Use an AI assistant as a code reviewer
A bot reviewer catches different mistakes than a tired human, and misses others.
What to do
- Give the diff plus the purpose of the change.
- Ask for findings ranked by severity with line references.
- Ask it to separate "bug" from "style preference".
- A human still approves; bots can be confidently wrong.
Copy this prompt
Review this diff. Purpose: [what it should do].
Report findings as: severity (bug/security/perf/readability/test gap), file:line, explanation, suggested fix.
Skip pure style nitpicks unless they hurt readability.
Diff:
[paste]Check the bot's work
Verify each claimed bug yourself before acting.
Questions
Can I trust the bot on ai code review?
Use it to plan and explain, then verify. Verify each claimed bug yourself before acting.
Which bot works best?
Grok Bot, ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini all handle this prompt. Paste the same prompt into two and compare; disagreements show where to check a source.
Where these facts come from
- OWASP Top 10
- CISA: Secure by Design
- GitHub Docs: Secret scanning
- W3C: WCAG overview
- Open Source Initiative: Licenses
- NIST SP 800-218: Secure Software Development Framework
Tools, features and prices change often. We don't list prices; check each vendor's official pricing page. Never paste secrets into a prompt. Checked Oct 30, 2026.
Coding with bots · Everyday workflows: all lessons → Next: Docs and comments →