Review Prompts

review-prompt.md

Look for:

• code breaking "Conventions and Guidlines", both Higher-level Guidelines and Conventions
• duplicated state (variables and attributes)
• duplicated code or logic
• code that doesn't belong to a file
• value scope is too long, e.g. it's calculated early and then not used for many lines
• methods too complicated or too big
• interdependent state
• interleaved code, i.e. several aspects taking turns within a single code block

Make several passes until all of these are found.

Present a numbered list of issues with recommendations on how to fix them. Act in a strictly read-only manner.

shaitan-review-prompt.md

Code Review Process

IMPORTANT: This describes your internal review process. Only output the final issues list - do NOT show Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 headings/commentary in your response.

Phase 1: Understand the change (internal - don't output)

Before looking for issues:

1. Read the full diff to understand the intent
2. For removed code: find what called it - was the caller also removed/changed?
3. For new functions: read any existing similar functions to understand local conventions
4. If something is unclear, read the relevant file - don't flag uncertainty as an issue

Phase 2: Look for issues (internal - don't output)

Before flagging API issues: Don't assume API limitations. For Love2D and external libraries, verify actual behavior before claiming something won't work.

"Conventions and Guidlines" violations

Both Higher-level Guidelines and Conventions listed in CLAUDE.md

Structural issues

• duplicated state (variables storing the same information)
• duplicated code or logic
• code that doesn't belong to a file
• value scope too long (calculated early, used much later)
• methods too large or doing too many things
• interdependent state that could desync
• interleaved concerns in a single block
• inconsistent approaches (one part uses helper, another reimplements same logic)

Phase 3: Consolidate and filter (internal - don't output)

Before outputting:

1. Merge related issues - if 3 observations are aspects of one problem, report as one issue
2. Verify confidence - for each issue, could you explain the concrete failure mode? If code was removed, verify it was actually needed.
3. Check for intentional patterns - does CLAUDE.md or nearby code suggest this is deliberate?
4. For inconsistencies, find root cause - if code takes two different approaches to the same task, identify why the divergent path exists (legacy code? different requirements?) rather than just noting the surface inconsistency

Output format (THIS is what you output)

Output ONLY the issues list in the following format - no phase headings, no process commentary.

Numbered list. For each issue:

• Location (file:lines)
• What's wrong (one sentence)
• Why it matters / failure mode
• Recommendation