rea-ci-tests-audit
Skill4 starsChanged 32 days agoMITView on GitHub
Audit REA CI and test suites for correctness, fixture drift, false passes, and measured performance; use for suite or workflow investigations and efficiency changes, rather than ordinary feature testing or a single test failure.
6 other projects use a version of this, 2 of them edited; 2 new projects in the last 4 weeks, against 0 the 4 before.
Adopted by
Surging: 2 new projects took it in the last 4 weeks, none the 4 weeks before.thin data
Most recently taken up by
- laaielichter/Reverseportedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- AxlZero21/Skillsword for word, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- orbyn-dev/orbyn-fullstack-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- zheedevVn/Rea-Unlockword for word, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- morluto/reaedited, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- kinqsradio/orbyn-fullstack-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use rea-analysis-optimization.
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.
kinqsradioSkillrea-analysis-optimization
Optimize a measured REA analysis bottleneck while preserving evidence and resource ownership; scoped to REA.
Also in 5 projects that use this
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 2
- zheedevVn/Rea-Unlock★ 4100% same
- AxlZero21/Skills★ 1100% same
Edited · 2
- morluto/rea★ 442k99% same
- laaielichter/Reverseport★ 1898% same
Wrote their own version · 2
- kinqsradio/orbyn-fullstack-skills★ 4same name
- orbyn-dev/orbyn-fullstack-skills★ 4same name
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.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- website/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- rea-changelog-updateSkill
- rea-tool-designSkill
- reverse-engineer-anythingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
11 rules. 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
11
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 12
Follow the checkout's AGENTS.md, testing guide, and contribution rules.
- Distinctive: line 24
Do not modify another task's checkout.
- Distinctive: line 32
Check positive and negative selection paths: required files must be discovered once per intended test configuration.
- Distinctive: line 37
Use existing timing and failure artifacts to select suspicious families.
- Distinctive: line 51
Search the whole affected fixture family, including other version strings.
- Distinctive: line 76
Read measurement and CI checks when investigating slowness, caching, runner waits, shared artifacts, or log noise.
- Distinctive: line 82
Prefer removing proven duplicate preparation, reusing immutable setup, and reducing repeated subprocess work before shrinking correctness …
- Distinctive: line 85
Keep live tests fresh; a cached previous pass cannot validate current host, installed provider contents, permissions, or external state.
- Distinctive: line 90
If implementation is authorized, make the smallest structural change at the owning boundary and add a regression that fails on the baseline …
- Distinctive: line 96
Run the repository's applicable checks and inspect complete current-head CI results before an authorized merge.
- Distinctive: line 110
Stop when the authorized work is verified, remaining benefits are unproven, or further changes would trade correctness for speculative …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 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
REA CI and tests audit
Establish which checks still catch real regressions and which costs can be removed without losing that protection. The outcome may be a verified fix, an evidence-backed recommendation, or an explicit decision to stop.
Follow the checkout's AGENTS.md, testing guide,
and contribution rules. Use their current commands
and pinned toolchain, rather than commands remembered from an earlier audit.
Preserve the requested scope: investigation alone does not authorize edits;
this skill does not grant permission to publish issues, push, or merge. Existing
user authorization still applies. Keep audit notes and raw results outside the
tracked tree, normally in a task-specific /tmp directory.
Establish the executed baseline
Fetch when the user asks for latest main. Pin the baseline SHA and inspected workflow revision; use an isolated worktree when changing or comparing code. Do not modify another task's checkout. Record dirty changes and the exact command, toolchain, host, selected tests, instrumentation, and prerequisites. An old run is evidence for its executed revision, even if main advances.
Trace workflow triggers, changed-path selection, job dependencies, reusable actions, package scripts, test discovery, artifact producers, and report gates through to the commands that actually execute. Include scripts, generated data, runtime registration, and subprocess boundaries missing from import graphs. Check positive and negative selection paths: required files must be discovered once per intended test configuration; deliberate platform/configuration repeats are separate coverage. A missing explicit test or missing required report must not turn green. Optional lanes may skip; preserve their stated prerequisites.
Use existing timing and failure artifacts to select suspicious families. Run relevant checks to establish a baseline; reserve a full local suite for broad CI diagnosis or uncertainty that focused checks cannot resolve. Do not rebuild or rerun an unchanged complete suite after every documentation edit.
Prove the failure or protection
For each candidate, state the expected observable behavior and its owner, then construct the smallest reproduction against production behavior. Follow the producer and affected consumers before deciding where to fix it.
- For drift, compare fixtures with current admission requirements, protocol replies, named contracts, tool versions, and actual public entrypoints. A plausible-looking mock can fail before the behavior its test claims to cover. Search the whole affected fixture family, including other version strings. Preserve intentionally malformed fixtures and test their intended rejection.
- For a suspicious green test, perturb the relevant behavior in an isolated copy or inject a controlled failure. Verify that the existing assertion or gate detects it. A test may merely repeat its mock, import abandoned code, or hide a subprocess/checker failure. Restore mutations after the experiment.
- For shared setup or pruning, map distinct assertions to their retained scenarios. Preserve malformed inputs, cancellation, cleanup failure, permissions, capacity, identity, and meaningful concurrency interactions. A faster run that skips a case or weakens its oracle is not an improvement.
- For provider coverage, separate fake-producer, boundary, and actual-engine evidence. Inspect named skips and prerequisites; fixtures do not establish real Ghidra, LLDB, browser, or other provider behavior.
Classify findings as reproduced defects, supported costs, hypotheses, or unavailable evidence. Record the baseline command, observed output/exit status, expected result, affected scope, and competing explanation. A failure on main may be pre-existing; that does not by itself make it irrelevant to a CI audit. Attribute PR failures using the executed revision and a clean baseline, not just their resemblance to a previous failure. Retry only to test a specific transient explanation; retain the original failure and stop when repetition adds no evidence. A passing retry does not establish a root cause or a fix.
Assess efficiency without losing the gate
Read measurement and CI checks when investigating slowness, caching, runner waits, shared artifacts, or log noise. Compare equivalent completed work before claiming a speedup. Distinguish setup/build time, test execution, coverage instrumentation, dependency waits, and runner scheduling; state which costs remain unmeasured.
Prefer removing proven duplicate preparation, reusing immutable setup, and reducing repeated subprocess work before shrinking correctness coverage. Preserve independent sessions where lifecycle or concurrency is the oracle. Keep live tests fresh; a cached previous pass cannot validate current host, installed provider contents, permissions, or external state.
Fix, verify, and hand off within scope
If implementation is authorized, make the smallest structural change at the owning boundary and add a regression that fails on the baseline for the right reason. Retest affected consumers and meaningful negative paths; verify cache invalidation or discovery when those mechanisms change. Read the installed Turbo documentation before changing its configuration or commands.
Run the repository's applicable checks and inspect complete current-head CI results before an authorized merge. Preserve required coverage and discovery gates. Do not suppress a failure, add blanket retries, raise timeouts, or delete distinct assertions solely to make CI green. Changes to these controls need their own demonstrated reason and retained failure detection.
Report each confirmed issue with exact revision, reproduction, consequence, proposed correction, and validation limits. Report performance with workload and measurements, not just a percentage. Use English issue/PR records when requested; follow the user's assignment, commit identity, review, and merge preferences without assuming them for other users. Open ready-for-review PRs only when that lifecycle is authorized. Resolve necessary review findings and check final main against the tested tree after merging.
Stop when the authorized work is verified, remaining benefits are unproven, or further changes would trade correctness for speculative speed. List genuine uncertainties without turning them into additional optimization rounds.
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.

