Prompts are available in English and Simplified Chinese. Showing English.
Review the latest change for gaps
Inspect a concrete diff for behavior that could go wrong.References & what we used
- Best practices: Add an adversarial review step
References review guidance focused on substantive gaps; diff selection, one-pass read-only scope and limits are whenreset additions.
Inspect Git status and diffs without changing the workspace. Review uncommitted changes, including relevant new files; otherwise use the latest non-merge commit. If no comparison is available, report the limitation. For large diffs, select at most five behavior-changing files, excluding generated output, lockfiles and formatting-only edits. Read necessary callers, types and nearby tests. State the covered scope. Report up to five substantiated findings with severity, location, triggering conditions, user impact, reasoning and a minimal repair suggestion. Separate uncertain concerns from confirmed findings. Ignore stylistic preferences. Every finding must be traceable to evidence. If no substantive defect is found, say so and state coverage and remaining limits. Do not manufacture findings or refactor code. Execution contract: Start directly. Do not ask me to approve a plan, choose files or fill in a template. Use only this project, this conversation and materials already provided; do not search unrelated projects or private history. Complete what the evidence supports and report missing inputs. If the task is inapplicable, explain why and stop without inventing a result. Preserve existing files and uncommitted changes. Include complete proposed content in your reply; standalone artifacts may be saved under a new, unused filename. Do not install dependencies, change the environment, commit, push or deploy. Respect access and permission limits and report blocked work. Check your result once, deliver it and stop without asking whether to continue.