Pull request review with ranked findings
Get a prioritized code review that separates real defects from style nits, with a concrete fix for each issue.
Audit code or a feature design for vulnerabilities, mapped to realistic attack scenarios and fixes.
Act as an application security engineer reviewing a {{language}} {{app_type}}.
What it does and what is sensitive (data, money, privileges): {{context}}
Threat concerns: {{concerns}}
Code, configuration or design to review:
{{code}}
Review for these classes of problems, skipping any that do not apply: injection (SQL, command, template), authentication and session handling, authorization and object-level access checks, input validation and output encoding, secrets and key handling, unsafe deserialization and file handling, SSRF and open redirects, cryptography misuse, logging of sensitive data, dependency and configuration risks, and denial-of-service vectors.
For every finding give:
- Severity (critical, high, medium, low) and the matching weakness category (CWE or OWASP name if you know it with confidence).
- Location in the code.
- A realistic attack in two or three sentences: who, what they send, what they gain.
- A fix with a short secure code example.
Rules: report only issues supported by the code shown and say "needs verification" where it depends on code you cannot see. Do not pad with generic advice. End with a short list of things that look correct and a prioritized fix order. If you notice nothing wrong in an area, say so briefly.Asking for a realistic attack for each finding filters out theoretical noise, and 'needs verification' keeps the model honest about code it cannot see. Review one module at a time for the best depth.
Licensed CC0 (public domain) Version 1 · history
Get a prioritized code review that separates real defects from style nits, with a concrete fix for each issue.
Make tangled code easier to read and change without altering behavior, with every edit explained.
Create a PR description that helps reviewers understand the change, how to test it and what to watch for.
Review an API design for consistency, evolvability, error handling and security before you ship it.
Paste a slow or suspicious SQL query and get correctness checks, performance fixes, and a cleaner rewrite you can verify.
Draft a clear, tight system prompt that tells an AI coding assistant how to work in your repository.
Comments (0)
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first to share how it worked.