# Local Ultrareview > local-ultrareview - Skill: `grandamenium/local-ultrareview` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add grandamenium/local-ultrareview` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/grandamenium/local-ultrareview/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: grandamenium (https://skillmd.com/u/grandamenium) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/grandamenium/local-ultrareview --- # local-ultrareview A local replication of /ultrareview that runs Opus subagents in 3 stages: parallel review, synthesis, and implementation planning. The invoking agent then offers to apply the fixes. **Trigger phrases:** - "run local ultrareview" - "/local-ultrareview" - "/local-ultrareview " --- ## Setup Before running, determine the session folder name: ```bash PR_NUM="${1:-branch}" # PR number if passed, else "branch" DATE=$(date +%Y-%m-%d) SESSION_DIR="reviews/${PR_NUM}-${DATE}" mkdir -p "$SESSION_DIR" ``` Get the diff: ```bash # If PR number provided: gh pr diff $PR_NUM > "$SESSION_DIR/diff.txt" # If no PR number (current branch): git diff main > "$SESSION_DIR/diff.txt" ``` If the diff is empty, tell the user there is nothing to review and stop. --- ## Stage 1: Three Parallel Opus Review Agents Spawn all three simultaneously using the Agent tool. Use `model: claude-opus-4-7` for each. Do NOT wait for one to finish before starting the others. ### Agent 1: Correctness Review **Output file:** `$SESSION_DIR/review-correctness.md` **Prompt:** ``` You are a senior engineer conducting a focused code review. Your scope: correctness, bugs, and edge cases only. Read the diff at: $SESSION_DIR/diff.txt Review every changed file for: - Logic errors and off-by-one mistakes - Unhandled edge cases and null/undefined paths - Incorrect assumptions about input or state - Race conditions or async handling issues - Functions that can fail silently - Tests that are missing or inadequate For each issue, write: ## [Short Issue Title] **File:** path/to/file:line **Severity:** critical | warning | suggestion **What is wrong:** [specific description] **Why it matters:** [what breaks or what risk] **What needs to change:** [specific enough to act on] If you find no issues in a section, say so explicitly. Write your full review to $SESSION_DIR/review-correctness.md now. ``` ### Agent 2: Security & Performance Review **Output file:** `$SESSION_DIR/review-security-perf.md` **Prompt:** ``` You are a senior security and performance engineer conducting a focused code review. Your scope: security vulnerabilities and performance problems only. Read the diff at: $SESSION_DIR/diff.txt Review for: - Injection vulnerabilities (SQL, command, XSS, etc.) - Unvalidated or unsanitized user input - Authentication and authorization issues - Sensitive data exposure or insecure storage - N+1 queries or unnecessary database calls - Memory leaks or unbounded data structures - Expensive operations in hot paths - Missing rate limiting or resource guards For each issue, write: ## [Short Issue Title] **File:** path/to/file:line **Severity:** critical | warning | suggestion **Type:** security | performance **What is wrong:** [specific description] **Attack vector / Impact:** [who can exploit it or what degrades] **What needs to change:** [specific enough to act on] If you find no issues in a section, say so explicitly. Write your full review to $SESSION_DIR/review-security-perf.md now. ``` ### Agent 3: Architecture Review **Output file:** `$SESSION_DIR/review-architecture.md` **Prompt:** ``` You are a principal engineer conducting a focused code review. Your scope: architecture, design patterns, and codebase fit only. Read the diff at: $SESSION_DIR/diff.txt Also read surrounding files referenced in the diff to understand existing patterns. Review for: - Inconsistency with existing codebase patterns and conventions - Unnecessary complexity or over-engineering - Violation of separation of concerns - Poor abstractions or leaky interfaces - Duplicated logic that should be shared - Coupling that will make future changes harder - Missing or incorrect error boundaries - API design that is hard to use correctly For each issue, write: ## [Short Issue Title] **File:** path/to/file:line **Severity:** critical | warning | suggestion **What is wrong:** [specific description] **Why it matters:** [maintenance cost, future risk] **What needs to change:** [specific enough to act on] If you find no issues in a section, say so explicitly. Write your full review to $SESSION_DIR/review-architecture.md now. ``` Wait until all three files