ultrareview

name	ultrareview
description	Deep code review using Claude Code's thorough analysis mode — security, performance, correctness, and maintainability

Ultrareview Skill

When to activate

• Reviewing PRs with security-sensitive changes (auth, payments, data access)
• Evaluating performance-critical code paths (hot loops, database queries, network calls)
• Assessing architectural decisions in large PRs (new abstractions, pattern changes)
• Pre-merge review for release branches
• Auditing code before compliance reviews (SOC2, HIPAA, PCI)

When NOT to use

• Trivial PRs (typo fixes, config changes, documentation only)
• WIP/draft PRs that aren't ready for review
• PRs that only add tests

Instructions

1. Understand context. Read the PR description, linked issues, and related code before diving into the diff.

2. Review in layers. Go through the changes 3 times, each with a different lens:

   Pass 1 — Correctness:

   • Does the logic handle all edge cases?
   • Are error conditions handled properly?
   • Do types/interfaces match between producer and consumer?
   • Are there race conditions or timing issues?

   Pass 2 — Security:

   • Input validation (SQL injection, XSS, path traversal)?
   • Authentication and authorization checks present?
   • Sensitive data exposure (logs, error messages, API responses)?
   • Dependency vulnerabilities introduced?

   Pass 3 — Maintainability:

   • Is the code readable without comments explaining the obvious?
   • Are abstractions at the right level (not too much, not too little)?
   • Would a new team member understand this in 5 minutes?
   • Are there hidden assumptions that should be documented?

3. Categorize findings:

   • BLOCKER: Must fix before merge (security vulnerability, data loss risk, correctness bug)
   • IMPORTANT: Should fix before merge (performance issue, poor error handling, missing validation)
   • SUGGESTION: Nice to have (better naming, simpler approach, additional test)
   • NIT: Optional polish (style preference, minor readability)

4. Provide actionable feedback. For each finding:

   • What's wrong and why it matters
   • Specific suggestion for how to fix it
   • Code example if helpful

5. Acknowledge good patterns. Call out well-written code, clever solutions, or good test coverage.

Example

PR: "Add user search endpoint"

## Ultrareview Results

### BLOCKER
- **SQL Injection in search query** (api/users/search.js:42)
  The search term is interpolated directly into the SQL string.
  Fix: Use parameterized queries.
  ```js
  // Before (vulnerable)
  db.query(`SELECT * FROM users WHERE name LIKE '%${query}%'`)
  // After (safe)
  db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE name LIKE $1', [`%${query}%`])

IMPORTANT

• Missing rate limiting — Search endpoints are expensive and abuse-prone. Add rate limiting: 10 req/min per user.
• No pagination — Large result sets will OOM. Add LIMIT/OFFSET with max 100 per page.

SUGGESTION

• Extract search logic — The handler mixes HTTP concerns with business logic. Consider a UserSearchService class for testability.

NIT

• Variable q on line 15 → rename to searchQuery for clarity.

👍 Good stuff

• Solid test coverage including empty query, special chars, and unicode.
• Good use of indexes on the search columns.

---

Built with [Claudient](https://github.com/Claudient/Claudient) · [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)