ci-cd
Skill1 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Stand up, fix or debug the quality-gate pipeline: wire the commands the repo really runs into CI, block the merge behind branch protection, keep secrets to names, build the deploy, flag and rollback paths but fire none. Also reviews a diff that changed CI or deploy config. Not the pull request (`pull-request`), nor the release past a merge (`shipping-and-launch`).
- Reads credentials
38 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- codewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Mehul72/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- AsiaOstrich/EngramGraphtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- scoobydont-666/shared-claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- MiguelSavignano/claude-code-systemtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- AsiaOstrich/universal-dev-standardstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use caching, api-versioning and 10 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.
wpankSkillcaching
Caching strategies, invalidation, eviction policies, HTTP caching, distributed caching, and anti-patterns. Use when designing cache layers, choosing eviction policies, debugging stale data, or optimizing read-heavy workloads.
Also in 5 projects that use this
wpankSkillapi-versioning
API versioning strategies — URL path, header, query param, content negotiation — with breaking change classification, deprecation timelines, migration patterns, and multi-version support. Use when evolving APIs, planning breaking changes, or managing version lifecycles.
Also in 3 projects that use this
SentrySkillfeature-flags
Gate a Sentry feature behind a FlagPole feature flag. Use when adding a feature flag, registering a flag in temporary.py, checking a flag from Python or the frontend, enabling a flag in tests, or asking where FlagPole rollout config lives. Trigger on "add a feature flag", "gate this behind a flag", "register a flag", "features.has", "api_expose", "OrganizationFeature", "ProjectFeature", "FlagPole".
Also in 4 projects that use this
OpenAISkillauth
Authentication integration guidance — Clerk (native Vercel Marketplace), Descope, and Auth0 setup for Next.js applications. Covers middleware auth patterns, sign-in/sign-up flows, and Marketplace provisioning. Use when implementing user authentication.
Also in 4 projects that use this
wrsmith108Skilldocker
Container-based development for isolated, reproducible environments. Use when running npm commands, installing packages, executing code, or managing project dependencies. Trigger phrases include "npm install", "run the build", "start the server", "install package", or any code execution request.
Also in 9 projects that use this
OpenAISkillobservability
Vercel Observability expert guidance — Drains (logs, traces, speed insights, web analytics), Web Analytics, Speed Insights, runtime logs, custom events, OpenTelemetry integration, and monitoring dashboards. Use when instrumenting, debugging, or optimizing application performance and user experience on Vercel.
Also in 13 projects that use this
Other versions38 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 38
- cunarist/rinf★ 2.8ksame name
- codewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kit★ 808same name
- Resgrid/Core★ 238same name
- kid-sid/claude-spellbook★ 190same name
- irahardianto/awesome-agv★ 157same name
- AsiaOstrich/universal-dev-standards★ 84same name
- nahid-sparktales/agent-dispatcher★ 59same name
- mgifford/accessibility-skills★ 48same name
- nimadorostkar/Claude-Skills-collection★ 33same name
- iuliandita/skills★ 11same name
28 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 repository41 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- acceptance-criteriaSkill
- aim-higherSkill
- api-designSkill
- architecture-designSkill
- browser-testing-with-devtoolsSkill
- codebase-designSkill
- codebase-researchSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- code-simplificationSkill
- comprehension-quizSkill
- debugging-and-error-recoverySkill
- deprecation-and-migrationSkill
- documentation-and-adrsSkill
- doubt-driven-developmentSkill
- environment-manifestSkill
- gauntlet-loopSkill
- git-workflowSkill
- handoffSkill
- idea-refineSkill
- incremental-implementationSkill
- interview-meSkill
- literate-explainerSkill
- observability-and-instrumentationSkill
- orchestratorSkill
- performance-optimizationSkill
- plan-breakdownSkill
- preflight-readinessSkill
- project-setupSkill
- pull-requestSkill
- quality-verificationSkill
- security-and-hardeningSkill
- shipping-and-launchSkill
- source-driven-developmentSkill
- spec-grillingSkill
- spec-reviewSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- to-prdSkill
- using-agent-skillsSkill
- worktreeSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 25 edited versions we read keep these.
1
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 80
Never disable the rule, skip the test, or re-run until it goes green.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 25 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
CI/CD and Automation
Purpose
Stage: Ship. Principles 1, 7, 9.
