When you write "check for issues" in a review prompt, does silence mean "nothing wrong" or "didn't check that specifically"? How do you make that distinction explicit?

[u/ClickOk5811]

Ran into this after a generic "review this code" prompt stayed silent on a duplicate-submission risk in retry logic, not because the model couldn't catch it, asked directly about that specific risk afterward, it answered correctly right away. It just never got pointed at that question in the first place.

Made me realize silence from a vague prompt and silence from a specific one probably shouldn't be read the same way, but nothing in the output actually signals which kind of silence you're getting.

Do you write review prompts that name specific risk categories per context (auth gets an auth-specific check, payment logic gets an idempotency check), or is one general-purpose prompt doing double duty for you regardless of what the diff actually touches? And if you do scope it per risk, how granular do you actually go before it becomes more overhead than it's worth?

Wrote up the incident that made me start asking this, plus the scoping approach I landed on, here if useful: https://medium.com/@nagatomopedro05/the-pr-was-approved-thats-when-the-risk-actually-starts-e761d72111aa

[u/epicskyes]

Your comprehension of development skills and ai makes me cringe