Ccpm Code Review

CCPM Code Review

Structured code review workflow integrated with CCPM's Linear-based project management system. Enforces "no completion claims without verification evidence" principle.

When to Use

This skill auto-activates when:

• User says "done", "complete", "finished", "ready to merge"
• Running /ccpm:verify command (natural workflow - recommended)
• Running /ccpm:done command (includes pre-flight verification)
• Running /ccpm:verify command (advanced)
• Before updating Linear task status to "Done"
• Before syncing Jira status
• Before creating GitHub/BitBucket PR
• Before sending Slack completion notifications

CCPM Verification Workflow

CCPM provides a streamlined 3-step verification process:

Step 1: Quality Checks (Automated)

Run linting, tests, and build checks to ensure technical correctness:

/ccpm:verify [issue-id]  # Auto-detects issue from git branch

What it checks:

• ✅ Linting passes (no style errors)
• ✅ Tests pass (all unit and integration tests)
• ✅ Build succeeds (no compilation errors)
• ✅ Checklist complete (100% of implementation items)

If checks fail: Command automatically suggests /ccpm:verify to debug systematically.

Step 2: Agent Code Review

After quality checks pass, agent review analyzes:

• ✅ Code quality and best practices
• ✅ Security vulnerabilities
• ✅ Performance implications
• ✅ Requirement fulfillment
• ✅ Regression risks

Step 3: Final Confirmation

Four verification gates must pass:

1. Tests Pass ✅ - Zero failures
2. Build Succeeds ✅ - Exit status 0
3. Checklist Complete ✅ - 100% checked
4. No Blockers ✅ - No unresolved blockers in Linear

Only after all gates pass can task proceed to finalization with /ccpm:done.

Core Principles

1. Technical Correctness Over Social Comfort

Forbidden performative agreement:

• ❌ "Great point!"
• ❌ "You're absolutely right!"
• ❌ "That makes total sense!"

Required rigorous verification:

• ✅ "Let me verify that assumption"
• ✅ "I'll test this approach first"
• ✅ "Here's the evidence: [test output]"

2. No Implementation Before Verification

When receiving feedback:

1. First: Verify the feedback is technically correct
2. Then: Implement the change
3. Never: Blindly implement without understanding

3. NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT EVIDENCE

Required evidence before any "done" claim:

• ✅ Tests: All passing (screenshot or CI link)
• ✅ Build: Exit status 0 (no errors)
• ✅ Linear checklist: 100% complete
• ✅ No unresolved blockers in Linear comments

Integration with CCPM Commands

With /ccpm:verify (Natural Workflow - Recommended)

This skill enforces verification during the streamlined verify command:

# User runs natural verification command
/ccpm:verify

# Or with explicit issue ID
/ccpm:verify AUTH-123

Flow:

User: "I'm done, let me verify"

Claude: [ccpm-code-review activates]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🔍 Smart Verify Command
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

📋 Issue: AUTH-123 - Add user authentication
📊 Status: In Progress
📋 Checklist: 100% (5/5 items)

Verification Flow:
──────────────────
1. Quality Checks (linting, tests, build)
2. Final Verification (code review, security)

═══════════════════════════════════════
Step 1/2: Running Quality Checks
═══════════════════════════════════════

🔍 Running linting...
✅ All files pass linting

🧪 Running tests...
✅ All tests passed (28/28)

🏗️  Running build...
✅ Build successful

📊 Quality Check Results:
  ✅ Linting
  ✅ Tests
  ✅ Build

═══════════════════════════════════════
Step 2/2: Running Final Verification
═══════════════════════════════════════

[Code reviewer agent analyzes changes...]

✅ All requirements met
✅ Code quality standards met
✅ Security best practices followed
✅ Performance acceptable

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
✅ All Verification Complete!
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

All verifications passed! Ready to finalize.

💡 What's Next?
⭐ Recommended: /ccpm:done AUTH-123

If verification fails:

❌ Quality Checks Failed

📊 Quality Check Results:
  ✅ Linting
  ❌ Tests (3 failures)
  ✅ Build

To debug and fix issues:
  /ccpm:verify AUTH-123

Then run verification again:
  /ccpm:verify AUTH-123

With /ccpm:done (Pre-Flight Verification)

This skill ensures quality before finalization:

# User attempts to finalize task
/ccpm:done

# Or with explicit issue ID
/ccpm:done AUTH-123

Pre-flight checks enforced by ccpm-code-review:

User: "/ccpm:done AUTH-123"

Claude: [ccpm-code-review activates for pre-flight]

✅ All pre-flight checks passed!