Stands up and hardens the quality-gate pipeline so nothing reaches the protected branch without passing
the gates the repo can actually run, and builds the deploy, flag and rollback paths a person fires. It
emits no chain artifact — pull-request, git-workflow and shipping-and-launch reach for it. The
pipeline is what checks every change, so a step removed here loosens what judges the work.
When to use / when to skip
- A repository has no pipeline, or a gate, protection rule or scheduled job needs changing.
- A pipeline is red, flaky, or slow enough that people have started routing around it.
- A diff changed CI, build or deploy configuration and the Review fan-out reached you.
- A deploy, feature-flag or rollback shape has to be decided — you build it, a person fires it.
- Skip where a stop-list condition fired
(
safety-rails.md) — a secret in a workflow file is one. - Near-miss — the pull request itself:
pull-request. The release past a merge:shipping-and-launch. Branches and worktrees:git-workflow,worktree. A failing test a red pipeline surfaced:debugging-and-error-recovery. Naming the secrets and services:environment-manifest.
Inputs
Take each from the prompt where it is given, from the repository otherwise. A person is present only when this runs by hand: at most three questions, and only where the gap changes the pipeline's shape — the CI host, the protected branch, whether a deploy target exists.
- the repo's task runner (
package.jsonscripts,Makefile,pyproject.toml) — helps: the gates that can actually run · without it: run each candidate command once and mark every gate you inferredderived. - the existing
.github/workflows/*.yml, or the host's equivalent — helps: what already gates · without it: you are standing one up from nothing, not reading an ungated repo as a decision. - the red run's log — helps: the first thing to read on a failing pipeline · without it: re-run the failing job locally on the same command and versions, and name the reproduction.
docs/features/<slug>/environment.md— helps: the secrets and services to wire, by name and no value · without it: take the names from the code that reads them,derived; a name neither source gives is not wired.docs/features/<slug>/prd.mdand the ADRs it cites — helps: the deploy, flag or rollback shape where one was decided already · without it: take the smallest reversible shape, as a Decided-for-you row.
The Quality Gate Pipeline
- List the gates this repo can actually run, and run each one yourself before writing it into a workflow. A step invoking a script the repo does not define is a red pipeline, not a gate. Carry an absent gate as a Decided-for-you row rather than inventing its command.
- Order them cheapest signal first — a bug caught in lint costs minutes, the same bug in production
hours: lint, types, unit tests with coverage, build, integration against a service container, e2e where
any exist with its report uploaded on failure, the dependency audit at high
(
npm audit --audit-level=high), bundle size against the project's budget. Each on the command the repo defines, never one named here. - Fire on
pull_requestinto the protected branch and onpushto it. Gate the pull request alone and the merge commit becomes the first thing nobody checked. - Wire every secret by name and never by value, the CI-only test database's password included. Names
go in the host's secret store; CI's secrets stay separate from production's. Commit
.env.exampleand.env.testholding no real values, and keep.envout of the repository. A literal reaching a workflow file is a stop-list item (safety-rails.md), not a config bug. - Make the gates block the merge rather than report beside it — required status checks naming every
gate job, one approving review, no force-push to the protected branch, auto-merge off
(
safety-rails.md). A tick nobody has to satisfy is a notification. Fix a red pipeline at its cause: feed the real failure output back with the command that produced it, and reproduce it locally before the next push.
Red gate The move lint run the fixer, commit what it changed types or build fix at the error site the message names test root-cause it through debugging-and-error-recoveryaudit upgrade it, or record the accepted risk with its reason and its expiry Never disable the rule, skip the test, or re-run until it goes green. Disclose a test you changed on purpose in the pull request body, before and after; nothing is frozen, so the undisclosed change is the defect.
- Bring a pipeline over ten minutes down in this order, and stop the moment it is under: cache dependencies, split the gates into parallel jobs, path-filter the jobs a change cannot affect, shard the slow suite across a matrix, prune the slowest tests or move them to a schedule, buy a larger runner.
