Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in tasks requiring complex reasoning, such as code generation, mathematical problem solving, and algorithmic synthesis -- especially when aided by reasoning tokens and Chain-of-Thought prompting. Yet, a core question remains: do these models truly reason, or do they merely exploit shallow statistical patterns? In this paper, we introduce Chain-of-Code Collapse, where we systematically investigate the robustness of reasoning LLMs by introducing a suite of semantically faithful yet adversarially structured prompt perturbations. Our evaluation -- spanning 700 perturbed code generations derived from LeetCode-style problems -- applies transformations such as storytelling reframing, irrelevant constraint injection, example reordering, and numeric perturbation. We observe that while certain modifications severely degrade performance (with accuracy drops up to -42.1%), others surprisingly improve model accuracy by up to 35.3%, suggesting sensitivity not only to semantics but also to surface-level prompt dynamics. These findings expose the fragility and unpredictability of current reasoning systems, underscoring the need for more principles approaches to reasoning alignments and prompting robustness. We release our perturbation datasets and evaluation framework to promote further research in trustworthy and resilient LLM reasoning.