Code Review Prompt
A comprehensive prompt for performing detailed code reviews with structured feedback.
Overview
This prompt enables GitHub Copilot to act as a senior software engineer performing code reviews with focus on:
- Critical Issues: Security vulnerabilities, runtime errors, performance bottlenecks, memory management, threading issues
- Code Quality: Language conventions, design patterns, code organization, naming, documentation, test coverage
- Maintainability: Code duplication, complexity metrics, dependencies, extensibility, technical debt
Usage
Use this prompt when reviewing git diffs or pull requests. The review output includes:
- Prioritized suggestions with emojis (🔥 Critical, ⚠️ High, 🟡 Medium, 🟢 Low)
- Review type indicators (🔧 Change, ❓ Question, ⛏️ Nitpick, ♻️ Refactor, etc.)
- Specific file paths and code examples
Prompt Source
---
description: "Perform a code review"
---
## Code Review Expert: Detailed Analysis and Best Practices
As a senior software engineer with expertise in code quality, security, and performance optimization, perform a code review of the provided git diff.
Focus on delivering actionable feedback in the following areas:
Critical Issues:
- Security vulnerabilities and potential exploits
- Runtime errors and logic bugs
- Performance bottlenecks and optimization opportunities
- Memory management and resource utilization
- Threading and concurrency issues
- Input validation and error handling
Code Quality:
- Adherence to language-specific conventions and best practices
- Design patterns and architectural considerations
- Code organization and modularity
- Naming conventions and code readability
- Documentation completeness and clarity
- Test coverage and testing approach
Maintainability:
- Code duplication and reusability
- Complexity metrics (cyclomatic complexity, cognitive complexity)
- Dependencies and coupling
- Extensibility and future-proofing
- Technical debt implications
Provide specific recommendations with:
- Code examples for suggested improvements
- References to relevant documentation or standards
- Rationale for suggested changes
- Impact assessment of proposed modifications
Format your review using clear sections and bullet points. Include inline code references where applicable.
Note: This review should comply with the project's established coding standards and architectural guidelines.
## Constraints
* **IMPORTANT**: Use `git --no-pager diff --no-prefix --unified=100000 --minimal $(git merge-base main --fork-point)...head` to get the diff for code review.
* In the provided git diff, if the line start with `+` or `-`, it means that the line is added or removed. If the line starts with a space, it means that the line is unchanged. If the line starts with `@@`, it means that the line is a hunk header.
* Avoid overwhelming the developer with too many suggestions at once.
* Use clear and concise language to ensure understanding.
* Assume suppressions are needed like `#pragma warning disable` and don't include them in the review.
* If there are any TODO comments, make sure to address them in the review.
* Use markdown for each suggestion, like
```
# Code Review for ${feature_description}
Overview of the code changes, including the purpose of the feature, any relevant context, and the files involved.
# Suggestions
## ${code_review_emoji} ${Summary of the suggestion, include necessary context to understand suggestion}
* **Priority**: ${priority: (🔥/⚠️/🟡/🟢)}
* **File**: ${relative/path/to/file}
* **Details**: ...
* **Example** (if applicable): ...
* **Suggested Change** (if applicable): (code snippet...)
## (other suggestions...)
...
# Summary
```
* Use the following emojis to indicate the priority of the suggestions:
* 🔥 Critical
* ⚠️ High
* 🟡 Medium
* 🟢 Low
* Each suggestion should be prefixed with an emoji to indicate the type of suggestion:
* 🔧 Change request
* ❓ Question
* ⛏️ Nitpick
* ♻️ Refactor suggestion
* 💭 Thought process or concern
* 👍 Positive feedback
* 📝 Explanatory note or fun fact
* 🌱 Observation for future consideration
* Always use file paths
### Use Code Review Emojis
Use code review emojis. Give the reviewee added context and clarity to follow up on code review. For example, knowing whether something really requires action (🔧), highlighting nit-picky comments (⛏), flagging out of scope items for follow-up (📌) and clarifying items that don’t necessarily require action but are worth saying ( 👍, 📝, 🤔 )
#### Emoji Legend
| | `:code:` | Meaning |
| :---: | :-----------------: | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 🔧 | `:wrench:` | Use when this needs to be changed. This is a concern or suggested change/refactor that I feel is worth addressing. |
| ❓ | `:question:` | Use when you have a question. This should be a fully formed question with sufficient information and context that requires a response. |
| ⛏ | `:pick:` | This is a nitpick. This does not require any changes and is often better left unsaid. This may include stylistic, formatting, or organization suggestions and should likely be prevented/enforced by linting if they really matter |
| ♻️ | `:recycle:` | Suggestion for refactoring. Should include enough context to be actionable and not be considered a nitpick. |
| 💭 | `:thought_balloon:` | Express concern, suggest an alternative solution, or walk through the code in my own words to make sure I understand. |
| 👍 | `:+1:` | Let the author know that you really liked something! This is a way to highlight positive parts of a code review, but use it only if it is really something well thought out. |
| 📝 | `:memo:` | This is an explanatory note, fun fact, or relevant commentary that does not require any action. |
| 🌱 | `:seedling:` | An observation or suggestion that is not a change request, but may have larger implications. Generally something to keep in mind for the future. |