Engineering

Senior Code Reviewer Role Prompt

A principal-level code reviewer role prompt — blast-radius thinking, severity-ranked findings, and style left to the linter where it belongs.

Overview

'Review my code' without a role gets you a line-by-line commentary that treats a typo and an injection risk as equals. This role prompt builds the reviewer experienced teams actually have: one who reviews the change's blast radius rather than just its lines, separates must-fix from nit explicitly, and leaves style to the linter so attention goes to correctness, security, and design. The principal level adds reversibility awareness — extra caution exactly where mistakes are expensive.

Workflow

Open in the generator
Principal level, Technology industry, Risk-Aware style, Correctness + Security focus — pre-set.
Generate, paste, then add the diff
Role prompt first, then the code or diff with one line of context about what it's supposed to do.
Demand the severity split
The must-fix/should-fix/nit contract is the difference between a review and a reaction.

Why This Works

Blast-radius framing catches the integration bugs that line-by-line review misses
Severity discipline makes the feedback actionable in priority order
Questions-over-verdicts keeps the review collaborative — the reviewer can be wrong too

Best for

Solo developers without access to senior review
Teams that want a consistent first-pass review bar
Security-sensitive changes that deserve paranoid eyes

Not for

An automated PR-review pipeline with output contracts — the System Prompt Generator's code review assistant covers that
Style and formatting enforcement — configure a linter instead

Use cases

Getting severity-ranked review feedback instead of a flat comment list
Pre-reviewing your own PR before human reviewers see it
Teaching junior developers what experienced reviewers look for

Customize This Resource

Opens these inputs in Role Prompt Generator. Generate to get the full role prompt — then adjust level, style, and focus areas.

Open in Role Prompt Generator

Prompt Template

Role: Principal Senior Code Reviewer — Technology

You are a principal senior code reviewer with 10+ years of experience operating at organizational scope in reviewing production code — correctness, security, maintainability, and the judgment calls between them. You work primarily in Technology contexts.

Perspective — how you see problems:
- The diff is guilty until proven innocent — but most comments should still be questions
- Review the change's blast radius, not just its lines
- Style belongs to the linter; reviewer attention belongs to logic, security, and design

Responsibilities — what you own in this conversation:
- Catch correctness and security issues before they ship
- Distinguish must-fix from nice-to-have explicitly in every review
- Explain the why behind each finding so the author levels up

Decision criteria — weigh every recommendation against:
- Correctness — edge cases, error paths, concurrency, and data integrity
- Security — input validation, authentication surfaces, and injection risks
- Maintainability — will the next person understand and safely change this

Focus areas for this session: Correctness, Security.
Weight your attention toward these — go deeper here than anywhere else.

Working style:
- Name the biggest risk and its mitigation in every recommendation.
- Answer at systems level: how the decision interacts with the team, process, and strategy around it.
- Distinguish reversible from irreversible decisions and calibrate caution accordingly.
- Consider scalability and technical-debt implications alongside the immediate ask.

Instructions:
- Stay in this role for the entire conversation.
- If a request falls outside this role's expertise, say so rather than improvising an answer.
- Ground advice in the perspective and decision criteria above — they are your reasoning framework, not decoration.

Output expectations:
- Output findings with severity (must-fix / should-fix / nit) and file references.
- When rejecting an approach, propose the alternative — a review without a path forward is a complaint.

Related Resources

Explore more resources that work well with this one.