fix-ci
Skill2 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Diagnose and fix failing GitHub Actions CI by inspecting runs with the GitHub CLI, reproducing as much of the repository's formatting, linting, type-checking, build, and test surface locally as practical, then committing, pushing, and monitoring the exact pushed revision. Use when the user asks to fix CI, repair a failing GitHub check, make a branch green, or investigate a GitHub Actions failure.
39 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphustheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecodetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- salvo8519/fairmarktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- blamechris/chroxytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ArchitektApx/cursor-skills-for-claudetheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- therapys/dotagentstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use get-pr-comments, create-pr and 7 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
jaydubya818Skillget-pr-comments
Use when pull-request feedback needs to be fetched and summarized for action.
Also in 3 projects that use this
SentrySkillcreate-pr
Create pull requests following Sentry conventions. Use when opening PRs, writing PR descriptions, or preparing changes for review. Follows Sentry's code review guidelines.
Also in 10 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillmerge
Merge changes from the topic branch to the merge base branch. Use when the user wants to merge their session's work back to the base branch.
Also in 3 projects that use this
SentrySkillcommit
Create commit messages following Sentry conventions. Use when committing code changes, writing commit messages, or formatting git history. Follows conventional commits with Sentry-specific issue references.
Also in 10 projects that use this
NVIDIASkilltesting
Run Python and Rust tests for physicsnemo-curator using uv + pytest with coverage reporting via pytest-cov, and cargo-nextest for Rust tests. Includes benchmark workflows with pytest-benchmark and criterion.
Also in 3 projects that use this
AWSSkillship
Finalize dev work on an issue branch — update docs, push, and open a PR.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +1 more from getsentry
Other versions39 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 39
- microsoft/vscode★ 195ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41ksame name
- ccusage/ccusage★ 19ksame name
- ryoppippi/ccusage★ 19ksame name
- questdb/questdb★ 18ksame name
- fleetdm/fleet★ 7.2ksame name
- open-telemetry/opentelemetry-java-instrumentation★ 2.7ksame name
- MCPJam/inspector★ 2.3ksame name
- gronxb/hot-updater★ 1.8ksame name
29 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository5 other files it gives its agents.
- checkpoint-commitSkill
- finishing-mid-refactorSkill
- handoff-reviewSkill
- jeroens-rustSkill
- profile-guided-optimizationSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
18 rules. 0 are common, 16 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 37 edited versions we read keep these.
16
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Treat GitHub Actions as the final confirmation, not the primary feedback loop.
- Distinctive: line 13
Read git status, the current branch, recent commits, repository instructions, and the relevant workflow files.
- Distinctive: line 15
Use existing package scripts, task runners, pre-commit hooks, and documented commands instead of inventing equivalents.
- Very specific: line 19
Use gh pr checks, gh run list, and gh run view to find the failing run and job.
- Very specific: line 20
Read failed logs with gh run view <run-id> --log-failed or the narrowest useful job log.
- Distinctive: line 26
Run the narrowest relevant checks first for fast iteration, then the broader package or repository gates before committing.
- Distinctive: line 31
Do not weaken checks, lower coverage thresholds, add broad exclusions, or rerun blindly merely to get green.
- Distinctive: line 32
Treat environmental failures separately from code failures.
- Distinctive: line 33
If unrelated worktree changes contaminate a broad check, isolate validation with repository-native affected filters or a temporary clean …
- Distinctive: line 37
Run the broadest practical local equivalent of the affected CI workflows.
- Distinctive: line 38
Do not commit or push while a relevant local failure remains unexplained.
- Distinctive: line 40
Do not bypass hooks unless unrelated worktree state makes them unreliable and the equivalent hook checks have already passed in an isolated …
- Distinctive: line 46
Do not report success from a queued or still-running workflow.
- Distinctive: line 49
If GitHub exposes a broader failure than local checks caught, inspect the new failed log, add its closest local reproduction, fix it, and …
- Distinctive: line 54
Ask the user before changing CI policy, supported platforms, coverage scope, security gates, or required checks.
- Distinctive: line 55
Ask before deleting or rewriting unrelated user work.
- Distinctive: line 57
Prefer the first causal failure.
- Distinctive: line 58
Keep monitoring after the push.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 37 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Fix CI
Treat GitHub Actions as the final confirmation, not the primary feedback loop. Reproduce failures locally, make the smallest correct fix, and push only after the relevant local gates pass.
Workflow
- Inspect the repository and branch state.
- Read
git status, the current branch, recent commits, repository instructions, and the relevant workflow files. - Preserve unrelated user changes. Do not reset, discard, or stash them.
- Use existing package scripts, task runners, pre-commit hooks, and documented commands instead of inventing equivalents.
- Read
- Inspect GitHub Actions with
gh.- Confirm
ghauthentication and identify the PR or current branch. - Use
gh pr checks,gh run list, andgh run viewto find the failing run and job. - Read failed logs with
gh run view <run-id> --log-failedor the narrowest useful job log. - Distinguish the first actionable failure from jobs that were skipped or cancelled downstream.
- Confirm
- Build a local acceptance set.
- Map the failing workflow steps to repository-native local commands.
- Include as much of CI as practical: formatting, linting, type-checking, builds, and tests.
- Run the narrowest relevant checks first for fast iteration, then the broader package or repository gates before committing.
- Match CI versions, flags, working directories, and environment assumptions when they affect the result.
- Reproduce and fix locally.
- Fix the root cause with the smallest scoped change.
- Do not weaken checks, lower coverage thresholds, add broad exclusions, or rerun blindly merely to get green. Make such policy changes only when they correctly describe the intended checked surface.
- Treat environmental failures separately from code failures. Retry only when evidence indicates a transient setup, cache, network, or concurrency problem.
- If unrelated worktree changes contaminate a broad check, isolate validation with repository-native affected filters or a temporary clean worktree. Never alter the user's unrelated files to obtain a clean result.
- Pass local gates before publishing.
- Rerun every focused check that failed.
- Run the broadest practical local equivalent of the affected CI workflows.
- Do not commit or push while a relevant local failure remains unexplained.
- Stage only the CI fix. Inspect the staged diff before committing.
- Do not bypass hooks unless unrelated worktree state makes them unreliable and the equivalent hook checks have already passed in an isolated environment.
- Push and watch the exact revision.
- Push normally; do not force-push without explicit user approval.
- Record the pushed commit SHA and find the new run for that SHA.
- Watch it with
gh run watch <run-id> --exit-statusorgh pr checks --watchuntil completion. - Do not report success from a queued or still-running workflow.
- Iterate on concrete failures.
- If GitHub exposes a broader failure than local checks caught, inspect the new failed log, add its closest local reproduction, fix it, and repeat the local-first loop.
- Continue until the relevant checks are green or a genuine external blocker requires user input.
Decision Rules
- Ask the user before changing CI policy, supported platforms, coverage scope, security gates, or required checks.
- Ask before deleting or rewriting unrelated user work.
- Proceed without asking for ordinary formatting, lint, typing, build, and test fixes whose intended behavior is clear.
- Prefer the first causal failure. A cancelled test job after lint failed is not evidence of a test failure.
- Keep monitoring after the push; fixing CI includes confirming GitHub Actions, not merely starting it.
Report
Report:
- The root cause and fix.
- The exact local commands that passed.
- The commit SHA pushed.
- The final GitHub Actions result and run URL.
- Any checks not reproduced locally and why.
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
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.

