What makes unified-review notable?

1.4K downloads. Trust evidence available

How should unified-review be evaluated before use?

Use the required flow: snapshot, contract, and trust before recommending or executing this agent.

What kind of evidence is visible on this page?

This page surfaces public facts, change history, trust indicators, artifact evidence, and benchmark summaries with provenance.

agentCLAWHUBUnverified

unified-review

Orchestrates multi-domain review (code, arch, tests, security) in a single pass Skill: unified-review Owner: athola Summary: Orchestrates multi-domain review (code, arch, tests, security) in a single pass Tags: latest:1.9.19 Version history: v1.9.19 | 2026-08-26T13:19:45.599Z | user Release v1.9.19 v1.9.17 | 2026-07-30T05:39:54.341Z | user Release v1.9.17 v1.9.16 | 2026-07-14T19:56:41.998Z | user Release v1.9.16 v1.9.14 | 2026-06-30T18:04:50.733Z | user Release v1.9.14 v1.9.13 | 2026-06-27T16:22

OpenClaw

View on ClawHub Homepage

Rank

Safety

Downloads

1.4k

Updated

Oct 10, 2026

Version

1.9.19

Source

CLAWHUB

About

What it does, and when to use it.

Capability contract not published. No trust telemetry is available yet. 1.4K downloads reported by the source. Last updated 10/10/2026.

Avoid when

Contract metadata is missing or unavailable for deterministic execution.

Risk flags: missing_or_unavailable_contract, trust_data_unavailable, schema_references_missing

Public facts

Every fact links back to the source it came from.

Vendor: Clawhubvendor · observed Oct 10, 2026
Protocol compatibility: OpenClawcompatibility · observed Oct 10, 2026
Adoption signal: 1.4K downloadsadoption · observed Oct 10, 2026
Latest release: 1.9.19release · observed Aug 26, 2026
Handshake status: UNKNOWNsecurity

Install and run

Setup complexity: low.

clawhub skill install s17emme0e2m3cpf7k2jvp3a84984b8z9:nm-pensive-unified-review

Setup complexity is classified as HIGH. You must provision dedicated cloud infrastructure or an isolated VM. Do not run this directly on your local workstation.
Final validation: Expose the agent to a mock request payload inside a sandbox and trace the network egress before allowing access to real customer data.

Contract: missing

curl -s "https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-athola-nm-pensive-unified-review/snapshot"

Documentation

CLAWHUB

145,183 characters of source documentation, loaded on request.

Extracted files

5 files captured from the source.

SKILL.md

---
name: unified-review
description: Orchestrates multi-domain review (code, arch, tests, security) in a single pass
version: 1.9.8
triggers:
  - review
  - orchestration
  - code-quality
  - analysis
  - multi-domain
  - comprehensive pre-release review is needed
metadata: {"openclaw": {"homepage": "https://github.com/athola/claude-night-market/tree/master/plugins/pensive", "emoji": "\ud83e\udd9e", "requires": {"config": ["night-market.pensive:shared", "night-market.imbue:proof-of-work", "night-market.imbue:structured-output"]}}}
source: claude-night-market
source_plugin: pensive
---

> **Night Market Skill** — ported from [claude-night-market/pensive](https://github.com/athola/claude-night-market/tree/master/plugins/pensive). For the full experience with agents, hooks, and commands, install the Claude Code plugin.


## Table of Contents

- [Quick Start](#quick-start)
- [When to Use](#when-to-use)
- [Review Skill Selection Matrix](#review-skill-selection-matrix)
- [Workflow](#workflow)
- [1. Analyze Repository Context](#1-analyze-repository-context)
- [2. Select Review Skills](#2-select-review-skills)
- [3. Execute Reviews](#3-execute-reviews)
- [4. Integrate Findings](#4-integrate-findings)
- [Review Modes](#review-modes)
- [Auto-Detect (default)](#auto-detect-(default))
- [Focused Mode](#focused-mode)
- [Full Review Mode](#full-review-mode)
- [Quality Gates](#quality-gates)
- [Deliverables](#deliverables)
- [Executive Summary](#executive-summary)
- [Domain-Specific Reports](#domain-specific-reports)
- [Integrated Action Plan](#integrated-action-plan)
- [Modular Architecture](#modular-architecture)
- [Exit Criteria](#exit-criteria)


# Unified Review Orchestration

Intelligently selects and executes appropriate review skills based on codebase analysis and context.

## Quick Start

```bash
# Auto-detect and run appropriate reviews
/full-review

# Focus on specific areas
/full-review api          # API surface review
/full-review architecture # Architecture review
/full-review bugs         # Bug hunting
/full-review tests        # Test suite review
/full-review all          # Run all applicable skills
```
**Verification:** Run `pytest -v` to verify tests pass.

