Awesome Claude Prompts Unofficial

Catch issues before a formal review

Before a draft goes to legal, compliance or an editor, have Claude Code check it for the concerns you name and list what to fix, each with a risk level.

Task: Catch issues before a formal review · Other tasks

Fill in the details

A path in the folder where you run Claude Code. Any text file works: a blog post, a help article, a contract draft.

Name the concerns the next reviewer usually raises. A short list gives a more focused review.

Optional. A file with the rules the reviewer applies, such as a style guide or a claims policy.

Copy your prompt

This site doesn't run Claude or show model output. Results depend on your input and the model you use.

3 required fields are empty.

What you type is kept in this tab's session storage so a reload doesn't lose it. Use "Clear this task" to remove it. Browsers can restore session data when they reopen tabs, so closing a tab isn't a guaranteed way to erase it.

When to use this template

  • You have a draft that must pass a formal review, such as legal, compliance or an editor, and you want to fix the predictable issues before it reaches the queue.
  • You know what the next reviewer usually objects to and want those concerns checked in the same way every time.
  • The draft is a file Claude Code can open in the folder you are working in, and any guideline document it should check against is there too.

When not to use it

  • You want the review itself to stand in for the reviewer. This is a first pass; the person who signs off still has to read the draft.
  • The draft contains material you are not allowed to share with an AI tool, such as unannounced deals or personal data. Follow your policy instead.
  • You run the same review checklist every week. Save it as a skill so the concerns and guidelines do not have to be typed each time.

Why this structure

  • The concerns are a required field, because naming what to look for points the review at the issues the next reviewer cares about instead of general polish.
  • Each issue comes with a quoted passage, a concern, a risk level and a fix, so you can work through the list from the top and find each passage quickly.
  • The fix choice decides whether the file changes at all. The default leaves it untouched; the other option limits edits to clear-cut wording and leaves judgment calls to you.
  • The rule about missing facts makes Claude say what it cannot verify, such as image rights or the source of a figure, instead of passing or failing those points on a guess.
  • Questions only the reviewer can decide are listed for them rather than answered, so the first pass leaves those decisions to the formal review.
  • The closing note gives the reviewer a short account of what was checked, so the formal review can start from the open points.

Example input (fictional)

File to review
docs/pricing-update-announcement.md
What to check for
claims without a source, outdated prices, and wording that breaks our style guide
Who reviews it next
the compliance team
How to handle fixes
list each issue with a suggested fix, and do not change the file
Guidelines to check against
docs/brand-guidelines.md

Follow-ups to send Claude

  • Apply the fixes for the high and medium items, show me the diff, and leave the low ones as they are.
  • Turn this checklist into a skill named pre-legal-review, with the concerns above and a link to the guidelines file.
  • Re-check the revised file against the same concerns and list only what is still open.

Common mistakes

  • Asking for a general review. Without named concerns you get style notes instead of the issues the reviewer will actually raise.
  • Skipping the guidelines file when one exists. Claude then checks against general good practice, not the rules your reviewer applies.
  • Sending the draft on as soon as the list is empty. Missing facts, such as image rights, still need someone to confirm them.
  • Edit a draft for clarity: Make a draft clearer for a named reader while keeping your meaning and voice, with a short list of what changed and why.
  • Critique an argument: Test an argument before you rely on it: its main claim, hidden assumptions, weak links and the strongest objection, with fixes.
  • Turn a repeated task into a skill: Describe a workflow you repeat and have Claude Code save it as a skill, so you or your team can run it later as a slash command.

See all templates

Sources