Coding

Code review

Use Claude as a fast, tireless first-pass reviewer — then keep the judgement calls for yourself.

Knowledge cards
Workflow
Ask Claude 'What Would Break This?' Before You Ship
An adversarial review move: instead of asking Claude if the code is correct, ask it to actively try to break the code — enumerate the inputs, timings, and conditions under which it fails. You're recruiting the model as a red team, not a rubber stamp.
L2 · Context engineering
Knowledge card
Ask Claude to Rank Findings by Severity
A review pattern where you require Claude to label every finding with a severity — blocking, should-fix, nitpick — and order them worst-first, so a flat list of comments becomes a triaged one.
L2 · Context engineering
Best practice
Give Claude a Review Checklist, Not 'Review This'
A pattern where you hand Claude an explicit checklist of what to look for — correctness, edge cases, security, readability — and ask it to go category by category, instead of an open-ended 'review this code'. The checklist is the spec for the review.
L2 · Context engineering
Knowledge card
Have Claude Review the Diff, Not the Whole File
A review pattern where you give Claude the diff — the lines that actually changed — plus enough surrounding context to judge them, and ask it to review only the change, not to critique the whole file.
L2 · Context engineering
Claude for code review

A tireless first pass

Claude is an excellent first-pass reviewer: it never gets bored, reads every line, and catches the mechanical issues — unhandled errors, missing edge cases, inconsistent naming, obvious security slips — that human reviewers miss on line 400. Used this way it raises the floor of every review, so the human reviewer spends their attention on judgement rather than typos. Give it the diff and the intent of the change, and ask specifically what could break, rather than a vague 'review this'.

Review against a checklist, keep the judgement

To get consistent reviews, give Claude a checklist — correctness, error handling, tests, security, readability — rather than leaving it to freelance. A checklist makes the review repeatable and stops it fixating on style while missing a real bug. What you should not outsource is judgement: whether the design is right, whether the trade-off is acceptable, whether this belongs in the codebase at all. Let Claude handle the tireless first pass; keep the calls that need taste and context for yourself.

Frequently asked
Can Claude review code?

Yes, and it excels as a tireless first-pass reviewer — reading every line and catching mechanical issues like unhandled errors and missing edge cases. Give it the diff and the intent, and ask what could break.

How do I get consistent reviews from Claude?

Give it a checklist — correctness, error handling, tests, security, readability — so the review is repeatable and does not fixate on style while missing real bugs.

What should I not delegate to Claude in review?

Judgement calls — whether the design is right, whether a trade-off is acceptable, whether the change belongs at all. Let Claude do the mechanical first pass and keep those for yourself.