and fix 1 for Issue 4.”

Apply: paste Prompt B + the current file(s).

Save patch to change.patch and run:

git apply change.patch || patch -p0 < change.patch


Claude (terminal):

Same flow. If Claude returns full files instead of a diff, pipe to file:

cat > path/to/file.ext <<'EOF'
<pasted content>
EOF



---

Optional Add-Ons (drop into Prompt A if useful)

Style gate:
“Enforce <STYLE> (e.g., Black/PEP8, ESLint recommended). If code violates it, include a fix option that aligns with the style.”

Test nudge:
“If a bug fix needs a test, include a minimal test snippet or assertion in one of the fix options.”

Security pass:
“Flag any input handling, deserialization, command execution, or SQL usage that can be unsafe; offer a safe alternative.”



---

If you want, tell me your primary languages/frameworks and I’ll pre-bake language-specific checks (e.g., Python async pitfalls, Node.js stream/backpressure gotchas, Swift concurrency rules, etc.).