audit current branch, security posture, performance hotpaths, or run full project x-ray. Spawns the matching specialist agent in the background; findings land at…
Scanned 9/3/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add KevinZai/commander --skill ccc-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Ccc Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/kevinzai-ccc-review-commander)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: ccc-review
description: "audit current branch, security posture, performance hotpaths, or run full project x-ray. Spawns the matching specialist agent in the background; findings land at…"
allowed-tools:
- Read
- Write
- Edit
- Bash
- Glob
- Grep
- Workflow
- Agent
- AskUserQuestion
- TodoWrite
- mcp__ccd_session__spawn_task
- mcp__ccd_session__mark_chapter
argument-hint: "[audit type: diff | security | perf | xray]"
---
# /ccc-review — Audit your work
Click-first review flow. Four audit types, one specialist agent per pick, one scorecard artifact. User picks the lens, the agent works in the background, the markdown report lands in `tasks/reviews/`.
> Broad reviews/audits run **workflow-first** — fan out by dimension, adversarially verify findings before acting. See `commander/cowork-plugin/rules/workflow-first.md`.
## Session markers
- At the START of review (after user picks an audit type): call `mcp__ccd_session__mark_chapter` with `title: "Code review: <branch>"` and `summary: "<audit-type> audit on <branch>"`.
- At COMPLETION (when the agent reports back or findings are surfaced): call `mcp__ccd_session__mark_chapter` with `title: "Review complete"` and `summary: "<N> findings — <blocker-count> blocking"`.
## Sidebar chips (spawn_task)
**Refute before chips (Agent fallback only — the workflows already verify):** when findings came from the Agent-based flow, dispatch ONE fresh refute agent before any chip fires: "Adversarially verify these findings — try to REFUTE each. Default verdict PLAUSIBLE unless you confirm it from the actual code (then CONFIRMED); drop anything you refute." Only CONFIRMED 🔴/🟠 findings become chips; PLAUSIBLE ones stay as markdown bullets marked for manual confirmation.
After findings are verified, spawn ONE `mcp__ccd_session__spawn_task` chip per **confirmed 🔴 Critical** or **🟠 High** blocker — each chip is a self-contained action for a fresh session:
- `title`: imperative phrase under 60 chars (e.g., `"Fix SQL injection in src/auth.ts:42"`)
- `prompt`: self-contained — include file path, line number, issue summary, CWE/OWASP reference if applicable, and suggested fix direction. The spawned session has no memory of this conversation.
- `tldr`: 1-2 sentences plain English, no code blocks.
**For 🟡 Medium and ℹ️ Nit findings:** surface via markdown bullets + `TodoWrite` only — NOT spawn_task chips. Chips are for blockers that warrant a dedicated fix session.
## Response shape (EVERY time)
Output exactly these three sections in order:
### 1. Brand header (one line, markdown)
```
**CC Commander** · /ccc-review · Audit before you ship
```
### 2. Context strip (one paragraph)
Detect review context with **four quick reads** (parallel Bash, silent on failure):
- `git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD` → current branch
- `git rev-list --count main..HEAD 2>/dev/null` → commits ahead of main
- `git diff --shortstat main..HEAD 2>/dev/null` → diff size
- `test -d .github/workflows && echo yes` → CI presence
Render one line:
> 🧭 Branch: `<branch>` · <N> commits ahead of main · <X> files / <Y> lines changed · CI: `<yes/no>`
If no diff detected: "🧭 No diff vs main — I'll audit the whole project instead (xray recommended)."
### 3. The picker — `AskUserQuestion` with 4 audit types
Read `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/menus/ccc-review.json` for canonical option data. Surface the 4 non-back choices.
```
question: "What should I audit?"
header: "CC Commander Review"
multiSelect: false
options:
- label: "📊 Review current branch"
description: "Diff vs main — PR-quality summary before you open a PR."
preview: "<N> commits · <X> lines · reviewer agent does a full 4-dimension pass."
- label: "🔐 Security audit"
description: "OWASP Top 10 + secrets + dependency audit. Severity-rated report."
preview: "security-auditor agent. Catches injection, auth flaws, exposed secrets, vulnerable deps."
- label: "⚡ Performance"
description: "Hot-path scan, bundle size, N+1 queries, flame-graph pointers."
preview: "performance-engineer agent. Flags hot paths, unbounded queries, resource leaks."
- label: "🩻 Full project x-ray"
description: "Health scorecard across code, docs, tests, deps, CI."
preview: "Routes to ccc-xray — full health pass, not just the diff."
```
**Recommendation logic** (prepend ⭐ to ONE label):
- Branch ahead of main + uncommitted changes → ⭐ "Review current branch"
- `package.json` touched in diff → ⭐ "Security audit" (new deps = supply-chain risk)
- SQL / ORM files in diff → ⭐ "Security audit"
- Empty diff → ⭐ "Full project x-ray"
- Hot-path files (`*/api/*`, `*/routes/*`, `*/hot/*`) in diff → ⭐ "Performance"
### Native workflow (Claude Code v2.1.154+)
If the `Workflow` tool is available, prefer invoking the bundled deep-review workflow for the **"Review current branch"** audit type instead of the Agent-based flow:
```js
Workflow({
scriptPath: "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/workflows/ccc-deep-review.workflow.js",
args: { base: "main" }
})
```
The workflow reviews the diff across 4 weighted dimensions (security 35%, performance 25%, correctness 25%, maintainability 15%), adversarially verifies each finding, and returns only confirmed issues — reducing false positives before they reach you.
