0PricingLogin
Claude Architect · Lesson

Severity Criteria with Examples

Anchor each severity level with a code example.

Why Severity Needs Criteria

When you ask Claude to review code, the weakest instruction you can give is a vague one: be more precise or only flag important issues. The model has no shared definition of "important", so its bar drifts from file to file.

The exam principle is blunt: explicit criteria beat vague adjectives. A severity scale (Critical / High / Medium / Low) is only useful if each level has a written rule the model can apply consistently — and the most reliable way to pin down a rule is to anchor it with a concrete code example.

This lesson builds a severity rubric for a CI/CD review agent, one level at a time, each level tied to an example.

The Failure Mode: Adjectives Without Anchors

Here is the kind of prompt that looks fine but performs badly. It names severity levels but never defines them, so the model guesses — and guesses differently each run.

The result is exactly the anti-pattern the exam warns about: noisy reviews where a missing null-check and a misspelled comment both get tagged "High". Reviewers stop trusting the labels.

system = (
    "You are a code reviewer. "
    "Rate each issue as Critical, High, Medium, or Low. "
    "Be precise and only report important problems."
)

# Problem: 'important', 'precise', and the four levels are
# never defined. The bar is whatever the model infers today.

All lessons in this course

  1. Explicit Criteria over Vague Instructions
  2. Categorical Examples
  3. Severity Criteria with Examples
  4. Reducing False Positives
← Back to Claude Architect