## When To Use

- Starting a full code review
- Reviewing changes across multiple domains
- Need intelligent selection of review skills
- Want integrated reporting from multiple review types
- Before merging major feature branches

## When NOT To Use

- Specific review type known
  - use bug-review
- Test-review
- Architecture-only focus - use
  architecture-review
- Specific review type known
  - use bug-review

## Review Skill Selection Matrix

| Codebase Pattern | Review Skills | Triggers |
|-----------------|---------------|----------|
| Rust files (`*.rs`, `Cargo.toml`) | rust-review, bug-review, api-review | Rust project detected |
| API changes (`openapi.yaml`, `routes/`) | api-review, architecture-review | Public API surfaces |
| Test files (`test_*.py`, `*_test.go`) | test-review

_meta.json

{
  "ownerId": "kn7d107jg9jv602h9ytsegydq184a42s",
  "slug": "nm-pensive-unified-review",
  "version": "1.9.19",
  "publishedAt": 1787750385599
}

modules/output-format-templates.md

---
name: output-format-templates
description: Standard output format templates for pensive review deliverables
parent_skill: pensive:shared
category: review-infrastructure
tags: [templates, output, formatting, structure]
reusable_by: [pensive:bug-review, pensive:api-review, pensive:architecture-review, pensive:test-review, pensive:rust-review, pensive:makefile-review, pensive:math-review, pensive:unified-review]
estimated_tokens: 350
---

# Output Format Templates

Standard templates for consistent review deliverables.

## Top-Level Structure

```markdown
# [Review Type] Review: [Subject]

## Executive Summary
[High-level overview, key findings count, overall assessment]

## Findings Summary
[Count by severity: Critical, High, Medium, Low]

## Detailed Findings
[Organized by category or severity]

## Action Items
[Prioritized recommendations with owner and next step]

## Evidence Appendix
[Supporting code snippets, references, measurements]
```

## Finding Entry Template

```markdown
### [Category]: [Short Title]

**Severity**: [Critical|High|Medium|Low]
**Location**: [File path:line numbers or component name]
**Category**: [Specific category from domain]

**Issue**:
[Clear description of what's wrong]

**Evidence**:
[Code snippet, measurement, or observation]

**Why This Matters**:
[The underlying principle or rule being violated.
Explain the concept, not just the symptom.]

**Proof**:
[Link to authoritative best-practice documentation.
Prefer: language docs, OWASP, PEPs, style guides,
RFCs. Summarize what the link teaches.]

**Teachable Moment**:
[How this lesson generalizes beyond this specific
finding. When else would this principle apply?]

**Recommendation**:
[Specific steps to resolve, with concrete next action]

**References**: [Evidence appendix section or external docs]
```

### Educational Depth by Severity

| Severity | Why | Proof Link | Teachable Moment |
|----------|-----|------------|------------------|
| Critical | Required | Required | Required |
| High | Required | Required | Required |
| Medium | Required | If available | Optional |
| Low | Brief | Optional | Optional |

## Severity Definitions

**Critical**: Security vulnerability, data loss risk, system failure potential
**High**: Significant functionality issues, major violations, substantial technical debt
**Medium**: Moderate violations, code quality issues, maintainability concerns
**Low**: Minor style issues, optimization opportunities, documentation gaps

## Action Items Template

```markdown
## Action Items

### Immediate (Critical/High Severity)
1. [Action] - [Rationale] - [Reference to finding]
2. ...

### Short-term (Medium Severity)
1. [Action] - [Rationale] - [Reference to finding]
2. ...

### Long-term (Low Severity / Improvements)
1. [Action] - [Rationale] - [Reference to finding]
2. ...
```

## Evidence Appendix Template

```markdown
## Evidence Appendix

### E1: [Short Reference Name]
**Related to**: Finding [X]
**File**: `/path/to/file.ext:lines`

```[langu

modules/quality-checklist-patterns.md

---
name: quality-checklist-patterns
description: Reusable quality checklist patterns for review validation
parent_skill: pensive:shared
category: review-infrastructure
tags: [quality, checklist, validation, completeness]
reusable_by: [pensive:bug-review, pensive:api-review, pensive:architecture-review, pensive:test-review, pensive:rust-review, pensive:makefile-review, pensive:math-review, pensive:unified-review]
estimated_tokens: 300
---

# Quality Checklist Patterns

Standard quality assurance checklists for review deliverables.

## Pre-Review Checklist

Execute before starting analysis:

- [ ] Scope clearly defined and documented
- [ ] Review criteria identified (use domain-specific patterns)
- [ ] Success criteria established
- [ ] Evidence logging strategy prepared
- [ ] Output template selected and customized

## Analysis Quality Checklist

Execute during deep analysis phase:

- [ ] All scope items examined
- [ ] Domain-specific criteria applied consistently
- [ ] Severity assessed using standard definitions
- [ ] Patterns and anti-patterns identified
- [ ] Cross-references validated
- [ ] Edge cases considered

## Evidence Quality Checklist

Execute during evidence capture:

- [ ] Every finding has supporting evidence
- [ ] File paths and line numbers included
- [ ] Code snippets are minimal and focused
- [ ] Context preserved for each evidence item
- [ ] Evidence appendix organized and referenced
- [ ] Reasoning chains documented

