Gemini 3 Pro 15 Best Code Review Prompts for Security Compliance

Application security is not optional. Data breaches cost companies an average of $4.4 million per incident, and most breaches exploit known vulnerabilities that code reviews should have caught. The problem is not that security does not matter. The problem is that security code review is time-consuming, requires specialized expertise, and competes with feature development for engineering time.

Gemini 3 Pro changes the economics of security code review. It can analyze code for common vulnerability patterns, check compliance against security standards, and identify potential issues at a speed no human reviewer can match. The key is using it correctly: AI augments security review, it does not replace security expertise, but it catches the 80% of issues that are pattern-based and leaves humans to focus on architectural and logic-based vulnerabilities.

Key Takeaways

• AI code review catches pattern-based vulnerabilities but misses logic-based flaws
• OWASP Top 10 provides the framework for most common web application vulnerabilities
• Security review should be integrated into the development process, not done after
• AI assistance increases coverage but requires human verification
• Automated compliance checking reduces audit preparation time significantly

Why Security Code Review Needs AI Assistance

The security skills gap is real and growing. There are not enough trained security engineers to review all the code that organizations produce. AI-assisted review addresses this gap by handling the pattern recognition work that scales linearly with code volume while leaving the complex, context-dependent analysis to human experts.

Gemini 3 Pro trained on security vulnerability data can identify issues across multiple vulnerability categories simultaneously. It can check code against OWASP guidelines, find injection vulnerabilities, identify authentication weaknesses, and flag compliance issues in a single pass. This does not replace security engineers. It makes them more efficient.

The prompts in this guide help you integrate AI-assisted security review into your development workflow for common security and compliance scenarios.

15 Best Gemini 3 Pro Code Review Prompts for Security Compliance

Prompt 1: General Security Vulnerability Scan

Review the following code for security vulnerabilities:

Code language: [language]
Code:
[paste code to review]

Review this code specifically for:
1. Injection vulnerabilities (SQL, NoSQL, OS command, LDAP, XPath, Expression Language)
2. Authentication and session management issues
3. Access control weaknesses (Insecure Direct Object References, Missing Function Level Access Control)
4. Data sensitivity issues (unencrypted sensitive data, logging sensitive information)
5. Cryptographic failures (weak algorithms, hardcoded secrets)

For each vulnerability found provide:
1. Vulnerability type (OWASP category if applicable)
2. Severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low)
3. Location in code
4. Explanation of why this is vulnerable
5. Remediation recommendation
6. Example of secure implementation

Why this prompt structure works: This prompt provides a comprehensive vulnerability scan across the most common and dangerous vulnerability categories. The structured output format makes findings easy to triage and fix.

Prompt 2: OWASP Top 10 Compliance Review

Conduct an OWASP Top 10 compliance review of the following code:

Code language: [language]
Code:
[paste code]

Framework: [e.g., React, Angular, Django, Express, Spring Boot]
Database: [what database is used]

Check specifically for:
- A01:2021 Broken Access Control
- A02:2021 Cryptographic Failures
- A03:2021 Injection
- A04:2021 Insecure Design
- A05:2021 Security Misconfiguration
- A06:2021 Vulnerable and Outdated Components
- A07:2021 Identification and Authentication Failures
- A08:2021 Software and Data Integrity Failures
- A09:2021 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
- A10:2021 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

For each applicable category provide:
1. Whether vulnerabilities exist in this category
2. Specific findings with code locations
3. Remediation priority
4. Reference to relevant OWASP guidance

Why this prompt structure works: OWASP Top 10 is the standard framework for web application security. This prompt structures the review around that framework for systematic compliance checking.

Prompt 3: Authentication and Authorization Review

Review the following authentication and authorization code for security issues:

Code language: [language]
Code:
[paste authentication/authorization code]

Authentication mechanism: [e.g., JWT, session-based, OAuth, SAML]
Framework: [auth framework used]

Check for:
1. Weak or default credentials
2. Improper session handling (session fixation, session hijacking)
3. Missing or weak password hashing
4. Flaws in multi-factor authentication
5. Missing or broken authorization checks
6. Privilege escalation possibilities
7. JWT algorithm confusion vulnerabilities
8. Missing logout and session timeout handling
9. OAuth/SAML implementation flaws
10. Token storage issues in client applications

For each finding provide severity and remediation.

Why this prompt structure works: Authentication and authorization are where most application security breaches begin. This prompt provides focused review of authentication code.

Prompt 4: SQL Injection Vulnerability Check

Check the following code for SQL/NoSQL injection vulnerabilities:

Database type: [e.g., PostgreSQL, MongoDB, MySQL]
ORM in use: [e.g., SQLAlchemy, Hibernate, Mongoose]
Code:
[paste code with database queries]

Check specifically for:
1. String concatenation in queries
2. User input in query construction
3. Dynamic query construction from user input
4. Improper use of prepared statements
5. Second-order injection possibilities
6. ORM vulnerability patterns (N+1 as injection vector)
7. NoSQL injection for MongoDB and similar

For each finding provide:
1. Query location
2. User input source
3. Exploitation scenario
4. Secure alternative using parameterized queries or ORM best practices

Why this prompt structure works: SQL and NoSQL injection remain among the most dangerous and common vulnerabilities. This prompt provides focused review with specific remediation guidance.