exist before proceeding: - `$SESSION_DIR/review-correctness.md` - `$SESSION_DIR/review-security-perf.md` - `$SESSION_DIR/review-architecture.md` --- ## Stage 2: Synthesis Agent (Opus) Spawn one Opus agent to read all three reviews and produce a unified synthesis. **Output file:** `$SESSION_DIR/synthesis.md` **Prompt:** ``` You are synthesizing the output of three independent code reviews into one clear document. Read: - $SESSION_DIR/review-correctness.md - $SESSION_DIR/review-security-perf.md - $SESSION_DIR/review-architecture.md Produce $SESSION_DIR/synthesis.md with this structure: # Code Review Synthesis — [PR/branch] — [date] ## Overall Assessment [2-3 sentences: is this safe to merge, what is the biggest concern, overall quality] ## Critical Issues (must fix before merge) [All critical severity items from any reviewer, deduplicated and ranked by risk] ## Warnings (should fix) [All warning severity items, deduplicated] ## Suggestions (nice to have) [All suggestion items, grouped by theme] ## Points of Agreement [Issues flagged by more than one reviewer — these are highest confidence] ## What Looks Good [Areas where all reviewers found nothing — helps the author know what is solid] Deduplicate: if multiple reviewers flagged the same issue, merge them into one entry noting all reviewers agreed. Write $SESSION_DIR/synthesis.md now. ``` Wait for `$SESSION_DIR/synthesis.md` to exist. --- ## Stage 3: Implementation Plan Agent (Opus) Spawn one Opus agent to read the synthesis and produce a concrete implementation plan. **Output file:** `$SESSION_DIR/implementation-plan.md` **Prompt:** ``` You are a senior engineer writing a concrete implementation plan to fix every issue identified in a code review. Read: - $SESSION_DIR/synthesis.md (the synthesized review) - $SESSION_DIR/diff.txt (the original changes) - The actual source files referenced in the review (use Read tool) Produce $SESSION_DIR/implementation-plan.md with this structure: # Implementation Plan — [PR/branch] — [date] ## Summary [What needs to be fixed and the estimated scope of work] ## Fix Plan For each issue in the synthesis (critical first, then warnings, then suggestions): ### Fix [N]: [Issue Title] **File(s):** path/to/file:line **Priority:** critical | warning | suggestion **Approach:** [exactly what to change and why this approach is correct] **Code change:** [Write the exact code that should replace the problematic code. Be precise — actual variable names, actual logic, not pseudocode.] **Test:** [what to verify after the fix] ## Order of Operations [If fixes depend on each other, specify the order to apply them] ## Risk [Any fixes that could introduce new issues and what to watch for] Write the full implementation plan to $SESSION_DIR/implementation-plan.md now. ``` Wait for `$SESSION_DIR/implementation-plan.md` to exist. --- ## Stage 4: Main Agent Presents and Executes Once the implementation plan exists, read it and present to the user: ``` local-ultrareview complete. Session folder: $SESSION_DIR/ - review-correctness.md - review-security-perf.md - review-architecture.md - synthesis.md - implementation-plan.md [X] critical issues [X] warnings [X] suggestions Summary: [paste the ## Summary section from implementation-plan.md] Do you want me to apply the fixes now? ``` ### If user says yes: Work through the implementation plan fix by fix. For each fix: 1. Read the current file 2. Apply the change exactly as specified in the plan 3. Briefly confirm what was changed After all fixes are applied, ask: ``` All fixes applied. What would you like to do next? 1. Commit the changes 2. Push and re-open the PR 3. Merge 4. Review the changes first (git diff) ``` Execute whichever the user chooses: - **Commit:** `git add -A && git commit -m "fix: apply code review fixes from local-ultrareview"` - **Push/re-PR:** `git push` then `gh pr create` or `gh pr push` as appropriate - **Merge:** `gh pr merge` (confirm with user before executing) - **Diff:** run `git diff` and show output ### If user says no: ``` No problem. All review docs are in $SESSION_DIR/ when you are ready. ``` --- ## Notes - All subagents are Opus. This is deliberate — code review and implementation planning benefit from maximum reasoning capability. - The session folder `reviews/-/` persists after the run so you can reference it later or share it with your team. - Stage 1 agents run fully in parallel. On a typical PR this takes 2-4 minutes. - If a PR number is passed, `gh` CLI must be installed and authenticated. - The main agent handles all git operations. Subagents only read and write files.