202 lines
4.7 KiB
Markdown
202 lines
4.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
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.).
|
||
|