5 AI Prompts That Actually Save Time in Your Dev Workflow

charlie-morrison — Sat, 25 Apr 2026 00:59:17 +0000

I've been collecting AI prompts that genuinely improve my development workflow — not the generic "write me a function" ones, but prompts that handle the tedious parts of software development.

Here are 5 that I use almost daily:

1. The Debug Investigator

I have a [language] application throwing [error]. Here's the relevant code:
[paste code]
Here's the stack trace:
[paste trace]

Don't just fix it. Explain:
1. What's the root cause?
2. Why does this happen specifically in this context?
3. What's the fix?
4. How do I prevent similar issues?

Why it works: Forces the AI to explain causation, not just give you a patch.

2. The Code Review Partner

Review this code as a senior engineer. Focus on:
- Security vulnerabilities (OWASP top 10)
- Performance bottlenecks
- Edge cases I'm missing
- API design issues

Don't comment on style. Only flag things that could break in production.
[paste code]

Why it works: Scoping the review prevents generic "consider using const" noise.

3. The Test Case Generator

Generate test cases for this function. Include:
- Happy path (3 cases)
- Edge cases (empty input, null, boundary values)
- Error cases (invalid types, overflow)
- Integration scenarios (if applicable)

Use [testing framework]. Make tests independent and descriptive.
[paste function]

Why it works: The structured categories ensure comprehensive coverage.

4. The Documentation Writer

Write documentation for this API endpoint:
[paste code]

Include:
- One-line description
- Parameters (with types and constraints)
- Response format (with example)
- Error codes
- Rate limits (if visible)
- Example curl command

Keep it concise. No filler paragraphs.

Why it works: Explicit format requirements prevent AI verbosity.

5. The Refactoring Advisor

This code works but feels wrong. Suggest refactoring options:
[paste code]

For each suggestion:
- What pattern applies?
- Show before/after
- What's the tradeoff?
- Is this refactoring worth the effort for a codebase of [size]?

Why it works: The tradeoff question prevents over-engineering suggestions.

Want More?

I maintain a collection of 100+ developer-focused AI prompts covering debugging, architecture, DevOps, and more:

AI Developer Prompts (Free, MIT)

Also check out:

What AI prompts have become essential in your workflow? Share your best ones in the comments!

I Built a Free Resume ATS Score Checker — Here's What I Learned

charlie-morrison — Sat, 25 Apr 2026 00:58:51 +0000

Every job seeker has heard the stat: 75% of resumes never reach a human recruiter. They get filtered by ATS before anyone reads them.

I built a free, client-side tool to help check resumes against common ATS requirements. Here's what I learned.

What ATS Systems Actually Look For

1. Section Headers Matter

ATS systems scan for standard headers: "Experience", "Education", "Skills". Creative names like "My Journey" often get missed entirely.

2. Quantified Achievements Get Flagged

The difference between "managed a team" and "managed a team of 12, delivering 3 projects 15% under budget" is massive for ATS scoring.

3. Contact Info Must Be Parseable

Fancy formatting, columns, or graphics can break ATS parsing of basic contact details.

4. Keywords Must Match Naturally

Modern ATS detects keyword stuffing. Natural integration of job description terms works best.

The Tool

I built a Resume ATS Score Checker that runs entirely in your browser:

Try it free → charliemorrison.dev/resume-checker

It checks:

Resume length optimization
Contact info completeness
Section structure and standard headers
Action verbs and quantified achievements
Formatting compatibility
Keyword matching against job descriptions

Your resume data never leaves your browser. No sign-up, no tracking.

How It Works

Pure HTML/JavaScript with pattern matching and heuristics:

// Check for quantified achievements
const pattern = /\\d+[%+]?.*?(increase|decrease|improve|reduce|save|deliver)/gi;
const matches = text.match(pattern);

Each check produces pass/warn/fail, combining into an overall ATS score out of 100.

Key Takeaways

Use standard section headers — no creative naming
Quantify everything — numbers work for both ATS and humans
Mirror job description language — use the same terminology
Keep formatting simple — single column, standard fonts
Include a skills section — easy for ATS to parse

More Free Tools

LinkedIn Headline Generator
150+ Job Search AI Prompts (GitHub)

What's your ATS experience? Drop a comment!

DEV Community: charlie-morrison