For the **Security** and **Performance** audit types, route through the bundled audit workflow — it already supports scoped dimensions with REFUTE-framed verification of every finding:
```js
// Security audit
Workflow({
scriptPath: "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/workflows/ccc-audit.workflow.js",
args: { dimensions: ["security", "deps"] }
})
// Performance audit
Workflow({
scriptPath: "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/workflows/ccc-audit.workflow.js",
args: { dimensions: ["performance"] }
})
```
Only **Full x-ray** stays on its own route (`ccc-xray` skill).
If `Workflow` is unavailable (older client or tool not allowed), fall back to the Agent-based flow below — leave that flow intact.
## Step 2 — Dispatch matching specialist agent
On user pick, immediately dispatch the right agent in background. **Never block the UI.**
**"Review current branch" (diff):**
- `Agent` tool, `subagent_type: general-purpose`, `model: sonnet`, `run_in_background: true`
- Agent: invoke `reviewer` persona (see `commander/cowork-plugin/agents/reviewer.md`)
- Prompt: "Run the 4-dimension review (Security 35% / Performance 25% / Correctness 25% / Maintainability 15%) on `git diff main..HEAD`. Write findings to `tasks/reviews/ccc-review-<YYYYMMDD>-diff.md`. Group by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Nit). Include file:line citations + suggested fixes. Return the artifact path + blocker count."
**"Security audit":**
- Same background pattern, invoke `security-auditor` persona (`agents/security-auditor.md`)
- Prompt: "Run OWASP Top 10 sweep on the diff (or whole codebase if no diff). Check: secrets in source, SQL injection, XSS, auth/authz flaws, insecure deserialization, SSRF, path traversal. Also run `npm audit` / `pip audit` if applicable. Severity-rate (🔴 Critical / 🟠 High / 🟡 Medium / 🟢 Low / ℹ️ Info) with CWE IDs. Write findings to `tasks/reviews/ccc-review-<YYYYMMDD>-security.md`."
**"Performance":**
- Same pattern, invoke `performance-engineer` persona (`agents/performance-engineer.md`)
- Prompt: "Hot-path audit. Scan for: N+1 queries, O(n²) in hot paths, unbounded loops/queries, missing indexes, resource leaks, bundle bloat. If `.next/`, `dist/`, or `build/` exists, check bundle size. Write findings to `tasks/reviews/ccc-review-<YYYYMMDD>-perf.md`. Flag estimated vs measured impact explicitly."
**"Full project x-ray":**
- Route to the `ccc-xray` skill — do NOT spawn the agent here. Emit: "Loading x-ray workflow — `ccc-xray` runs a full health scorecard across code, docs, tests, deps, CI."
- Then behave as if the user had invoked `/ccc-xray` directly.
## Step 3 — Return progress card to user
After dispatching the agent, emit ONE short card:
> 🔍 **Audit running in background** — `<audit-type>` on `<branch>`, agent ID `<id>`, ETA ~1–3 min.
> 📂 Findings will land at `tasks/reviews/ccc-review-<YYYYMMDD>-<type>.md`.
> 💡 Come back with `/ccc-review status` — I'll report blocker count + artifact path when done.
## Anti-patterns — DO NOT do these
- ❌ Run the review inline — ALWAYS `run_in_background: true`
- ❌ Write findings to stdout only — every review produces a markdown artifact
- ❌ Use a single agent for all audit types — each has a specialist persona
- ❌ Skip severity grouping — reviewers MUST rate Critical / High / Medium / Low / Nit
- ❌ Offer more than 4 audit types in the picker
- ❌ Forget `tasks/reviews/` directory — create it if missing (Bash `mkdir -p`)
## Argument handling
- `/ccc-review` → root picker
- `/ccc-review diff` → skip picker, dispatch reviewer agent immediately
- `/ccc-review security` → skip picker, dispatch security-auditor
- `/ccc-review perf` → skip picker, dispatch performance-engineer
- `/ccc-review xray` → route to `ccc-xray` skill
- `/ccc-review <anything else>` → treat as free-form audit question; confirm scope with one AUQ, then dispatch reviewer
## Artifact format (every review writes this)
```markdown
# CCC Review — <type> — <YYYY-MM-DD>
**Branch:** <branch> · **Base:** main · **Diff:** <X> files / <Y> lines
**Agent:** <persona> · **Duration:** <Nm Ns>
## Summary
- <total findings> findings — <blocker count> blocking
- Overall verdict: Approve / Request Changes / Needs Discussion
- Overall risk: Low / Medium / High
## Findings
Every finding carries a verification verdict: **CONFIRMED** (independently verified against the actual code) or **PLAUSIBLE** (reported but not yet reproduced — verify before acting).
### 🔴 Critical (N)
- `file:line` — `<issue>` — **Verdict:** `CONFIRMED|PLAUSIBLE` — **Fix:** `<suggested fix>` — **Why:** `<rationale>`
### 🟠 High (N)
...
### 🟡 Medium (N)
...
### ℹ️ Nits (N)
...
## Next actions
1. ...
```
## Brand rules
- Emoji-forward — 🔍 for audit, 🔴🟠🟡🟢 for severity, ✅ for approve, ❌ for block
- One artifact per audit — never delete previous reviews (keep history)
- Never mention the CLI — Desktop-plugin flow
- Always write to `tasks/reviews/` — Ship flow reads from there
---
**Bottom line:** four audit tiles → matching specialist agent → one markdown artifact. User never waits, findings always traceable.
---
> ⚙️ **Fable contract:** plan before build · verifier ≠ worker · prove before alarm · loops need gates · leave durable state — `rules/fable-method.md`
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!