[CDX-265] Add CC workflow

[Alexey-Pavlov]

No description provided.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR adds a centralized Claude Code review workflow by replacing the existing local workflow configuration with a reference to a shared reusable workflow, and adds comprehensive Claude command documentation for code reviews.

• Replaces local Claude workflow implementation with a reusable workflow from a shared repository
• Adds detailed code review command documentation with standards and guidelines
• Removes the old standalone Claude Code Review workflow configuration

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File	Description
.github/workflows/claude-review.yml	New workflow file that references a shared reusable workflow for Claude PR reviews
.github/workflows/claude-code-review.yml	Deleted the previous standalone Claude Code Review workflow configuration
.claude/commands/review.md	New comprehensive documentation for the /review command including standards, guidelines, and output format

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

The workflow file has incorrect indentation. The name: field should start at column 0 (no leading spaces). Remove the leading spaces from all lines in this file.

Suggested change

	pull_request:
	types: [opened, ready_for_review, synchronize]
	jobs:
	review:
	uses: Constructor-io/shared-claude-code-resources-public/.github/workflows/claude-code-review.yml@main
	secrets: inherit
	pull_request:
	types: [opened, ready_for_review, synchronize]
	jobs:
	review:
	uses: Constructor-io/shared-claude-code-resources-public/.github/workflows/claude-code-review.yml@main
	secrets: inherit

[constructor-claude-bedrock]

Code Review Results

✅ Strengths

Clean refactoring that consolidates the Claude Code review workflow into a reusable shared workflow and adds comprehensive review guidelines documentation.

🚨 Critical Issues

None found.

⚠️ Important Issues

[File: .github/workflows/claude-review.yml Line: L9]
The workflow references Constructor-io/shared-claude-code-resources-public/.github/workflows/claude-code-review.yml@main which uses the @main branch reference. This creates potential stability and reproducibility issues:

• Changes to the shared workflow on main will immediately affect all PRs without review
• No version pinning means behavior could change unexpectedly
• Difficult to track which version of the workflow was used for a specific PR review

Recommendation: Pin to a specific commit SHA or use semantic versioning tags (e.g., @v1.0.0) to ensure reproducible and predictable workflow behavior.

Example:

uses: Constructor-io/shared-claude-code-resources-public/.github/workflows/claude-code-review.yml@abc123def456

💡 Suggestions

[File: .claude/commands/review.md Line: L14]
The process documentation references origin/master but should use a more flexible approach. Consider updating to:

Run `git merge-base origin/HEAD [branch]` or `git merge-base origin/main [branch]`

This makes the documentation work for repositories that use either master or main as their default branch.

[File: .github/workflows/claude-review.yml Line: L5]
The workflow triggers on ready_for_review which is good for avoiding draft PR reviews. Consider whether you also want to trigger on reopened events to handle cases where PRs are closed and reopened.

[General Documentation]
The .claude/commands/review.md file is comprehensive and well-structured. Consider adding:

• A note about the expected review turnaround time
• Guidance on how to handle false positives or disagreements with the automated review
• Examples of what constitutes each severity level (Critical vs Important vs Suggestion)

Overall Assessment: ✅ Pass (with recommendation to address the workflow version pinning)