ureview

Audit completed designs for structural risks before merge.

47|12|Updated Apr 17, 2026

Search Tags:#code review #maintainability #risk assessment #design audit #git diff #task documentation #PR readiness

Ready to run

npx skills add https://github.com/btseytlin/ultrapack --skill ureview

💬 Prompt for ChatGPT / Claude Chat▼

Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: ureview
Source: https://github.com/btseytlin/ultrapack/tree/main/plugins/up/skills/ureview
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/btseytlin/ultrapack --skill ureview

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

It prevents future maintainers from inheriting hidden structural problems by performing an independent, future-oriented audit after verification passes.

Core Features & Use Cases

Future maintainer audit: Evaluate whether abstractions, invariants, and shapes will force painful rewrites later.
Evidence-driven findings: Identify wrong abstractions, load-bearing but non-obvious assumptions, next-change traps, and drift from surrounding code.
Scope flag escalation: Surface when the whole change may be the wrong call so it’s addressed at the design level.
Task-file conclusion update: Populate the task’s ## Conclusion with the finalized review outcome.

Quick Start

Run the ureview skill after your task’s verify stage succeeds to produce a future-maintainer-focused conclusion for the task file.

Frequently Asked Questions about ureview

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema

How do I audit code for long-term maintainability risks before a merge?▼

To audit code for maintainability risks before a merge, perform a future-maintainer review focusing on invariants, abstractions, and structural traps. This process identifies non-obvious load-bearing assumptions and updates the task documentation with evidence-backed findings.

What is a future-maintainer design audit and when should I run it?▼

A future-maintainer design audit evaluates whether abstractions and shapes will force painful rewrites later. Run it after task verification passes but before PR readiness, ensuring the implementation does not introduce hidden structural problems for future teams.

How do I assess PR readiness using a git diff?▼

Assess PR readiness by running an independent diff-based review against the codebase to check for drift and wrong abstractions. This severity-tiered evaluation verifies structural integrity and surfaces any scope flags indicating the change may be the wrong call.

Can I escalate a scope flag if the overall design approach seems wrong?▼

Yes, you can escalate a scope flag when the whole change represents the wrong call. Scope flag escalation surfaces fundamental design-level issues so they are addressed immediately rather than passing hidden structural problems to future maintainers.

Does this code review process integrate with existing task documentation?▼

Yes, the code review process integrates directly by updating the task documentation's conclusion section. It populates the finalized review outcome, including any scope flags and evidence-driven findings, ensuring task files reflect the current design audit status.