本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

automation-audit-ops

Evidence-first automation inventory and overlap audit workflow for ECC. Use when the user wants to know which jobs, hooks, connectors, MCP servers, or wrappers are live, broken, redundant, or missing before fixing anything.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md4.1 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Automation Audit Ops

Use this when the user asks what automations are live, which jobs are broken, where overlap exists, or what tooling and connectors are actually doing useful work right now.

This is an audit-first operator skill. The job is to produce an evidence-backed inventory and a keep / merge / cut / fix-next recommendation set before rewriting anything.

Skill Stack

Pull these ECC-native skills into the workflow when relevant:

  • workspace-surface-audit for connector, MCP, hook, and app inventory
  • knowledge-ops when the audit needs to reconcile live repo truth with durable context
  • github-ops when the answer depends on CI, scheduled workflows, issues, or PR automation
  • ecc-tools-cost-audit when the real problem is webhook fanout, queued jobs, or billing burn in the sibling app repo
  • research-ops when local inventory must be compared against current platform support or public docs
  • verification-loop for proving post-fix state instead of relying on assumed recovery

When to Use

  • user asks "what automations do I have", "what is live", "what is broken", or "what overlaps"
  • the task spans cron jobs, GitHub Actions, local hooks, MCP servers, connectors, wrappers, or app integrations
  • the user wants to know what was ported from another agent system and what still needs to be rebuilt inside ECC
  • the workspace has accumulated multiple ways to do the same thing and the user wants one canonical lane

Guardrails

  • start read-only unless the user explicitly asked for fixes
  • separate:
    • configured
    • authenticated
    • recently verified
    • stale or broken
    • missing entirely
  • do not claim a tool is live just because a skill or config references it
  • do not merge or delete overlapping surfaces until the evidence table exists

Workflow

1. Inventory the real surface

Read the current live surface before theorizing:

  • repo hooks and local hook scripts
  • GitHub Actions and scheduled workflows
  • MCP configs and enabled servers
  • connector- or app-backed integrations
  • wrapper scripts and repo-specific automation entrypoints

Group them by surface:

  • local runtime
  • repo CI / automation
  • connected external systems
  • messaging / notifications
  • billing / customer operations
  • research / monitoring

2. Classify each item by live state

For every surfaced automation, mark:

  • configured
  • authenticated
  • recently verified
  • stale or broken
  • missing

Then classify the problem type:

  • active breakage
  • auth outage
  • stale status
  • overlap or redundancy
  • missing capability

3. Trace the proof path

Back every important claim with a concrete source:

  • file path
  • workflow run
  • hook log
  • config entry
  • recent command output
  • exact failure signature

If the current state is ambiguous, say so directly instead of pretending the audit is complete.

4. End with keep / merge / cut / fix-next

For each overlapping or suspect surface, return one call:

  • keep
  • merge
  • cut
  • fix next

The value is in collapsing noisy automation into one canonical ECC lane, not in preserving every historical path.

Output Format

CURRENT SURFACE
- automation
- source
- live state
- proof

FINDINGS
- active breakage
- overlap
- stale status
- missing capability

RECOMMENDATION
- keep
- merge
- cut
- fix next

NEXT ECC MOVE
- exact skill / hook / workflow / app lane to strengthen

Pitfalls

  • do not answer from memory when the live inventory can be read
  • do not treat "present in config" as "working"
  • do not fix lower-value redundancy before naming the broken high-signal path
  • do not widen the task into a repo rewrite if the user asked for inventory first

Verification

  • important claims cite a live proof path
  • each surfaced automation is labeled with a clear live-state category
  • the final recommendation distinguishes keep / merge / cut / fix-next

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Design, implement, and audit inclusive digital products using WCAG 2.2 Level AA standards. Use this skill to generate semantic ARIA for Web and accessibility traits for Web and Native platforms (iOS/Android).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月13日 更新

Whole site or product — a full web accessibility (a11y) audit against WCAG 2.2, following the WCAG-EM methodology. Defines scope, samples representative pages and flows, runs the automated tier (`accessibility-scan`) and the hands-on manual tier (`accessibility-inspect`), and produces one conformance report. Grades each finding by severity and evidence basis, and states per-criterion conformance as pass, fail, or undetermined (needs a human). Use it for 'audit my site for accessibility', 'is this product accessible', 'a11y audit', 'WCAG or Section 508 conformance report', or any multi-page assessment. Assesses; does not fix (use `accessibility-fix`) or diff (use `accessibility-diff`). For a single page use `accessibility-scan`; for hands-on keyboard and screen-reader checks use `accessibility-inspect`.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月13日 更新

Regression check — diff a live page's web accessibility (a11y) violations against a baseline. By default it compares your uncommitted changes (stash-based); pass `--branch [<name>]` to compare against a branch. Reports the new WCAG violations introduced, the ones fixed, and the count of pre-existing ones. Use it for 'did my change break accessibility', 'what a11y issues did this PR add', or as a CI gate. For a full scan of one page use `accessibility-scan`; for a whole site use `accessibility-audit`.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月13日 更新

Remediation only — repair web accessibility (a11y) violations against WCAG 2.2 with a baseline, edit, and verify loop. Takes a target (URL, files, directory) or a findings worklist from `accessibility-scan`/`accessibility-inspect`/`accessibility-audit`, applies mechanical fixes as given, leaves TODOs for visual or contextual judgment, and verifies by re-running the baseline check. It only fixes. To find issues use `accessibility-scan` (one page, automated), `accessibility-inspect` (one page, manual), or `accessibility-audit` (whole site, WCAG-EM); to check for regressions use `accessibility-diff`. Use it for 'fix the a11y issues in X', 'make this accessible', 'add missing alt text and labels', 'apply these accessibility fixes', 'remediate these violations'.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月13日 更新

One page, hands-on manual tier — drive a live page through the web accessibility (a11y) checks a rule engine can't decide: keyboard operation and focus order, screen-reader names, roles and states from the accessibility tree, reflow and zoom, reduced motion, form errors, and target size. Grades each finding by evidence basis (verified / confirm-with-a-human / human-required) and severity, and closes every criterion in a ledger: verified, flagged, not exercised, or N/A. Locates and assesses; does not fix (use `accessibility-fix`). Use it for keyboard testing, focus-order checks, screen-reader or a11y-tree review, reflow and zoom at 200%, or 'is this operable, not just lint-clean'. The automated tier is `accessibility-scan`; `accessibility-audit` runs both across a sampled site.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月13日 更新

One page, automated tier — run the web accessibility (a11y) rule engine against a live page and locate every violation it can detect mechanically. Pass a URL, a config target name (e.g. `accesslint:accessibility-scan dev`), or nothing to use the default target from `accesslint.config.json`. Ensures a debuggable Chrome, runs the @accesslint/core engine over CDP, and returns a worklist of live-DOM WCAG 2.2 violations, each grounded to its DOM selector and source `file:line`. Locates; doesn't edit. Use it for 'is this page accessible', 'check a11y on this URL', 'find contrast and alt-text issues', or to verify a UI change. For hands-on keyboard and screen-reader checks use `accessibility-inspect`; for a whole site or product use `accessibility-audit`; to diff against uncommitted changes or a branch use `accessibility-diff`.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月13日 更新

tensology のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する