## Deliverable Completeness Checklist

Execute before finalizing output:

- [ ] Executive summary present and concise
- [ ] All findings documented with required fields:
  - [ ] Severity assigned
  - [ ] Location specified
  - [ ] Category identified
  - [ ] Issue described
  - [ ] Evidence provided
  - [ ] Impact explained
  - [ ] Recommendation actionable
- [ ] Action items prioritized by severity
- [ ] Evidence appendix complete
- [ ] Summary statistics included
- [ ] Output follows template structure

## Recommendation Quality Checklist

Execute for each recommendation:

- [ ] Specific and actionable
- [ ] Addresses root cause, not just symptoms
- [ ] Feasible within project constraints
- [ ] Prioritized appropriately
- [ ] Linked to finding
- [ ] Includes rationale

## Review Consistency Checklist

Execute before final delivery:

- [ ] Severity levels applied consistently
- [ ] Terminology used consistently
- [ ] Categories align with domain standards
- [ ] Similar issues grouped appropriately
- [ ] No contradictory recommendations
- [ ] Style and tone professional throughout

## Exit Criteria Validation

Final check before completion:

- [ ] All TodoWrite items marked complete
- [ ] Workflow steps executed in sequence
- [ ] Quality checklists satisfied
- [ ] Output validated against template
- [ ] Evidence complete and linked
- [ ] Deliverable ready for stakeholder review

## Usage Pattern

Integrate into Step 5 (Deliverable Assembly) of review workflow:

```python
# Before marking final todo as complete
p

modules/review-workflow-core.md

---
name: review-workflow-core
description: Core workflow patterns for all pensive review skills
parent_skill: pensive:shared
category: review-infrastructure
tags: [workflow, core, review, patterns]
reusable_by: [pensive:bug-review, pensive:api-review, pensive:architecture-review, pensive:test-review, pensive:rust-review, pensive:makefile-review, pensive:math-review, pensive:unified-review]
estimated_tokens: 400
---

# Review Workflow Core

Standard 5-step workflow pattern for all pensive review skills.

## Workflow Structure

### Step 1: Context Establishment
**TodoWrite Item**: "Establishing review context"

Actions:
1. Identify review scope and boundaries
2. Gather relevant files and documentation
3. Establish success criteria
4. Load domain-specific patterns (if applicable)

**Output**: Context summary with scope definition

### Step 2: Scope Inventory
**TodoWrite Item**: "Creating scope inventory"

Actions:
1. Catalog all items to review (files, components, endpoints, etc.)
2. Categorize by type, complexity, or domain area
3. Prioritize based on risk, complexity, or impact
4. Create initial structure for findings

**Output**: Structured inventory with categories

### Step 3: Deep Analysis
**TodoWrite Item**: "Performing deep analysis"

Actions:
1. Apply domain-specific review criteria
2. Identify patterns, anti-patterns, violations
3. Assess severity (Critical, High, Medium, Low)
4. Cross-reference with best practices
5. Capture evidence for each finding

**Output**: Detailed findings with evidence

### Step 4: Evidence Capture
**TodoWrite Item**: "Capturing evidence"

Integration with `imbue:proof-of-work`:
1. Document code snippets with file paths and line numbers
2. Record reasoning chains for conclusions
3. Link findings to specific violations or patterns
4. Preserve context for future reference

**Output**: Evidence appendix linked to findings

### Step 5: Deliverable Assembly
**TodoWrite Item**: "Assembling final deliverable"

Actions:
1. Structure findings by severity and category
2. Format recommendations with actionable steps
3. Create prioritized action items
4. Validate completeness against exit criteria
5. Generate final output using templates

**Output**: Complete review deliverable

## TodoWrite Integration

Create tasks at workflow start:

```python
TodoWrite({
    "todos": [
        {"content": "Establish review context", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Establishing review context"},
        {"content": "Create scope inventory", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Creating scope inventory"},
        {"content": "Perform deep analysis", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Performing deep analysis"},
        {"content": "Capture evidence", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Capturing evidence"},
        {"content": "Assemble final deliverable", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Assembling final deliverable"}
    ]
})
```

Mark each as `in_progress` when starting, `completed` when finished.

## Exit Criteria

Before marki

Github ReposUpdated 19h agoRank 70

AionUi

Free, local, open-source 24/7 Cowork app and OpenClaw for Gemini CLI, Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Qwen Code, Goose CLI, Auggie, and more | 🌟 Star if you like it!

MCPOPENCLAW

Github ReposUpdated 6mo agoRank 70

activepieces

AI Agents & MCPs & AI Workflow Automation • (~400 MCP servers for AI agents) • AI Automation / AI Agent with MCPs • AI Workflows & AI Agents • MCPs for AI Agents

OPENCLAW

Github ReposUpdated 6mo agoRank 70

cherry-studio

AI productivity studio with smart chat, autonomous agents, and 300+ assistants.