After deploying the automated review, you notice high precision but low recall—real bugs are slipping...

The prompt’s conservative reporting policy is directly causing the low recall. Claude may discover a legitimate race condition during analysis but suppress it because it cannot satisfy the instruction to report only issues about which it is certain. Option C separates two objectives that should not be conflated: broad defect discovery and strict acceptance filtering.

Anthropic’s current code-review prompting guidance explicitly recommends reporting every issue, including uncertain or lower-severity findings, assigning confidence and severity metadata, and allowing a separate verification stage to filter them. This maximizes recall while retaining control over developer-facing noise.

Option A leaves the suppression policy intact, so additional examples cannot guarantee that discovered problems will be reported. Option B improves recall but relies on historical category-level suppression, which can discard genuine findings that happen to belong to noisy categories. Option D can improve analysis quality but does not remove the instruction responsible for withholding findings. A dedicated finding stage followed by an independently configurable verification or thresholding stage produces measurable recall and precision controls without forcing one model call to optimize competing objectives.

================