agentleFS
GitHubKnown publishergithub/awesome-copilot/skills/diagnose-ci-gate/SKILL.md

diagnose-ci-gate

Skill41k starsChanged 20 days agoMITView on GitHub

Determine whether a failing CI check was caused by the current change, then recommend exactly one action. Use when a required check fails on a pull request, when asked "is this failure mine?", when a job passes locally but fails in CI, or before retrying a red build. Covers fetching the real log, reading the first error instead of the tail, classifying bug / flaky / environment / pipeline, comparing against the base branch and recent runs, reproducing with CI versions, and fixing a flaky test rather than re-running it forever.

Trending

More talk lately.about the whole repository

Dec 2025: 10 mentionsJan 2026: 4 mentionsFeb 2026: 7 mentionsMar 2026: 10 mentionsApr 2026: 6 mentionsMay 2026: 2 mentionsJun 2026: 2 mentionsJul 2026: 2 mentionsAug 2026: 4 mentionsSep 2026: 8 mentionsOct 2026: 5 mentionsNov 2026: 1 mention
Dec 2025Jun 2026Nov 2026
Mentions a month of the github/awesome-copilot repository that our weekly crawl found. There is no adoption data for this file yet.

Who's talking about github/awesome-copilot

The biggest 5 of 86 mentions linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.

See all 86

Talked about on Bluesky, GitHub, YouTube, Hacker News and the web (86 times).

On Bluesky · 41

36 more on Bluesky

On GitHub · 34

29 more on GitHub

On YouTube · 5

On the web · 1

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

16 rules. About 0 are common, 14 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈14

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Read access to the base branch and its recent runs

    line 28
  2. Distinctive:

    If logs are truncated, partial, or only a summary, stop and ask for the full log.

    line 31
  3. Distinctive:

    Read the top of the failing step, not the bottom.

    line 50
  4. Distinctive:

    Write the class and the evidence for it in one sentence each.

    line 67
  5. Distinctive:

    If the same job fails on the base branch, or on recent runs of the base branch, it is pre-existing.

    line 79
  6. Distinctive:

    If it passes on the base and fails on the head, name the commit and the file and line that introduced it.

    line 113
  7. Distinctive:

    Run the failing command with the versions CI used, from the same working directory, with the same environment variables and the same …

    line 119
  8. Distinctive:

    If you cannot reproduce it, say so and name every difference you found: OS, runtime version, dependency resolution, environment variable, …

    line 123
  9. Distinctive:

    Retry: - only when you already have evidence the failure is flaky.

    line 129
  10. Very specific:

    Run it repeatedly and record the failure rate: for i in $(seq 1 20).

    line 138
  11. Distinctive:

    Never recommend re-running without evidence that the failure is flaky

    line 170
  12. Distinctive:

    Never call a failure unrelated without comparing against the base branch

    line 171
  13. Distinctive:

    Never skip, delete, or weaken a failing test to make a check pass

    line 172
  14. Very specific:

    Never add continue-on-error, if: always(), or a path filter to hide a real failure

    line 173
  15. Distinctive:

    Never treat a passing retry as proof the root cause is gone.

    line 174
  16. Distinctive:

    Never diagnose from a summary line when the full log is available

    line 175

≈ “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

Diagnose CI Gate

A red check is a claim, not a diagnosis. Before you change code or press re-run, establish three things from evidence: what actually failed, which class of failure it is, and whether this change caused it.

This skill is for a failing required check on a pull request or a branch. For cutting CI cost in general, use the github-actions-efficiency skill. For a domain-specific flaky suite, use the skill for that tool (for example cypress-flake-fixer) after this triage.

When to Use This Skill

  • A required check fails on a pull request and you need to know if it is yours
  • A job passes locally but fails in CI, or fails on only some runs
  • Someone says "that failure is unrelated, just re-run it"
  • A build has been retried several times and keeps failing
  • You are about to edit a workflow file to make a check pass

Prerequisites

  • gh CLI authenticated, or the raw logs pasted by the user
  • Read access to the base branch and its recent runs
  • The commands in the failing step, so they can be reproduced

If logs are truncated, partial, or only a summary, stop and ask for the full log. Do not diagnose from the last few lines of a summarized check.

Workflow

1. Get the failing job, not the check summary

gh pr checks <pr-number>                     # which check, which state
gh run list --branch <branch> --limit 10     # current and recent runs
gh run view <run-id> --log-failed            # only the failing steps
gh run view <run-id> --job <job-id> --log    # one job, full log

Record the commit SHA under test, the runner image, and the time. A failure on an older SHA is a different problem from a failure on the current head.

2. Read from the first error

Read the top of the failing step, not the bottom. The first error is usually the cause; everything after it is fallout from that cause or from the runner giving up.

Quote the exact lines, and name the command that produced them. If the log shows only a summary line (Process completed with exit code 1), find the step that emitted it and read that step's output.

