Skip to content
Back to skills

Deferred Finding

ASecurity

Use when a review finding cannot be fixed in current PR - creates properly documented tracking issue with full context, linked to parent, following full issue-driven-development process

  • 11 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added February 7, 2026
code-qualitygobashgitsecurity

Works with

  • cli
  • mcp

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned February 12, 2026

npx -y skills add troykelly/claude-skills --skill deferred-finding --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Deferred Finding?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Deferred Finding
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/troykelly-deferred-finding/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/troykelly-deferred-finding)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: deferred-finding
description: Use when a review finding cannot be fixed in current PR - creates properly documented tracking issue with full context, linked to parent, following full issue-driven-development process
allowed-tools:
  - mcp__github__*
model: opus
---

# Deferred Finding

## Overview

Process for creating tracking issues when review findings cannot be addressed in the current PR.

**Core principle:** No finding disappears. Every deferral is tracked.

**ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT:** Deferred findings MUST have tracking issues. There is no other option.

## When to Defer

A finding may ONLY be deferred when:

| Valid Reason | Example |
|--------------|---------|
| Out of scope | Finding requires architectural change beyond PR scope |
| External dependency | Requires infrastructure/config change |
| Breaking change | Would require major version bump |
| Separate concern | Logically independent from current work |

## Never Defer Without Tracking

| Invalid Approach | Reality |
|------------------|---------|
| "We'll fix it later" | Without tracking, later never comes |
| "It's minor" | Minor issues compound into major problems |
| "Not my problem" | You found it, you track it |
| "Good enough" | Good enough creates technical debt |

## Deferral Process

### Step 1: Verify Deferral is Appropriate

Ask yourself:
- Can this reasonably be fixed in this PR? If yes, FIX IT.
- Is there a valid reason from the "When to Defer" table?
- Have you tried to fix it first?

### Step 2: Determine Finding Details

Document:
- What is the finding?
- Why is it a problem?
- Where in the code?
- What's the severity?
- Why can't it be fixed now?

### Step 3: Create Tracking Issue

Use this template:

```markdown
## [Finding] [Brief description] (from #[PARENT])

### Origin

This issue was created during code review of #[PARENT_ISSUE].

| Property | Value |
|----------|-------|
| Parent Issue | #[PARENT_ISSUE] |
| Parent PR | #[PARENT_PR] (if exists) |
| Finding ID | F-[PARENT]-[N] |
| Severity | [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] |
| Review Criterion | [Which of 7 criteria OR OWASP category] |
| Depth | [N] |

### Finding Details

**What was found:**
[Detailed description of the issue - be specific]

**Location:**
- File: `[path/to/file.ts]`
- Line(s): [N-M]
- Function: `[functionName()]`

**Why it matters:**
[Impact if not addressed - be concrete]

**Evidence:**
```[language]
[Code snippet showing the issue]
```

### Why Deferred

[Explain why this cannot be fixed in the parent PR]

| Reason | Details |
|--------|---------|
| Category | [out-of-scope / external-dependency / breaking-change / separate-concern] |
| Justification | [Specific explanation] |

### Acceptance Criteria

- [ ] [Specific criterion 1 - must be verifiable]
- [ ] [Specific criterion 2]
- [ ] [How to verify the fix]

### Links

- Parent Issue: #[PARENT_ISSUE]
- Review Comment: [Link to review artifact if applicable]

---
**Labels:** `review-finding`, `spawned-from:#[PARENT]`, `depth:[N]`, `[severity]`

*This issue follows the full issue-driven-development process including its own code review.*
```

### Step 4: Create Issue via CLI

```bash
gh issue create \
  --title "[Finding] Rate limiting needed on auth endpoint (from #123)" \
  --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
[Full template body here]
EOF
)" \
  --label "review-finding" \
  --label "depth:1" \
  --label "high"
```

Note: Create the `spawned-from:#N` label if it doesn't exist:
```bash
gh label create "spawned-from:#123" --color "C2E0C6" --description "Spawned from issue #123" 2>/dev/null || true
gh issue edit [NEW_ISSUE] --add-label "spawned-from:#123"
```

### Step 5: Update Review Artifact

Add the new issue to the "Findings Deferred" section:

```markdown
### Findings Deferred (With Tracking Issues)

| # | Severity | Finding | Tracking Issue | Justification |
|---|----------|---------|----------------|---------------|
| 1 | HIGH | Rate limiting needed | #456 | Requires infrastructure changes |
```

### Step 6: Update Parent Issue (If Deviation Required)

If the deferred finding BLOCKS the parent PR (e.g., critical security issue):

```bash
# Add awaiting label
gh issue edit 123 --add-label "status:awaiting-dependencies"

# Post deviation comment
gh issue comment 123 --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
## Deviation: Awaiting Dependencies

This issue cannot proceed until deferred findings are resolved.

| Property | Value |
|----------|-------|
| Blocked At | Step 9 (Code Review) |
| Dependencies | #456 |
| Reason | Critical deferred finding blocks PR |

Work will resume when #456 is complete.
EOF
)"
```

## Tracking Issue Lifecycle

Once created, the tracking issue:

1. **Is a first-class issue** - Full issue-driven-development process
2. **Gets its own review** - Cannot skip comprehensive-review
3. **May create its own deferrals** - Depth increments
4. **Closes independently** - Does not auto-close with parent

## Depth Tracking

| Depth | Meaning |
|-------|---------|
| 1 | Finding from original issue's review |
| 2 | Finding from a depth-1 issue's review |
| 3+ | Deeper nesting - flag for human attention |

At depth 3+:
```markdown
**Deep Finding Chain Detected**

This issue is at depth [N]. Chain:
- #100 (original)
  - #101 (depth 1)
    - #102 (depth 2)
      - #103 (depth 3) - Current

Consider: Is there a systemic issue requiring broader attention?
```

## Labels

Required labels for tracking issues:

| Label | Purpose |
|-------|---------|
| `review-finding` | Identifies as born from review |
| `spawned-from:#N` | Links to parent issue |
| `depth:N` | Tracks nesting level |
| `[severity]` | critical/high/medium/low |

Optional labels:
- `security` - Security-related finding
- `status:pending` - Ready for work

## Checklist

Before marking finding as deferred:

- [ ] Verified cannot fix in current PR
- [ ] Valid deferral reason documented
- [ ] Tracking issue created with full template
- [ ] Issue has all required labels
- [ ] Issue linked to parent
- [ ] Review artifact updated with tracking issue number
- [ ] Parent issue updated (if deviation required)

## Integration

This skill is called by:
- `apply-all-findings` - When finding cannot be fixed
- `comprehensive-review` - When documenting deferrals

This skill creates:
- New GitHub issues following full `issue-driven-development` process
- Deviation state on parent issue (if blocking)

This skill references:
- `issue-lifecycle` - Issue management
- `issue-driven-development` - Process for new issues

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…