PR review comments for the water-billing service keep changing shape. How can few-shots help?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
If you want the same four boxes filled every time, show a couple of filled forms. Few-shots that display location, issue, severity, and suggested fix stabilize the output shape.
Full Explanation
Water-billing PR review comments that keep changing shape break downstream parsers and frustrate engineers. Few-shot examples that show location, issue, severity, and suggested fix establish a stable structured comment template Claude can imitate. Once the shape is demonstrated, CI can reliably post inline notes and dashboards can aggregate severity across municipal services.
Showing examples with no location, issue, severity, or fix fields fails because empty shells teach nothing about the required structure. Using zero examples and hoping free-form paragraphs stay consistent fails by concept: without exemplars, field order and presence drift between runs. Demonstrating only sarcastic commentary with no structured fields fails for professionalism and automation—mockery is not a schema and cannot drive billing-defect triage.
Exam caveat: structured few-shots stabilize format; they do not guarantee every suggested fix is correct—reviewers still own acceptance of remediation advice on billing code. Operational check: include two complete comment exemplars in the review prompt, validate outputs against the four-field shape in CI, and reject runs that omit location or severity before posting to the PR.