ken/claudecode-boilerplate

Fork 0

Files

Ken Yasue 99a10def2a initial commit

2026-06-13 07:24:13 +02:00

10 KiB

Raw Blame History

Process Guide

Basic Principles

1. Include Plenty of Concrete Examples

Present concrete code examples, not just abstract rules.

Bad example:

Make variable names easy to understand

Good example:

// ✅ Good: The role is clear
const userAuthentication = new UserAuthenticationService();
const taskRepository = new TaskRepository();

// ❌ Bad: Ambiguous
const auth = new Service();
const repo = new Repository();

2. Explain the Reasoning

Make clear "why we do it this way."

Example:

## Don't Ignore Errors

Reason: Ignoring errors makes it difficult to identify the cause of a problem.
Handle expected errors appropriately, and propagate unexpected errors upward
so they can be recorded in the logs.

3. Set Measurable Criteria

Avoid vague expressions and provide concrete numbers.

Bad example:

Keep code coverage high

Good example:

Code coverage targets:
- Unit tests: 80% or higher
- Integration tests: 60% or higher
- E2E tests: 100% of the main flows

Git Operation Rules

Branching Strategy (Adopting Git Flow)

What is Git Flow: A branching model proposed by Vincent Driessen that systematically manages feature development, releases, and hotfixes. With clearly divided roles, it enables parallel work and stable releases in team development.

Branch structure:

main (production environment)
└── develop (development/integration environment)
    ├── feature/* (new feature development)
    ├── fix/* (bug fixes)
    └── release/* (release preparation) *as needed

Operation rules:

main: Holds only stable code already released to production. Versioned with tags
develop: Integrates the latest development code for the next release. Automated tests run in CI
feature/*, fix/*: Branch from develop, and merge into develop via a PR after the work is complete
No direct commits: Require PR review on all branches to ensure code quality
Merge policy: Recommend squash merge for feature→develop, and a merge commit for develop→main

Benefits of Git Flow:

Branch roles are clear, making parallel development by multiple people easier
The production environment (main) is always kept clean
During emergencies, hotfix branches enable rapid response (introduce as needed)

Commit Message Conventions

Conventional Commits is recommended:

<type>(<scope>): <subject>

<body>

<footer>

List of types:

feat: New feature (minor version up)
fix: Bug fix (patch version up)
docs: Documentation
style: Formatting (no effect on code behavior)
refactor: Refactoring
perf: Performance improvement
test: Adding or fixing tests
build: Build system
ci: CI/CD configuration
chore: Other (dependency updates, etc.)

BREAKING CHANGE: Breaking change (major version up)

Example of a good commit message:

feat(task): Add priority-setting feature

Users can now set a priority (high/medium/low) on tasks.

Implementation details:
- Added a priority field to the Task model
- Added a --priority option to the CLI
- Implemented sorting by priority

Breaking changes:
- The structure of the Task type has changed
- Existing task data requires migration

Closes #123
BREAKING CHANGE: Added a required priority field to the Task type

Pull Request Template

An effective PR template:

## Type of Change
- [ ] New feature (feat)
- [ ] Bug fix (fix)
- [ ] Refactoring (refactor)
- [ ] Documentation (docs)
- [ ] Other (chore)

## Changes
### What was changed
[Brief description]

### Why it was changed
[Background and reasoning]

### How it was changed
- [Change 1]
- [Change 2]

## Testing
### Tests performed
- [ ] Added unit tests
- [ ] Added integration tests
- [ ] Performed manual testing

### Test results
[Description of the test results]

## Related Issues
Closes #[number]
Refs #[number]

## Review Points
[Points you especially want reviewers to look at]

Test Strategy

Test Pyramid

       /\
      /E2E\       Few (slow, high cost)
     /------\
    / Integ. \    Medium
   /----------\
  /   Unit     \  Many (fast, low cost)
 /--------------\

Target ratio:

Unit tests: 70%
Integration tests: 20%
E2E tests: 10%

How to Write Tests

Given-When-Then pattern:

describe('TaskService', () => {
  describe('task creation', () => {
    it('can create a task with valid data', async () => {
      // Given: setup
      const service = new TaskService(mockRepository);
      const validData = { title: 'Test' };

      // When: execute
      const result = await service.create(validData);

      // Then: verify
      expect(result.id).toBeDefined();
      expect(result.title).toBe('Test');
    });

    it('throws a ValidationError when the title is empty', async () => {
      // Given: setup
      const service = new TaskService(mockRepository);
      const invalidData = { title: '' };

      // When/Then: execute and verify
      await expect(
        service.create(invalidData)
      ).rejects.toThrow(ValidationError);
    });
  });
});

