Reviewing code and driving git in natural language
/code-review launches a local review with effort levels from low to max, and ultra is not one of them: it is a distinct facility, a multi-agent review in the cloud, billed separately. Git is then driven in plain language, with the same permission safety net as commands typed by hand.
A local code review is launched with /code-review and five effort levels, low, medium, high, xhigh, max. Ultra is not part of that scale: it escalates to a multi-agent review run in the cloud, billed separately from the five local levels included in normal plan usage.
Five local levels, one confidence report
The low and medium levels only report findings the review is most confident about, while high, xhigh, and max widen the coverage at the cost of including less certain findings. Match the effort to the risk of the change: too low lets a real bug through, too high drowns a small fix under uncertain remarks. The level is typed straight after the command, with no flag in front of it, everything that follows /code-review without the word ultra being read as the target of the review rather than as an option.
/code-review medium
# rapporte les constats les plus sûrs sur le diff en cours
# /code-review max élargirait la couverture,
# au prix d'inclure des constats moins certains
Ultra runs in the cloud
The ultra command triggers a multi-agent review in the cloud, distinct from the five local levels and billed independently: a Pro or Max account is granted three free runs allocated once, none on Team or Enterprise, beyond that the cost typically ranges from five to twenty five dollars in usage credits depending on the size of the change analysed, with confirmation requested before every interactive launch. A third facility exists as well, reserved for Team and Enterprise plans: a GitHub app service that automatically comments on every pull request, billed separately at an average of fifteen to twenty five dollars per review.
Git is driven without memorising commands
Asking in plain language for the repository status, the commit message, or the creation of a pull request actually triggers the underlying commands, gh pr create or glab mr create depending on the platform, without the user needing to know their exact syntax. The safety net stays the same as with these commands typed by hand: forcing a push or deleting a branch remains subject to the permission mode chosen for the session, exactly like any other git command. The review effort chosen above applies before this git step, just as a regression test precedes the closing of a bug.
What changed in October 2026
Code Review, the automatic review of pull requests, left preview on 15 October 2026 for Team and Enterprise organizations: an administrator picks Quick, Standard (the default) or Deep for each repository, and reviews run on their own on new pull requests. On the local command side, /code-review at medium effort also reports cleanup and CLAUDE.md conventions findings on models without tuned review settings, including Opus 5.5 and Sonnet 5.5, and --max-findings sets how many findings are reported. Finally, claude ultrareview now requires workspace trust: it asks on a terminal, otherwise it refuses, and a script passes --trust-workspace.
Three review facilities, not a single scale
| Three ways to have code reviewed | Where the review runs | Cost | What it covers |
|---|---|---|---|
| /code-review, low to max levels | Locally, within the current session | Included in normal plan usage | A single agent, five effort levels from most certain to widest |
| ultra, multi-agent review | In the cloud | Three free runs on Pro and Max, none on Team or Enterprise, then typically five to twenty five dollars | Several distinct agents on the same diff |
| Code Review, GitHub app | On GitHub, on every pull request | Fifteen to twenty five dollars per review on average, reserved for Team and Enterprise | Automatic comments posted directly on the pull request |
The cost of a review beyond the free tier
A developer runs /code-review with the medium effort level on a three line change touching an error message shown to the user. The review reports a single finding, about the wording of the message.
Write in one sentence what this situation establishes, and in one sentence what it does not establish.
What this establishes: This result establishes that the medium level of /code-review reported one finding on this precise three line change.
What this does not establish: It does not establish that a higher effort level, such as high or max, would not have reported any additional finding on the same change.
The three most common miscalibrations
- Too broad This result proves that the medium level is always enough for any code change, whatever its size.
- Too narrow This result says nothing since only one finding was reported on a change of just three lines.
- Beside the point This result shows that the error message concerned was already translated into several languages before the review.
- /code-review offers five local effort levels, low, medium, high, xhigh, and max, included in normal plan usage, typed directly after the command, with no flag in front of them.
- Code Review, the automatic review of pull requests, is generally available for Team and Enterprise, and claude ultrareview requires workspace trust, which --trust-workspace grants in a script.
- Ultra is not a sixth level of the same scale, it is a multi-agent review in the cloud, billed separately from the local review.
- A third facility, reserved for Team and Enterprise plans, automatically comments on every pull request on GitHub, at a cost distinct from that of ultra.
- Asking for a git action in plain language actually triggers a command such as gh pr create, and forcing a push or deleting a branch remains subject to the same permission mode as any other command.
On a real change you have just made, run /code-review with an effort level proportionate to its risk, read each finding reported, then ask Claude Code in plain language to create the corresponding pull request.
Every datable claim in this lesson links here to the public text behind it. A source that does not open proves nothing.
- Claude Code, code review, /code-review effort levels and GitHub App service cost consultée le 2026-09-02
- Claude Code, ultrareview, free runs and usage credit cost consultée le 2026-09-02
- Claude Code, common workflows, creating a pull request in natural language consultée le 2026-09-02
- Anthropic, Code Review is now generally available consultée le 2026-10-24
- Claude Code changelog: /code-review at medium effort, --max-findings, ultrareview and workspace trust consultée le 2026-10-24