claude-code - 💡(How to fix) Fix /ultrareview returns empty findings on large diff (105 files / +19k LoC) — two consecutive runs [1 comments, 2 participants]

Official PRs (…)
ON THIS PAGE

Recommended Tools

×6

Utilities matched from this issue’s tags and category — try them while you read without losing context.

GitHub issue graph ai analysis

Paste a GitHub issue URL. We fetch that issue, discover linked issues from bodies/comments/timeline, collect linked pull requests, and produce a structured English report.

The report is written in English Markdown for sharing and archival.

Helpful · Quick feedback

Loading…
GitHub stats
anthropics/claude-code#57816Fetched 2026-05-11 03:24:37
View on GitHub
Comments
1
Participants
2
Timeline
5
Reactions
0
Timeline (top)
labeled ×4commented ×1

/ultrareview returned an empty findings array ([]) on two consecutive runs against the same branch, against a sizable diff (~105 files, +18,967 / -1,044). Both runs reported status: completed with zero findings — no notes, no rationale, no partial coverage indicator.

Root Cause

/ultrareview returned an empty findings array ([]) on two consecutive runs against the same branch, against a sizable diff (~105 files, +18,967 / -1,044). Both runs reported status: completed with zero findings — no notes, no rationale, no partial coverage indicator.

RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

Summary

/ultrareview returned an empty findings array ([]) on two consecutive runs against the same branch, against a sizable diff (~105 files, +18,967 / -1,044). Both runs reported status: completed with zero findings — no notes, no rationale, no partial coverage indicator.

Sessions

  • session_01ADykSHyLkvNizg3Co1vTpf
  • session_01AswYbXxdnjCLMY2jNDfr7Y

Reproduction

  1. Checkout a feature branch with a large diff vs main (~100+ files, ~20k LoC, mix of infra/service/test/docs).
  2. Run /ultrareview.
  3. Wait for the task-notification.
  4. Observe findings: [].
  5. Repeat — same result.

Expected behavior

One of:

  • Surface "no critical findings" with a one-line rationale, or
  • Surface a "scope exceeded analyzer ceiling — partial coverage" notice with what was/wasn't covered, or
  • Return at least style/design observations on a diff this large.

A bare [] with no metadata gives the user no signal on whether the analyzer ran end-to-end, hit a ceiling, or genuinely found nothing.

Impact

  • Two of three monthly free runs consumed without actionable output.
  • User has to manually decide whether to retry or skip the third run.

Asks

  1. Investigate whether the analyzer silently truncated/aborted on this scope (logs from the two session IDs above).
  2. If a known scope-ceiling exists, surface it explicitly in the result instead of [].
  3. Consider refunding the two consumed free runs once cause is confirmed.

Environment

  • Claude Code CLI, model Opus 4.7 (1M context)
  • macOS Darwin 25.3.0
  • Diff scope: 105 files changed, +18,967 / −1,044

Vote matrix · Quick signals

Works
Did the solution work? Tap to confirm.
Easy Fix
Was it a quick fix?
Time Saver
Did it save you time?
Blocking
Was it severely blocking?
Common Issue
Are others likely hitting this too?
Flaky / Intermittent
Is it intermittent?
Verified / Reproducible
Can you reproduce it reliably?
Loading…

FAQ

Expected behavior

One of:

  • Surface "no critical findings" with a one-line rationale, or
  • Surface a "scope exceeded analyzer ceiling — partial coverage" notice with what was/wasn't covered, or
  • Return at least style/design observations on a diff this large.

A bare [] with no metadata gives the user no signal on whether the analyzer ran end-to-end, hit a ceiling, or genuinely found nothing.

Still need to ship something?

×6

Another batch ranked right after the header list — different links, same matching logic.

Back to top recommendations

TRENDING

claude-code - 💡(How to fix) Fix /ultrareview returns empty findings on large diff (105 files / +19k LoC) — two consecutive runs [1 comments, 2 participants]