Prompt 5: Input Validation Review

Review the following code for input validation vulnerabilities:

Code language: [language]
Code:
[paste code]

Input sources in this code:
[what user input this code receives]

Check for:
1. Missing input validation on all user-controlled inputs
2. Improper validation approach (client-side only, not validating on server)
3. Insufficient validation rules (allowing dangerous characters, not checking ranges)
4. Mass assignment vulnerabilities
5. Path traversal vulnerabilities
6. Command injection possibilities
7. Server-side template injection
8. Validation bypass through parameter tampering

For each finding provide location, explanation, and remediation.

Why this prompt structure works: Input validation is the first line of defense. This prompt identifies where validation is missing or improperly implemented.

Prompt 6: Cryptography and Secret Management Review

Review the following code for cryptographic failures and secret management issues:

Code language: [language]
Code:
[paste code]

Check for:
1. Use of weak cryptographic algorithms (MD5, SHA1 for security purposes, DES)
2. Improper key management (hardcoded keys, key in source code)
3. Use of encryption where hashing is appropriate (password storage)
4. Improper IV generation for symmetric encryption
5. Missing encryption for sensitive data at rest
6. Secret exposure in logs, error messages, or client-side code
7. Environment variables vs. hardcoded secrets analysis
8. API key or token exposure in client-side code
9. Certificate validation bypass
10. Use of deprecated cryptographic libraries

For each finding provide severity, affected code location, and remediation.

Why this prompt structure works: Cryptographic failures are often subtle and devastating. This prompt reviews code against current cryptographic best practices.

Prompt 7: API Security Review

Review the following API code for security vulnerabilities:

API framework: [e.g., Express, Flask, Spring, FastAPI]
Code:
[paste API code]

Authentication: [what auth mechanism]
Authorization model: [RBAC/ABAC/etc.]

Check for:
1. Broken authentication endpoints
2. Missing rate limiting
3. Mass assignment in API requests
4. Improper CORS configuration
5. Missing or improper authorization checks
6. API versioning vulnerabilities
7. GraphQL security issues if applicable
8. REST common misconfigurations
9. API gateway bypass possibilities
10. Information disclosure in API responses
11. BOLA (Broken Object Level Authorization)
12. Excessive data exposure

For each finding provide severity and remediation.

Why this prompt structure works: APIs are increasingly the attack surface for applications. This prompt provides comprehensive API-specific security review.

Prompt 8: Dependency Vulnerability Check

Analyze the following dependency declarations for known vulnerabilities:

Language/ecosystem: [e.g., npm, pip, Maven, Gradle]
Dependency file contents:
[paste package.json/requirements.txt/pom.xml/build.gradle]

Check for:
1. Dependencies with known critical vulnerabilities
2. Outdated dependencies with security patches available
3. Malicious packages (typosquatting, dependency confusion)
4. License compliance issues that create security risk
5. Dependencies with no security maintenance
6. Transitive dependency vulnerabilities
7. Dev dependencies included in production builds
8. Docker base image vulnerabilities

For each finding provide:
1. Vulnerability name and CVE if known
2. Severity
3. Patched version available
4. Risk assessment for your use case

Why this prompt structure works: Most applications include hundreds of dependencies. This prompt identifies known vulnerabilities in your dependency tree.

Prompt 9: Secure Coding Standards Compliance

Review the following code for compliance with secure coding standards:

Code language: [language]
Standard to check against: [e.g., CERT Secure Coding Standards, CWE Top 25, company-specific standards]
Code:
[paste code]

Check for the most relevant categories from the selected standard:
1. Risky resource management
2. Risky cryptographic practices
3. Risky input validation
4. API abuse
5. Error handling that exposes information
6. Concurrency issues
7. Code quality issues that create security risk

For each finding provide:
1. Standard guideline violated
2. Code location
3. Risk explanation
4. Compliant alternative

Why this prompt structure works: Secure coding standards provide the framework for consistent security across a codebase. This prompt checks compliance systematically.

Prompt 10: Secrets Scanning

Scan the following code for exposed secrets and credentials:

Code:
[paste code or describe file structure]

Check for:
1. Hardcoded passwords
2. Hardcoded API keys or tokens
3. Private cryptographic keys
4. Database connection strings with credentials
5. AWS/GCP/Azure credentials
6. OAuth tokens or refresh tokens
7. JWT secrets
8. SSH keys
9. Service account credentials
10. Personal access tokens
11. Secrets in comments or documentation
12. Environment variables being set incorrectly

For each finding provide:
1. Secret type
2. Location
3. Risk assessment
4. Secure alternative approach

Why this prompt structure works: Exposed secrets are high-severity findings that require immediate remediation. This prompt scans comprehensively for credential exposure.

