Your automated code review is missing genuine bugs in pull requests.

The prompt explicitly instructs Claude to suppress uncertain and lower-severity findings. Increasing reasoning depth cannot override that reporting policy: Claude may identify a real defect during analysis and still omit it from the final response. Option B separates comprehensive detection from acceptance filtering, removing the source of the false negatives while retaining metadata needed for automated decisions.

Anthropic’s current code-review prompting guidance recommends reporting every issue, including uncertain or lower-severity candidates, and attaching confidence and estimated severity so a separate verification or filtering stage can rank them. A structured schema can additionally require fields such as file path, line number, category, confidence, severity, evidence, and recommended action.

Option A may improve investigation quality but leaves the suppression instruction intact. Option C removes the problematic threshold but also discards the explicit structured classification needed by downstream processing. Option D repeats the same review policy, so the second pass can suppress the same findings as the first. Option B preserves recall and machine-readable output while allowing deterministic, adjustable downstream thresholds. This is more reliable than embedding an overly restrictive acceptance decision inside the model’s initial detection task.

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