Checking completion readiness:

□ Tests passing?
  → ✅ All 52 tests passed

□ Build successful?
  → ✅ Build completed (exit 0)

□ Linear checklist complete?
  → ✅ 7/7 items checked

□ No blockers?
  → ✅ No blockers found

VERIFICATION COMPLETE ✅

📝 Creating GitHub Pull Request...
✅ Pull Request created

[Prompts for Jira/Slack updates with confirmation]

✅ Linear issue updated to Done

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🎉 Task Finalized: AUTH-123
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

If pre-flight fails:

⛔ Cannot Finalize: Checklist Incomplete

Progress: 80% (4/5 completed)

❌ Remaining Items:
  - [ ] Write integration tests

🔧 Actions Required:
1. Complete remaining checklist items
2. Update checklist: /ccpm:sync AUTH-123
3. Then run: /ccpm:done AUTH-123

Advanced: With /ccpm:verify

For manual verification step (advanced users):

Claude runs /ccpm:verify AUTH-123

[ccpm-code-review activates during verification]

Checking verification evidence:

□ Tests passing?
  → ✅ All 47 tests passed

□ Build successful?
  → ✅ Build completed with exit code 0

□ Linear checklist complete?
  → ❌ 3 of 5 items checked

□ No blockers?
  → ⚠️ 1 blocker found: "Redis connection failing in staging"

VERIFICATION FAILED:
- Linear checklist incomplete (3/5)
- Blocker unresolved: Redis connection issue

Cannot proceed with completion until:
1. Complete remaining checklist items
2. Resolve Redis blocker or document as out-of-scope

Would you like to:
A. Update checklist now
B. Investigate Redis blocker
C. Update task scope to exclude Redis

Receiving Feedback Protocol

When PR Reviewer Comments

Scenario: Reviewer says "Add error handling to login function"

❌ Wrong approach (performative):

"Great point! I'll add error handling right away."
[Immediately adds try-catch without understanding]

✅ Correct approach (verification-first):

Claude: [ccpm-code-review activates]

Let me verify this feedback:

