Qodo Prompts

Act as a DevOps lead. Our team merges [NUMBER] PRs per week into [REPO] ([LANGUAGE] stack) and reviews are the bottleneck. Configure Qodo Merge for us using the Qodo 2.0 multi-agent architecture: enable the four parallel agents (bug detection, code quality, security analysis, test coverage gaps); set the review to trigger on every PR to [BRANCH]; tune which agent comments are blocking versus advisory for our [TEAM SIZE]-person team. Include the exact config steps in the Qodo dashboard, how to connect [GITHUB/GITLAB/BITBUCKET], and a two-week calibration plan to handle the roughly 25 percent false-positive rate (which comments to suppress via rules).

Act as a QA-minded senior developer. Our [LANGUAGE] module [MODULE NAME] has [NUMBER] lines, zero tests, and everyone is afraid to touch it. Build a Qodo Cover battle plan: run coverage-gap detection on the module to rank functions by risk (complexity times change frequency); generate full unit tests (not stubs) with meaningful assertions for the top [NUMBER] functions in our existing [JEST/PYTEST/JUNIT/VITEST] framework; review each generated test for correctness before committing. Give me the daily workflow for generating [NUMBER] tests per day, the cleanup checklist for AI-written tests (mocks, flaky timers, over-specific assertions), and when to stop (coverage target [PERCENT] percent).

Act as a [LANGUAGE] developer who writes code in [VS CODE/JETBRAINS]. I just wrote a tricky function [FUNCTION NAME] handling [EDGE CASES]. Show me the ideal Qodo IDE workflow: select the function, run the /test command, and get complete tests with edge cases and error scenarios in [FRAMEWORK]. Then: how to iterate when the first generated test misses [SPECIFIC CASE]; how to make Qodo regenerate with a hint ('also test the empty-input path'); and how to save the good patterns so the next function gets better tests on the first try. End with three /test prompt add-ons I can reuse for [DOMAIN] code.

Act as an application security engineer. We are about to ship changes to [AUTH MODULE] in [REPO] ([LANGUAGE]). Configure a Qodo review focused on the security agent: what rules to emphasize (injection, auth bypass, secret handling, [FRAMEWORK]-specific pitfalls); how to read the security agent's findings versus the bug agent's findings; and a triage workflow for the team where each finding gets labeled true positive, false positive, or needs-human-review with a [NUMBER]-hour SLA. Include five security-specific questions to paste into the PR so Qodo's agents dig deeper into [SPECIFIC RISK].

Act as a platform engineer. Qodo flags about one in four comments incorrectly on our [LANGUAGE] codebase, and developers are starting to ignore reviews. Build a tuning plan: audit [NUMBER] recent PRs and categorize every false positive by type ([STYLE NIT], [MISUNDERSTOOD PATTERN], [OUTDATED RULE]); write suppression rules for the top three categories in Qodo's settings; set per-agent sensitivity (for example lower for the quality agent, higher for security). Give me the before/after measurement method (track comment-to-fix ratio weekly) and the rule for when a suppressed category gets re-enabled.

Act as an engineering manager. Qodo's killer loop is: the review finds an issue, then generates the test that catches it. Design this as a team process for [TEAM NAME]: when the bug agent flags [ISSUE TYPE] on a PR, the author runs Qodo Cover to generate the regression test before fixing; the fix and test merge together; the test is tagged [TAG] so we can measure how many review findings became permanent tests. Include the PR template checkbox text, the weekly metric to track (findings converted to tests), and how to handle cases where the generated test is wrong.

Act as a tech lead onboarding [NUMBER] developers to Qodo on [REPO]. Write the onboarding guide: what Qodo Merge does on every PR (multi-agent review in about 2 to 4 minutes), what each agent looks for, how to respond to comments (fix, reply with context, or mark false positive), and the /test command in the IDE for generating tests locally. Include a 30-minute hands-on exercise: each dev opens a practice PR containing [NUMBER] planted issues ([BUG], [SECURITY ISSUE], [COVERAGE GAP]) and must resolve all Qodo findings. End with the team's review etiquette (who owns which agent's comments).

Act as a senior engineer in a [LANGUAGE] monorepo with [NUMBER] packages. A PR touches [PACKAGE A] but might break [PACKAGE B] and [PACKAGE C]. Show me how to use Qodo's cross-repo PR intelligence (Enterprise context engine): configure it to map dependencies between our packages; on each PR, get the impact analysis listing downstream packages affected; and set up the review so the coverage agent also flags tests missing in the affected downstream packages. Include how to verify the dependency map is accurate for our [TOOL, e.g. Nx/Turborepo] setup and what to do when it misses a link.

Act as a developer who hates writing PR descriptions. Our PRs in [REPO] need: a summary, the risk areas, test coverage notes, and reviewer guidance. Build a Qodo-assisted workflow: before opening the PR, run the review on the branch to collect the agents' findings; use those findings to auto-draft the description sections (risk areas from the security agent, coverage notes from the coverage agent); then add the human context only Qodo cannot know ([BUSINESS REASON], [ROLLBACK PLAN]). Give me the description template and the rule for what never goes in auto-generated (anything about [SENSITIVE AREA]).

Act as an engineering effectiveness lead. Qodo 2.0 posted a 60.1 percent F1 score in third-party benchmarks, but I want our number for [REPO]. Design a four-week measurement: sample [NUMBER] PRs per week; for each Qodo comment, label it true positive (led to a fix), false positive, or neutral; compute our precision and an estimated recall by having a senior dev independently review a subset. Track the trend weekly in a simple dashboard, set the target (precision above [PERCENT] percent), and define the decision rule: if precision stays below target after tuning, we [ACTION]. Include how to present the results to the team without it feeling like surveillance.