3. Classify the failure

ClassSignalConfirm by
BugSame failure every run, deterministic inputRe-running fails identically at the same assertion
FlakyPasses sometimes, timing/ordering/network/shared stateAt least one green run of the same job on the same SHA, or a local loop that fails intermittently
EnvironmentTool version, missing secret, runner image, cache, disk or memoryVersion in CI differs from local, or the step fails before any project code runs
PipelineThe workflow itself is wrong: bad path filter, wrong working directory, missing dependency install, YAML error, or a check that asserts a target the pull request cannot produce (such as a production URL for a page that is not merged yet)The command succeeds against the pull request's own build, and the workflow line or its target is demonstrably wrong

Write the class and the evidence for it in one sentence each. A failure that cannot be classified is not ready for a fix.

4. Decide whether this change caused it

Compare with the base branch before claiming anything about ownership:

gh run list --branch main --limit 10
git merge-base HEAD origin/main

If the same job fails on the base branch, or on recent runs of the base branch, it is pre-existing. Say so and link the run.

Some jobs only run on pull requests, so no base-branch run exists. In that case, say that instead of implying you compared, and use the diff to establish what the change added.

To test the base directly without disturbing the worktree, create a unique throwaway worktree and remove it when done:

base_dir="$(mktemp -d)"
git worktree add "$base_dir" "$(git merge-base HEAD origin/main)"
( cd "$base_dir" && <failing command> )
git worktree remove --force "$base_dir"

mktemp -d returns a fresh path, so concurrent runs cannot collide. --force is safe here because the directory was created for this check and the failing command may have written build output into it. Never point this at a path that holds work, and remove the worktree with git worktree remove instead of deleting the directory by hand. If a directory was deleted by hand, run git worktree prune.

This example is POSIX shell. On Windows, run it from Git Bash, or use PowerShell:

$baseDir = Join-Path $env:TEMP ("ci-base-" + [guid]::NewGuid())
git worktree add $baseDir (git merge-base HEAD origin/main)
Push-Location $baseDir; <failing command>; Pop-Location
git worktree remove --force $baseDir

If it passes on the base and fails on the head, name the commit and the file and line that introduced it. If the change is a dependency bump, check the lockfile diff and the tool version, not only the source diff.

5. Reproduce with CI's versions

Run the failing command with the versions CI used, from the same working directory, with the same environment variables and the same install step. Read the versions from the log, not from your local machine.

If you cannot reproduce it, say so and name every difference you found: OS, runtime version, dependency resolution, environment variable, timezone, parallelism, cached state. "Cannot reproduce" is a finding, not a failure.

6. Choose exactly one action

  • Retry - only when you already have evidence the failure is flaky. Name the green run of the same job on the same SHA.
  • Fix the code - name the file, line, and change. This is the default for a deterministic bug.
  • Fix the pipeline - name the workflow file and line. This is for pipeline faults, not for hiding a real failure.

For a flaky test, do the follow-up work instead of re-running forever:

  1. Run it repeatedly and record the failure rate: for i in $(seq 1 20); do <command>; done
  2. Find the shared state, timing assumption, or ordering dependency behind it
  3. Fix or quarantine it with an owner and a removal date, and say which

7. Verify and report

Re-run the check after the fix and show the result. For a flaky test, show the repeated runs.

Report in this shape:

Check:      <name> on <SHA>
First error: <quoted line> (<step>, <command>)
Class:      bug | flaky | environment | pipeline
Ownership:  introduced by <commit/file:line> | pre-existing (<run link>)
Reproduced: yes (<command>) | no (<differences>)
Action:     retry | fix code | fix pipeline
Result:     <run link, or the repeated-run tally>

Verification Checklist

  • The quoted error comes from the real log, with the step and command named
  • The failure is classified, with the evidence for that class
  • The base branch and recent runs were checked before claiming ownership
  • The failure was reproduced with CI versions, or the differences are listed
  • The recommended action is one of retry, fix code, or fix pipeline, with a reason
  • The check was re-run after the fix, and the result is shown

Rules

  • Never recommend re-running without evidence that the failure is flaky
  • Never call a failure unrelated without comparing against the base branch
  • Never skip, delete, or weaken a failing test to make a check pass
  • Never add continue-on-error, if: always(), or a path filter to hide a real failure
  • Never treat a passing retry as proof the root cause is gone; say what changed
  • Never diagnose from a summary line when the full log is available

Validation

references/validation.md records this skill applied to real failed checks on a public repository: the job log, the classification, the ownership evidence, the reproduction attempt, and the recommended action.

The first scenario is a transcript from GitHub Copilot CLI, prompted only with the failing job log, in a checkout where the failing command passes. It returned the report format below, classified the failure as pipeline, and attributed it to the parent commit rather than the change under test. Both findings were confirmed afterwards, and a depth-1 checkout reproduces the failure. The scenario exists to show the report surviving a green local run instead of collapsing into "cannot reproduce, probably flaky".

Limitations

  • Log access depends on permissions. Without it, ask for the log instead of guessing
  • Private runners and self-hosted infrastructure can fail for reasons the log does not show
  • A failure that only reproduces under load or on real hardware may need production-like infrastructure
  • This skill diagnoses and recommends. It does not decide whether a check is allowed to be bypassed; that is a policy decision for the repository owner

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.