Coverage Targets

Measurable targets:

// jest.config.js
{
  "coverageThreshold": {
    "global": {
      "branches": 80,
      "functions": 80,
      "lines": 80,
      "statements": 80
    },
    "./src/services/": {
      "branches": 90,
      "functions": 90,
      "lines": 90,
      "statements": 90
    }
  }
}

Reasoning:

Critical business logic (services/) requires high coverage
The UI layer is acceptable at a lower level
Don't aim for 100% (balance cost and benefit)

Code Review Process

Purpose of Review

Quality assurance: Early detection of bugs
Knowledge sharing: Understanding the codebase across the whole team
Learning opportunity: Sharing best practices

Points for Effective Reviews

For reviewers:

Constructive feedback

## ❌ Bad example
This code is no good.

## ✅ Good example
This implementation results in O(n²) time complexity.
Using a Map can improve it to O(n):

```typescript
const taskMap = new Map(tasks.map(t => [t.id, t]));
const result = ids.map(id => taskMap.get(id));


2. **State the priority explicitly**
```markdown
[Required] Security: A password is being output to the logs
[Recommended] Performance: Avoid DB calls inside a loop
[Suggestion] Readability: Could this function name be made clearer?
[Question] Could you explain the intent of this processing?

Positive feedback too

✨ This implementation is easy to understand!
👍 Edge cases are thoroughly considered
💡 This pattern looks reusable elsewhere

For reviewees:

Perform a self-review
- Review your own code before creating the PR
- Add comments where explanation is needed
Aim for small PRs
- 1 PR = 1 feature
- Number of changed files: 10 or fewer recommended
- Number of changed lines: 300 or fewer recommended
Explain carefully
- Why you chose this implementation
- Alternatives you considered
- Points you especially want reviewed

Review Time Guidelines

Small PR (100 lines or fewer): 15 minutes
Medium PR (100-300 lines): 30 minutes
Large PR (300 lines or more): 1 hour or more

Principle: Avoid large PRs; split them up

Promoting Automation (Where Applicable)

Automating Quality Checks

Automation items and the tools adopted:

Lint checks
- ESLint 9.x + @typescript-eslint
  - Unifies coding conventions with a TypeScript-specific rule set
  - Automatically detects potential bugs and deprecated patterns
  - Configuration file: eslint.config.js (Flat Config format)
Code formatting
- Prettier 3.x
  - Automatically formats code style, reducing debate during review
  - Used together with ESLint, avoiding conflicts via eslint-config-prettier
  - Configuration file: .prettierrc
Type checking
- TypeScript Compiler (tsc) 5.x
  - Checks only type errors with tsc --noEmit
  - Verifies type safety independently of the build
  - Configuration file: tsconfig.json
Running tests
- Vitest 2.x
  - Fast startup and execution based on Vite
  - Natively supports TypeScript/ESM and works with zero configuration
  - Coverage measurement (@vitest/coverage-v8) is built in as standard
  - Modern development experience with HMR support
Build verification
- TypeScript Compiler (tsc)
  - Guarantees a type-checked build with the standard compiler
  - Simple configuration with no additional tools required
  - Centralizes output settings in tsconfig.json

Implementation methods:

1. CI/CD (GitHub Actions)

# .github/workflows/ci.yml
name: CI
on: [push, pull_request]
jobs:
  test:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
      - uses: actions/setup-node@v4
        with:
          node-version: '24'
      - run: npm ci
      - run: npm run lint
      - run: npm run typecheck
      - run: npm run test
      - run: npm run build

2. Pre-commit hooks (Husky 9.x + lint-staged)

// package.json
{
  "scripts": {
    "prepare": "husky",
    "lint": "eslint .",
    "format": "prettier --write .",
    "typecheck": "tsc --noEmit",
    "test": "vitest run",
    "build": "tsc"
  },
  "lint-staged": {
    "*.{ts,tsx}": [
      "eslint --fix",
      "prettier --write"
    ]
  }
}

# .husky/pre-commit
npm run lint-staged
npm run typecheck

Effects of adoption:

Automated checks run before committing, preventing defective code from being introduced
CI runs automatically when a PR is created, ensuring quality before merging
Early detection reduces fix costs by up to 80% (compared to when bugs are found after production)

Why this configuration was chosen:

A standard and modern configuration in the TypeScript ecosystem as of 2025
High compatibility between tools, with few configuration conflicts
An excellent balance between development experience and execution speed

Checklist

A branching strategy is decided
Commit message conventions are clear
A PR template is prepared
Test types and coverage targets are set
A code review process is defined
A CI/CD pipeline is built

10 KiB Raw Blame History