跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

automation-audit-ops

Audit scheduled jobs, hooks, MCP servers, and external integrations using configuration files, logs, and recent runs. Distinguish configured tools from verified working ones, identify failures or overlap, and recommend what to keep, merge, remove, or fix next.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

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.

集成工具GitHub
查看安装方法

适用场景

  • Checking which automations are actually working
  • Identifying broken jobs and authentication failures
  • Finding duplicate hooks, scripts, and integrations
  • Checking for missing automation after a system migration

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md4.1 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

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

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Design and audit interfaces for Web, iOS, and Android using WCAG 2.2 accessibility guidance. Check screen-reader labels, keyboard navigation, contrast, and control sizes to identify barriers and guide implementation for people using assistive technology.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Adding descriptive labels to icon-only buttons
  • Reviewing keyboard navigation and modal focus
  • Checking contrast and control sizes
affaan-m/ECC28.3万2026年10月16日 更新

Investigate unreliable AI agents across 12 layers, including instructions, memory, tool execution, and display. Use code and logs to trace failures, rank findings by severity, and produce an ordered repair plan that prioritizes code changes.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Investigating failures that appear only inside an agent application
  • Tracing old conversation content leaking into new sessions
  • Checking skipped or falsely claimed tool execution
affaan-m/ECC28.3万2026年10月16日 更新

Compare coding agents on tasks from your own codebase. Define success checks, run agents in separate Git working directories, and report pass rates, available API costs, completion time, and consistency across repeated trials.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Comparing coding agents on real development tasks
  • Evaluating a new tool or model before adoption
  • Checking performance after agent updates
affaan-m/ECC28.3万2026年10月16日 更新

Design and refine an AI agent’s available actions, tool inputs, and result formats. Define recovery steps for errors, manage the information kept in context, and evaluate changes through completion rates, retries, and cost per successful task.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Define an AI agent’s tool set and input formats
  • Make tool results and next steps easier to interpret
  • Specify safe retries and stopping conditions
affaan-m/ECC28.3万2026年10月16日 更新

Diagnose failed AI agent runs by capturing errors, checking likely causes, and choosing small, reversible recovery actions. The workflow produces a structured report of the failure, recovery steps, and evidence, helping explain repeated retries or stalled progress.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Diagnosing repeated tool calls with no progress
  • Investigating quality loss as context grows
  • Checking file paths and environment mismatches
affaan-m/ECC28.3万2026年10月16日 更新

Diagnose AI agent runs that fail repeatedly, loop through tools, or lose track of the task. Capture errors and environment details, test a focused recovery action, and produce a report explaining the evidence and outcome.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Diagnosing repeated failures in an agent run
  • Investigating loops through the same tool calls
  • Reviewing output degradation as context grows
affaan-m/ECC28.3万2026年10月5日 更新

查看 affaan-m 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题