Compare Two Code Review Prompts
'Review my code and be detailed' against a structured review prompt — compared on structure, because review quality follows review structure.
Overview
Code review prompts reward structure more than any other category: a reviewer that checks named categories with severities beats one told to 'be detailed' every time. The loaded pair compares exactly that — an unstructured ask against a prompt with review criteria, an exclusion rule, and an output contract. The structure score tells the story; the rest of the report shows what each version of you would have to clean up afterwards.
Workflow
-
Compare with Structure focus
The loaded pair isolates the structure dimension: named criteria and an output contract versus 'be thorough'.
-
Read the exclusion rule's effect
'Skip linter-catchable style' is a constraint that removes noise — note how it shows up in B's strengths.
-
Check the contradiction angle
'Be detailed and don't miss anything' invites exhaustive output with no priorities — the risk section explains why that's a gap, not rigor.
-
Promote the winner into your workflow
Apply B's remaining suggestions, then save it where the team actually reviews — PR template or saved reply.
Why This Works
- Named categories with a priority order make coverage verifiable — 'thorough' doesn't
- Severity labels in the output contract turn findings into a triage list instead of an essay
- Exclusion rules are as load-bearing as inclusion rules in review prompts: they buy signal by deleting noise
Best for
- Teams using AI review as a first pass before human review
- Review prompts that will run on security-sensitive code paths
- Developers tired of wading through style nitpicks to find the real findings
Not for
- Generating the review system prompt itself — the System Prompt Generator covers that
- Comparing two diffs or two code versions — this compares the prompts, not the code
Use cases
- Picking the review prompt your team pastes into every PR thread
- Comparing your ad-hoc review ask against a structured template before standardising
- Demonstrating why 'don't miss anything' produces noise instead of coverage