1. Checking current error handling...
   ```typescript
   // login.ts
   async function login(email, password) {
     const user = await db.findUser(email);  // ← No error handling
     return generateToken(user);             // ← No error handling
   }

2. Potential issues:

   • Database query could fail (network, timeout)
   • user might be null (not found)
   • generateToken could throw (invalid data)

3. Verification: Feedback is VALID

   • Missing error handling confirmed
   • Could cause uncaught exceptions

4. Implementation approach:

   async function login(email, password) {
     try {
       const user = await db.findUser(email);
       if (!user) {
         throw new UnauthorizedError('Invalid credentials');
       }
       return generateToken(user);
     } catch (error) {
       if (error instanceof DatabaseError) {
         logger.error('Database error during login', error);
         throw new ServiceUnavailableError();
       }
       throw error;
     }
   }
   

5. Testing the fix:

   • Add test: login with network error → returns 503
   • Add test: login with invalid user → returns 401
   • Verify existing tests still pass

6. Update Linear:

   • Add comment: "PR feedback: Added error handling"
   • Link to new commit

Implementing fix now...

### When Feedback Seems Wrong

**Scenario**: Reviewer says "Use var instead of const"

**❌ Wrong approach**:

"Okay, I'll change it!" [Blindly makes change]

**✅ Correct approach**:

Claude: [ccpm-code-review activates]

Let me verify this feedback:

1. Current code uses const (ES6+)

2. Feedback suggests var (ES5)

3. Technical analysis:

   • const: Block-scoped, immutable binding, prevents reassignment bugs
   • var: Function-scoped, allows reassignment, hoisting issues

4. Project standards check:

   • .eslintrc: Enforces const/let, disallows var
   • Existing codebase: 100% uses const/let

5. Verification: Feedback appears INCORRECT

   • Contradicts project standards
   • Would cause linting failures
   • Downgrades code quality

6. Response to reviewer: "I checked our ESLint config and existing codebase. We enforce const/let and disallow var for block-scoping safety. Changing to var would:

   • Fail CI linting
   • Contradict project standards
   • Introduce potential hoisting bugs

   Did you mean something else, or is there a specific reason for var here?"

Waiting for reviewer clarification before making changes...

## Verification Gates

### Gate 1: Tests Must Pass

**Requirement**: Zero test failures

✅ PASS: 52 tests, 0 failures ❌ FAIL: 48 tests passed, 4 failures

If failures exist:

1. Run /ccpm:verify to debug
2. Update Linear with findings
3. Re-run verification after fixes
4. Only proceed when 0 failures

### Gate 2: Build Must Succeed

**Requirement**: Exit status 0

✅ PASS: Build completed successfully (exit 0) ❌ FAIL: Build failed with 3 TypeScript errors (exit 1)

If build fails:

1. Review error messages
2. Fix compilation errors
3. Re-run build
4. Only proceed when exit 0

### Gate 3: Linear Checklist Must Be Complete

**Requirement**: 100% of checklist items checked

✅ PASS: 7/7 checklist items complete ❌ FAIL: 5/7 checklist items complete

Incomplete items:

• Add integration tests
• Update API documentation

Action required:

1. Complete remaining items, OR
2. Update task scope (with /ccpm:plan)
3. Mark items as out-of-scope explicitly
4. Only proceed when justified

### Gate 4: No Unresolved Blockers

**Requirement**: Zero blocker comments in Linear

✅ PASS: No blockers found ❌ FAIL: 2 blockers in Linear comments

Blockers:

1. "Database migration failing in staging"
2. "Awaiting security team approval"

Action required:

1. Resolve each blocker, OR
2. Document why blocker doesn't apply
3. Get explicit approval to proceed despite blocker
4. Only proceed when all blockers addressed

## Integration with CCPM Safety Rules

### Works with `external-system-safety` Skill

This skill focuses on **verification**, `external-system-safety` focuses on **confirmation**.

**Division of responsibility:**

| Concern | Skill | Check |
|---------|-------|-------|
| Are tests passing? | ccpm-code-review | ✓ |
| Is build successful? | ccpm-code-review | ✓ |
| Is checklist complete? | ccpm-code-review | ✓ |
| User confirms Jira update? | external-system-safety | ✓ |
| User confirms Slack post? | external-system-safety | ✓ |

**Together they ensure**:
1. Quality standards met (ccpm-code-review)
2. User approves external writes (external-system-safety)

### References SAFETY_RULES.md

All external writes follow `../commands/SAFETY_RULES.md`:

**⛔ Require confirmation**:
- Jira status updates
- Confluence page edits
- BitBucket PR creation
- Slack notifications

**✅ Always allowed**:
- Linear status updates (internal tracking)
- Local file modifications
- Read operations

## Examples

### Example 1: Successful Completion Flow (Natural Workflow)

User: "Done with AUTH-123, ready to ship!"

Claude: [ccpm-code-review activates]

Let me run verification first:

Running /ccpm:verify AUTH-123...

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🔍 Smart Verify Command ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

📋 Checklist: 100% (7/7 items)

═══════════════════════════════════════ Step 1/2: Running Quality Checks ═══════════════════════════════════════

✅ Tests: 52/52 passing ✅ Build: Successful (exit 0) ✅ Linting: No errors

═══════════════════════════════════════ Step 2/2: Running Final Verification ═══════════════════════════════════════

✅ Code review: Passed ✅ Security audit: Passed ✅ Requirements met: Passed

