Managing Crucible

Overview

Manage Atlassian Crucible code review workflows, including review creation, commenting, approval workflows, and integration with Jira and Bitbucket/Stash.

Key Capabilities

• Create and manage code reviews with multiple changesets
• Configure review templates and default reviewers
• Manage commenting and defect tracking within reviews
• Set up approval workflows and completion conditions
• Integrate with Jira for review-to-issue traceability
• Configure notifications and review reminders

Workflow

1 — Review Configuration

REVIEW SETUP
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Review type: changeset / patch / snippet
[ ] Project: ___
[ ] Default moderator: ___
[ ] Default reviewers: ___
[ ] Allow self-review: YES / NO
[ ] Review template: ___
[ ] Jira issue linkage: required / optional / disabled

2 — Approval Workflow

APPROVAL WORKFLOW
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Review states:
  Draft -> Under Review -> Summarized -> Closed

[ ] Require all reviewers to complete: YES / NO
[ ] Minimum approvals for completion: ___
[ ] Allow close with open defects: YES / NO
[ ] Require moderator summarization: YES / NO
[ ] Auto-close after ___ days of inactivity

3 — Comment and Defect Tracking

COMMENTING POLICY
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Comment classifications:
  [ ] Defect — Must fix before approval
  [ ] Comment — Informational, no action required
  [ ] Question — Requires author response

[ ] Inline comments on specific lines: YES / NO
[ ] General review comments: YES / NO
[ ] Defect severity levels: critical / major / minor
[ ] Create Jira issues from defects: YES / NO

Common Operations

List Active Reviews

Query open reviews, filter by project, reviewer, or author.

Review Metrics

Track review completion rates, defect density, and reviewer participation.

Jira Integration

Link reviews to Jira issues and track review status from issue context.

Troubleshooting

Issue	Cause	Fix
Review not starting	Missing reviewers	Add at least one reviewer before starting
Cannot close review	Open defects remain	Resolve or downgrade all defect comments
Jira link missing	Integration not configured	Configure Crucible-Jira application link
Notifications not sent	Email settings	Verify SMTP and user notification preferences

Output Format

Present results as a structured report:

Managing Crucible Report
════════════════════════
Resources discovered: [count]

Resource       Status    Key Metric    Issues
──────────────────────────────────────────────
[name]         [ok/warn] [value]       [findings]

Summary: [total] resources | [ok] healthy | [warn] warnings | [crit] critical
Action Items: [list of prioritized findings]

Target ≤50 lines of output. Use tables for multi-resource comparisons.

Anti-Hallucination Rules

1. NEVER assume resource names — always discover via CLI/API in Phase 1 before referencing in Phase 2.
2. NEVER fabricate metric names or dimensions — verify against the service documentation or --help output.
3. NEVER mix CLI commands between service versions — confirm which version/API you are targeting.
4. ALWAYS use the discovery → verify → analyze chain — every resource referenced must have been discovered first.
5. ALWAYS handle empty results gracefully — an empty response is valid data, not an error to retry.

Counter-Rationalizations

Shortcut	Counter	Why
"I'll skip discovery and check known resources"	Always run Phase 1 discovery first	Resource names change, new resources appear — assumed names cause errors
"The user only asked for a quick check"	Follow the full discovery → analysis flow	Quick checks miss critical issues; structured analysis catches silent failures
"Default configuration is probably fine"	Audit configuration explicitly	Defaults often leave logging, security, and optimization features disabled
"Metrics aren't needed for this"	Always check relevant metrics when available	API/CLI responses show current state; metrics reveal trends and intermittent issues
"I don't have access to that"	Try the command and report the actual error	Assumed permission failures prevent useful investigation; actual errors are informative