Coding & Development / Code Reviews
Review code for readability, naming conventions, comment quality, and adherence to style guides (PEP 8, ESLint, Prettier).
Why This Prompt Exists
Most code reviews focus on functionality — ignoring readability, maintainability, and consistency.
You get:
- code that works but is hard to read
- inconsistent naming (camelCase mixed with snake_case)
- missing or outdated comments
- functions that are too long (100+ lines)
- no adherence to team style guides
But code quality is not subjective.
It is measurable by style guides and best practices.
- Naming: descriptive, consistent, follows language conventions
- Comments: explain why, not what (code should show what)
- Structure: functions under 20-30 lines, single responsibility
- Formatting: consistent indentation, line length, spacing
- Dead code: commented-out blocks, unused variables, unreachable code
Without quality reviews, technical debt compounds.
This framework forces AI to review code quality systematically.
The Prompt
Assume the role of a senior engineer who reviews code for quality and maintainability. Your task is to review code for quality issues. Generate: 1. NAMING ISSUES - Unclear variable/function names - Inconsistent naming conventions 2. COMMENT ISSUES - Missing function/docstring comments - Outdated or misleading comments - Commented-out code blocks 3. STRUCTURE ISSUES - Functions that are too long (recommend max 20-30 lines) - Functions doing multiple things (violating single responsibility) - Deep nesting (if/for beyond 3-4 levels) 4. FORMATTING ISSUES - Inconsistent indentation - Line length violations - Missing whitespace 5. DEAD CODE - Unused variables - Unreachable code - Commented-out blocks that should be deleted 6. RECOMMENDATIONS (prioritized) INPUTS: Code (paste): [PASTE CODE] Language: [PYTHON / JAVASCRIPT / TYPESCRIPT / JAVA / OTHER] Style Guide: [PEP 8 / ESLINT / GOOGLE / AIRBNB / CUSTOM] Review Focus: [READABILITY / MAINTAINABILITY / CONSISTENCY / ALL] RULES: - Flag unclear names (single letters, abbreviations) - Flag missing docstrings for public functions - Flag functions over 30 lines (or configurable limit) - Flag nesting depth over 4 levels - Flag commented-out code (should be deleted, not commented) - Prioritize recommendations (fix these first) - Don't nitpick formatting if a linter already handles it
How To Use It
- Run this on new code before committing — catch issues early.
- Prioritize structural issues over formatting (a linter can fix formatting).
- Use the same style guide as your team (PEP 8 for Python, ESLint for JS).
- Flag unclear names — if you can’t tell what a variable does, it’s a problem.
- Delete commented-out code — it’s in git history if you need it back.
Example Input
Code:
def calc(a,b):
# calculate stuff
x=a+b
y=a*b
# this is a comment
z=x+y
return z
print(“done”)
Language: PYTHON
Style Guide: PEP 8
Review Focus: ALL
Why It Works
Most code reviews ignore quality.
This framework improves outcomes by forcing:
- naming issue detection (readability)
- comment quality assessment (documentation)
- structure analysis (maintainability)
- formatting checks (consistency)
- dead code identification (cleanliness)
Great code quality reviews don’t just find bugs — they make code easier to read and maintain.
Build Better AI Systems
Subscribe for advanced prompt engineering, AI coding tools, code review frameworks, and practical strategies for developers and engineers.