Deployment Strategies
- Configure the deploy path and never fire it. A preview deployment per pull request, a staged rollout
— staging, verified before anything promotes, then production, then a monitoring window whose length is
named in the change, ending in rollback or done — and a manual
workflow_dispatchrollback are scaffolding a person triggers. Nevergh pr merge, never push tomain, never run a deploy (safety-rails.md). Land the rollback in the same change as the deploy, while nothing yet needs rolling back. - Give every feature flag an owner and a removal date in the change that creates it, and delete the flag with its dead branch within two weeks of full rollout — create, enable for testing, canary, full, remove. A flag buys decoupling deploy from release; one with no removal date is a second code path nobody reads.
Automation Beyond CI
- Schedule dependency updates weekly with an open-pull-request limit, and name who owns a red default branch. That owner fixes or reverts, so a broken build stops being everybody's to assume someone else has noticed.
Reviewing a CI diff
Read a diff that changed CI, build or deploy configuration code-cold for what stopped being checked. Return
pass · concerns · block, whereblockis a stop-list item and nothing else. An undisclosed loosening isconcernswith its file and line — the change may be right, the silence is still a defect.In the diff Reads as a gate step deleted, or its job dropped from the required set the oracle lost a check continue-on-error: true,if: false, a raised--audit-level,--passWithNoTestsa gate that can no longer fail branch protection relaxed, force-push re-enabled, auto-merge switched on the merge stopped being gated pull_request_targetrunning a fork's code, or a secret exposed to oneprivilege reaching untrusted input a secret literal, or a value echoed into a log the stop list
Rationalizations
| Rationalization | Reality |
| "CI is too slow, skip it this once" | People route around a pipeline they wait on; step 7 is the fix. |
| "This change is trivial" | Trivial changes break builds, and the pipeline is fast on them anyway. |
| "The test is flaky, just re-run it" | A flaky test is a bug reporting intermittently; a green re-run leaves it in the tree. |
| "We'll add CI once the code settles" | An ungated repo accumulates broken states nobody can date. |
| "It's only the CI-only test database" | A test credential reused in anger is still a credential. |
| "The PR body says no behaviour change" | A workflow diff changes what judges the work. |
Red flags
- A workflow step naming a script the repo does not define.
- A green tick over
continue-on-error,if: false, or a raised threshold. - A gate job that runs but is not in the required set.
- A secret literal in a workflow file, or a value echoed to a log.
- A deploy path with no rollback, or a flag with no removal date.
- A re-run standing in for a fix on a suite everyone calls flaky.
Verification
- Every gate ran locally on the command the workflow invokes, its real output reported — a red gate is the gate working — and none names a script the repo does not define.
- Each gate the repo lacks has a Decided-for-you row rather than an invented command.
- The pipeline fires on
pull_requestinto the protected branch and onpushto it, and a red gate blocks the merge through required status checks. - Every secret appears by name only, CI's separate from production's, and a scan for literals came back clean.
- A configured deploy has its rollback in the same change, and nothing was triggered: no merge, no push
to
main, no deploy, no auto-merge. - Every flag carries an owner and a removal date; the dependency schedule carries an open-PR limit.
- Every derived value reads
derivedwhere it is written, and nothing was refused. - Reviewing a diff: one verdict of
pass · concerns · block, each finding citing its file and line.
Outputs & handoff
.github/workflows/*.yml, or the host's equivalent — no artifact cap; the ceiling is the gates that
actually run. Shape: one job per gate in step 2's order, cached dependencies, step 3's triggers, secrets
only as ${{ secrets.NAME }}. Report the job count and the measured wall-clock against the ten-minute
target; a slower pipeline is handed on as slow, not done.
.github/dependabot.yml, or the Renovate config — weekly, with an open-pull-request limit.
.env.example and .env.test — committed, keys only and no values; .env stays out of the
repository. No cap; the ceiling is the names environment.md or the code gives.
Branch protection: required status checks naming every gate job, one approving review, force-push off, auto-merge off.
Appended to docs/session-log.md: one entry per gate the repo lacks, per accepted audit finding, and
per deploy shape settled here; cap 60 words each, matching the pull request's Decided-for-you row. Shape
and append rules: state-schema.md. Report each entry's measured
length and trim rather than hand an over-cap one on.
Returned in conversation, reviewing a diff: the verdict and its findings, and no file written — the workflow a finding names is the implementer's to change on the route-back.
Nothing else is handed on. No STATE.md row and no gate flip, the caller owning the slice's transition
(state-schema.md); no merge, no deploy, no release notes.
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.

