SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AB gh-fix-ci

Inspect GitHub PR checks with gh, pull failing GitHub Actions logs, summarize failure context, then create a fix plan and implement after user approval. Use when a user asks to debug or fix failing PR CI/CD checks on GitHub Actions and wants a plan + code changes; for external checks (e.g., Buildkite), only report the details URL and mark them out of scope.

davila7/claude-code-templates Agent Skills author: davila7 MIT 1 file body ≈ 866 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 6 d ago

Inspect GitHub PR checks with gh, pull failing GitHub Actions logs, summarize failure context, then create a fix plan and implement after user approval.

As a process B 67/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, running it twice

ProcedureGitHubSoftware developmentWriting and documentsData and analyticstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
95/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
88
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
67/100
Nearly there
Result and completion w 14
0
Running it twice w 4
30
When it triggers w 12
50
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

The same skill appears in 1 more place: RA-Skills

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    ✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec

    Process rating: all ten parameters 67/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web, python) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 100Steps. 31 steps
    • 100Failures and branches. 3 branches, has a failure section
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 866 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
    • low The response is described with custom markup (7 tags): a typed call is more reliable

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
    • +3Description length 359: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 7 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 31 items
    • +4Has examples (0 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 88.