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ✅ All Verification Complete! ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

💡 What's Next? ⭐ Recommended: /ccpm:done AUTH-123

Ready to finalize! Shall I run /ccpm:done now?

### Example 2: Failed Verification (Natural Workflow)

User: "I'm done, let's merge"

Claude: [ccpm-code-review activates]

Running /ccpm:verify...

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🔍 Smart Verify Command ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

═══════════════════════════════════════ Step 1/2: Running Quality Checks ═══════════════════════════════════════

🧪 Running tests... ❌ 3 tests failing:

• test/auth/login.test.ts: "should handle invalid credentials"
• test/auth/jwt.test.ts: "should refresh expired tokens"
• test/api/protected.test.ts: "should reject missing tokens"

🏗️ Running build... ❌ TypeScript error: src/auth/jwt.ts:45:12 - error TS2345

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ❌ Verification Failed ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

To debug and fix issues: /ccpm:verify AUTH-123

Then run verification again: /ccpm:verify AUTH-123

Would you like me to start debugging these issues?

### Example 3: Incomplete Checklist (Pre-Flight with /ccpm:done)

User: "/ccpm:done AUTH-456"

Claude: [ccpm-code-review activates for pre-flight]

✅ All git pre-flight checks passed!

Checking completion readiness:

✅ Tests passing (41/41) ✅ Build successful ❌ Linear checklist incomplete (4/6): ✓ Implement JWT generation ✓ Add login endpoint ✓ Add logout endpoint ✓ Write unit tests ✗ Add integration tests ✗ Update API documentation

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ⛔ Cannot Finalize: Checklist Incomplete ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Progress: 67% (4/6 completed)

🔧 Actions Required:

1. Complete remaining checklist items
2. Update checklist: /ccpm:sync AUTH-456
3. Then run: /ccpm:done AUTH-456

Or update scope with /ccpm:plan AUTH-456 "mark items as Phase 2"

Which would you like to do?

### Example 4: Complete Natural Workflow (End-to-End)

User: "I finished the authentication feature"

Claude: [ccpm-code-review guides through workflow]

Great! Let's verify your work before finalizing.

Step 1: Verification ──────────────────── /ccpm:verify

✅ All quality checks passed ✅ Code review complete ✅ Security validated

Step 2: Finalization ──────────────────── /ccpm:done

✅ Git pre-flight checks passed ✅ Checklist complete (5/5) ✅ No blockers 📝 GitHub PR created ✅ Linear updated to Done

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🎉 Task Finalized: AUTH-456 ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

All done! Task completed successfully. 🎊

## Verification Checklist Template

Before claiming "done":

- [ ] Tests executed
  - [ ] All tests passing (0 failures)
  - [ ] Coverage meets requirements
  - [ ] New tests added for new code

- [ ] Build verified
  - [ ] Build successful (exit 0)
  - [ ] No compilation errors
  - [ ] No linting errors

- [ ] Linear task complete
  - [ ] All checklist items checked
  - [ ] No unresolved blockers
  - [ ] Work summary added

- [ ] Code quality
  - [ ] Code reviewed (by human or code-reviewer agent)
  - [ ] Security checked (if applicable)
  - [ ] Performance acceptable

- [ ] Documentation
  - [ ] Code comments added where needed
  - [ ] API docs updated (if API changed)
  - [ ] README updated (if user-facing)

Only after ALL checked:
- [ ] Ready for /ccpm:done

## Integration with Other CCPM Skills

**Works alongside**:

- **external-system-safety**: Enforces confirmation for external writes (Jira/Slack)
- **pm-workflow-guide**: Suggests `/ccpm:verify` and `/ccpm:done` at right time
- **ccpm-debugging**: Invoked via `/ccpm:verify` when checks fail
- **sequential-thinking**: For complex verification scenarios

**Example combined activation**:

User: "Ready to merge AUTH-123" ↓ ccpm-code-review → Suggests /ccpm:verify first ↓ /ccpm:verify → Runs quality checks + agent review ↓ [If gates pass] ↓ Suggests /ccpm:done ↓ /ccpm:done → Pre-flight checks + PR creation ↓ external-system-safety → Confirms Jira/Slack writes ↓ [If user confirms] ↓ Complete! ✅

## Natural Workflow Commands

CCPM provides streamlined commands for the complete verification and finalization workflow:

| Command | Purpose | Auto-detects Issue |
|---------|---------|-------------------|
| `/ccpm:verify` | Quality checks + agent review | ✅ From git branch |
| `/ccpm:done` | Pre-flight + PR + finalize | ✅ From git branch |
| `/ccpm:verify` | Debug failed checks | ❌ Explicit ID required |

**Recommended workflow:**
```bash
# 1. Complete implementation
/ccpm:work

# 2. Commit changes
/ccpm:commit

# 3. Verify quality (this skill activates)
/ccpm:verify

# 4. Finalize task (this skill activates for pre-flight)
/ccpm:done

Summary

This skill ensures:

• ✅ No false completion claims
• ✅ Evidence required before "done"
• ✅ Quality gates enforced (4-step validation)
• ✅ Technical rigor over social comfort
• ✅ Integration with CCPM natural workflow
• ✅ Systematic debugging when failures occur

Philosophy: Verification before completion, evidence over claims, quality over speed.

Key Features:

• Auto-activates on completion attempts
• Enforces 4 verification gates
• Integrates with /ccpm:verify and /ccpm:done
• Suggests /ccpm:verify for failures
• Works with external-system-safety for confirmations

Source: Adapted from claudekit-skills/code-review License: MIT CCPM Integration: /ccpm:verify, /ccpm:done, /ccpm:verify, quality-gate hook