agentleFS
Microsoft AzureKnown publisherAzure/azure-dev/.github/skills/foundry-extension-scenario-pr-regression/SKILL.md

foundry-extension-scenario-pr-regression

Skill573 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

**WORKFLOW SKILL** — Runs the azure.ai.agents extension's cli-interactive-tester scenarios locally as a PR-scoped regression check (Tier 0 is free/offline; Tier 1b/Tier 2 incur Azure cost). Resolves the current branch's PR, maps changed files to impacted scenario tags, drives matching scenarios via foundry-extension-scenario-worker agents, and posts a results comment on the PR. Typically dispatched by foundry-extension-scenario-orchestrator, but can trigger directly.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    USE FOR: run agent scenarios for a PR, scenario regression check, test agents extension PR, run impacted scenarios, check for regressions …

    line 19
  2. Distinctive:

    DO NOT USE FOR: running the whole suite or a tag/tier sweep not tied to a diff (foundry-extension-scenario-suite-run), authoring/editing …

    line 22
  3. Very specific:

    Every selected scenario was driven to completion with a recorded PASS/FAIL/SKIPPED, duration, product and cleanup findings, and a …

    line 95
  4. Distinctive:

    Every changed file that matched no impact rule was listed as a coverage gap in the plan and final output rather than silently omitted.

    line 97

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

foundry-extension-scenario-pr-regression

Runs the azure.ai.agents extension's interactive CLI scenarios as a local PR regression gate and reports the results back on the pull request.

Overview

The azure.ai.agents extension ships goal-based scenarios for the cli-interactive-tester MCP server under cli/azd/extensions/azure.ai.agents/tests/cli-interactive-tester-scenarios/. These scenarios are never run in CI — they need the tester MCP server, a populated profile.local.yaml, manual az/gh login, and (for Tier 2) real Azure resources.

Tools invoked: git CLI, gh CLI, cli-interactive-tester MCP tools (list_scenarios, load_scenario, run_pre_hooks, start_session, send_action, finish_session, run_post_hooks), the foundry-extension-scenario-worker agent, and ask_user.

This skill is the opt-in, run-locally flow a PR submitter uses to check their change for regressions. It:

  1. Resolves the current branch's PR link.
  2. Maps the PR's changed files to the impacted scenario tag set (cmd:* / tier:*).
  3. Enumerates and drives only the impacted scenarios through the tester.
  4. Posts a per-scenario results comment back on the PR.

It is cost- and side-effect-aware: Tier 0 is free/offline, Tier 1 needs Azure auth but provisions nothing, Tier 1b (verify-deploy) provisions per-scenario Azure resources to verify Tier 1 scaffolds actually deploy, and Tier 2 incurs Azure cost for cloud-feature testing — both Tier 1b and Tier 2 are only run after explicit user confirmation.

This skill selects what to run (PR impact → tags) and owns the PR reporting. It does not re-document how a scenario is driven — that is the executor spec at cli/azd/extensions/azure.ai.agents/tests/cli-interactive-tester-scenarios/driving-mechanics.md, which the spawned foundry-extension-scenario-worker agent follows for each scenario. This skill is the selection-strategy half of the foundry-extension-scenario-orchestrator front door; the orchestrator may dispatch it, or it may trigger directly.

This skill drives scenarios deliberately, with user consent. That is different from the extension's AGENTS.md rule that coding agents must not invoke scenarios on their own during ordinary work — here the user has explicitly asked for a scenario run.

{{ references/prerequisites.md }}

{{ references/workflow.md }}

{{ references/impact-mapping.md }}

Execution mechanics (single source)

Per-scenario driving — path style, the requires: gate, fail-loud rules, parallelism and ordering, and capture — is not restated here. It lives once in the executor spec: driving-mechanics.md (repo path cli/azd/extensions/azure.ai.agents/tests/cli-interactive-tester-scenarios/driving-mechanics.md). Fan product phases out to foundry-extension-scenario-worker agents, then use cleanup-phase workers for deferred Tier 1b post hooks per that spec. This skill's job is selection (impact → tags), gating, and reporting — not driving.

{{ references/reporting.md }}

Exit Criteria

  • The target PR was resolved before the build, and a posting run used a clean checkout whose tested SHA exactly matched that PR's head SHA (or the user chose a local-only, non-posting run).
  • The impacted scenario set was derived from the PR diff and confirmed by the user (including an explicit cost acknowledgement before any Tier 1b or Tier 2 run).
  • Every selected scenario was driven to completion with a recorded PASS/FAIL/SKIPPED, duration, product and cleanup findings, and a FINAL-REPORT.md was written under .reports/<run-id>/.
  • Every changed file that matched no impact rule was listed as a coverage gap in the plan and final output rather than silently omitted.
  • Scenarios with a requires: field whose prerequisite did not PASS are marked ⏭️ SKIPPED (not FAIL) with a clear reason.
  • A results comment was posted on the PR (unless the user opted out), and any Tier 1b/Tier 2 run was followed by appropriate teardown. Failed or pending cleanup is reported explicitly.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.