Prompt 11: Security Configuration Review

Review the following configuration for security issues:

Configuration type: [e.g., server config, Docker, Kubernetes, cloud infrastructure]
Configuration:
[paste configuration]

Platform: [e.g., AWS, GCP, Azure, on-prem]

Check for:
1. Default credentials in use
2. Unnecessary services or ports enabled
3. Missing TLS/HTTPS configuration
4. Overly permissive access controls
5. Missing security headers
6. Debug mode enabled in production
7. Insecure CORS configuration
8. Missing encryption at rest
9. Insecure logging configuration
10. Missing backup or disaster recovery configuration
11. Cloud-specific misconfigurations (S3 ACLs, IAM roles, security groups)

For each finding provide severity and hardening recommendation.

Why this prompt structure works: Configuration errors cause as many breaches as code vulnerabilities. This prompt reviews configuration against security best practices.

Prompt 12: Incident Response Code Review

Review the following code that handles [sensitive operation, e.g., password reset, payment processing, data export] for security issues:

Code language: [language]
Code:
[paste code]

Context:
[what this code does]
What sensitive data it processes:
What the security-critical paths are:

Check for:
1. Race conditions in sensitive operations
2. Timing attacks in comparisons
3. Improper state management
4. Logging that exposes sensitive data
5. Error handling that exposes sensitive data
6. Insufficient transaction isolation
7. Replay attack vulnerabilities
8. Business logic vulnerabilities specific to this operation
9. Insufficient audit logging

For each finding provide severity, attack scenario, and remediation.

Why this prompt structure works: Sensitive operations have specific vulnerability patterns beyond generic security issues. This prompt reviews them with appropriate context.

Prompt 13: Cloud Infrastructure Security Review

Review the following cloud infrastructure code/configuration for security issues:

Cloud provider: [AWS/GCP/Azure]
Infrastructure as code: [Terraform/CloudFormation/YAML/etc.]
Configuration:
[paste configuration]

Check for:
1. Overly permissive IAM roles and policies
2. S3/bucket public access
3. Database accessible from public internet
4. Missing encryption for storage and databases
5. Insecure VPC configuration
6. Missing network segmentation
7. Lambda function vulnerabilities
8. Container registry vulnerabilities
9. Secrets management (hardcoded vs. secret manager)
10. Missing audit logging
11. Missing MFA requirements
12. Security group or firewall misconfigurations

For each finding provide severity and remediation.

Why this prompt structure works: Cloud misconfigurations are a leading cause of cloud breaches. This prompt reviews infrastructure code for cloud-specific security issues.

Prompt 14: Supply Chain Security Review

Review the following code/dependencies for supply chain security issues:

Code or package list:
[paste code or package files]

Check for:
1. Malicious packages (typosquatting, dependency confusion)
2. Package integrity verification gaps
3. Untrusted package sources
4. Insecure build processes
5. Build artifact verification gaps
6. CI/CD pipeline security issues
7. Unpinned dependencies that could change
8. Pre-built dependencies in source
9. Missing software bill of materials (SBOM)
10. License compliance risks

For each finding provide severity, impact assessment, and mitigation.

Why this prompt structure works: Supply chain attacks are increasing. This prompt reviews code for supply chain risks beyond just dependency vulnerabilities.

Prompt 15: Penetration Testing Preparation Review

Review the following code to prepare for penetration testing:

Application type: [web app/mobile API/microservice/etc.]
Code:
[paste relevant code]

Pre-authentication attack surface:
[what can be attacked without authentication]

Post-authentication attack surface:
[what requires authentication to access]

High-value targets:
[what an attacker would want to access]

Known external integrations:
[APIs, third-party services]

Provide:
1. Potential entry points for attackers
2. Authentication bypass possibilities
3. Privilege escalation paths
4. Data exfiltration possibilities
5. Lateral movement opportunities
6. Areas where penetration testing should focus
7. Findings to address before penetration testing

Why this prompt structure works: Penetration testing preparation helps maximize the value of testing time. This prompt identifies areas to focus testing effort.

FAQ

Can AI replace human security code reviewers?

No. AI catches pattern-based vulnerabilities effectively but misses logic-based flaws, architectural issues, and context-dependent vulnerabilities that require human judgment. Use AI to increase review coverage and catch common issues; use human reviewers for complex security logic.

How do I verify AI security findings?

AI findings should be treated as leads to investigate, not as confirmed vulnerabilities. Verify each finding by understanding the code context, testing the proposed exploit scenario, and assessing whether the finding actually creates risk in your specific implementation.

How often should security code review be done?

Security review should be integrated into every pull request for critical code paths. Full security review should happen before major releases and quarterly for ongoing development. AI-assisted review scales this frequency without proportional human time investment.

Conclusion

Security code review is essential but often neglected because it is time-consuming. AI-assisted review changes this equation by handling the pattern-based vulnerability detection that scales with code volume, leaving humans to focus on complex, context-dependent security logic.

The 15 prompts in this guide cover the main security review scenarios: general vulnerability scanning, OWASP compliance, authentication and authorization, injection vulnerabilities, input validation, cryptography, API security, dependency vulnerabilities, secure coding standards, secrets scanning, configuration review, sensitive operations, cloud infrastructure, supply chain, and penetration testing preparation.

Use these prompts to integrate security review into your development workflow, not to replace security expertise. AI increases coverage and efficiency. Human judgment ensures accuracy and context.