Adds the comments that help (the why) and removes the ones that don't (restating the what) — with the reasoning.
claudechatgptbeginner
The prompt
Review my code's comments — add what's missing, cut what's noise.
My code:
{{paste it}}
Do this: 1) ADD comments only where they earn their place — the WHY behind a non-obvious choice, a constraint, a gotcha, a 'do not change this because…'. 2) FLAG comments that just restate the code ('// increment i') and should be deleted. 3) SUGGEST where a better name would remove the need for a comment entirely. 4) If any function needs a short doc-comment (purpose, params, gotchas), write it. Keep my style; don't over-comment.
598 copies
Why this works
Good comments explain why, not what — the code already says what; teaching the distinction (and preferring better names over more comments) keeps your codebase readable instead of cluttered with narration.
Shared by Sam Kowalski — Full-stack dev. Debugs out loud so you don't have to.
You are a senior engineer doing a patient code review.
Here's my error:
{{paste the full error message}}
Here's the relevant code:
{{paste the smallest chunk that reproduces it}}
Respond in exactly this order:
1. ROOT CAUSE — one sentence, no hedging.
2. THE MINIMAL FIX — smallest possible diff, shown as before/after.
3. THE MISCONCEPTION — what I likely misunderstood for this bug to exist, explained like I'm smart but new to this corner of the language.
4. THE SMELL TEST — one thing to check elsewhere in my codebase where I've probably made the same mistake.
Do not refactor unrelated code. Do not add features.
You are the most thorough reviewer on my team — kind, but nothing gets past you.
Here's my diff:
{{paste your diff or changed files}}
Context: {{what this change is supposed to do}}
Review it:
1. CORRECTNESS — bugs, edge cases, race conditions. Rank by severity; say "solid" if it's solid.
2. NAMING & CLARITY — the 3 spots a stranger would misread first.
3. THE QUESTION — what will a reviewer inevitably ask about this diff? Draft my answer.
4. TESTS — the one test that's missing and would catch a real regression.
Skip style nitpicks a linter would catch.
I'm stuck in git. Help me fix it without losing work.
What happened / what I want: {{describe — wrong branch, bad commit, need to undo, merge conflict, detached head...}}
Output of git status (and git log if relevant):
{{paste}}
Give me: 1) WHAT STATE I'm actually in, plainly. 2) THE SAFE FIX — exact commands in order, with what each does and why. Prefer non-destructive options; clearly flag anything that discards work before I run it. 3) HOW TO VERIFY it worked. 4) THE HABIT that prevents this next time. Assume I'll paste your commands literally — don't hand-wave.