跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

ci-cd-and-automation

Design and implement CI/CD pipelines and automation — fast checks on every PR, safe releases, and repeatable workflows. Load when setting up GitHub Actions (or similar), adding pre-merge gates, automating releases, or the user asks "add CI", "set up workflows", "automate checks", "CD pipeline". Not for one-off local scripts (use task-specific tooling).

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

集成工具GitHub
查看安装方法

包含的文件(2)

  • SKILL.md4.9 KB
  • references/examples.md2.4 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

CI/CD and Automation

You create a pipeline that is fast, deterministic, and protective: it runs the right checks automatically, fails loudly, and makes shipping boring.

Hard Rules

  • Prefer fast PR checks (minutes) over heavy pipelines that nobody trusts.
  • Fail on lint/test/typecheck/build before merge; keep steps deterministic.
  • Never store secrets in repo; use platform secret stores and least privilege.
  • Make workflows cache-aware and concurrency-safe (cancel superseded runs).
  • Add automation only when it has a clear owner and a failure mode plan.

Workflow

Step 1 — Define lifecycle and artifacts

Write:

  • Target events: PR, main push, tag, manual dispatch
  • Required gates: lint, unit, integration, build, security scan (if available)
  • Release artifact: npm package, container, binary, docs site, or “none”

Step 2 — Choose the minimum viable pipeline

Start with:

  • PR workflow: checkout → setup runtime → install deps → cache → lint/typecheck → tests → build
  • Main workflow: re-run critical checks + publish artifact (optional)

Step 3 — Make it reliable

  • Pin runtime versions (Node/Python/etc.)
  • Use lockfiles
  • Cache dependencies
  • Add concurrency cancellation on PR branches
  • Split slow suites into separate jobs only when needed

Step 4 — Secrets and permissions

  • Use env vars from secret store
  • Minimize token permissions (read-only unless publishing)
  • Avoid broad “write-all” permissions on default branch workflows

Step 5 — Add automation hooks (only if they pay rent)

Examples:

  • Auto-label PRs
  • Run formatter on changed files (if you accept auto-fixes)
  • Generate changelog on release tag

Step 6 — Verification

  • Trigger PR workflow on a small change; ensure duration is acceptable
  • Confirm failing checks block merge (branch protection)
  • Confirm secrets are not echoed in logs

When NOT to use

  • Tiny repos where CI cost exceeds value (prototype stage) unless the user explicitly wants it
  • Complex deployment platforms without access (require infra context first)

Gotchas

  • “Green CI” that doesn’t match local commands becomes ignored.
  • Unpinned runtimes cause flakey builds over time.
  • Missing branch protections makes CI advisory-only.
  • Long pipelines encourage skipping checks; keep PR path fast.

Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"We don’t need CI yet"CI is cheapest when the repo is small; add the PR gates early.
"Let’s add every check"Overbuilt CI becomes slow and ignored; start minimal and expand on evidence.
"Caching is premature optimization"Without caching, CI becomes slow and gets bypassed.
"We’ll add branch protection later"CI without enforcement is a suggestion, not a gate.
"We can just use a PAT"PATs are high-risk; use least-privilege tokens and secret stores.

Output Format

## CI/CD plan — [repo]

Events: [PR/main/tag/manual]
Jobs: [list]
Runtime pinned: [yes/no]
Caching: [what]
Secrets: [needed + where stored]
Protections: [branch protections summary]
Verification: [how to prove it works]

Examples

<examples> <example> <input>“Add CI to a TypeScript repo.”</input> <output> Create `.github/workflows/ci.yml` with node-version pinned, npm cache, `npm ci`, `npm run lint`, `npm test`, `npm run build`, concurrency cancel. Add branch protection requiring the workflow. </output> </example> </examples>

Verification

  • PR checks run on a sample PR and complete in an acceptable time
  • Lint/tests/build are deterministic and match documented local commands
  • Caching is enabled where appropriate
  • Secrets are stored in the platform secret store (not repo)
  • Branch protections enforce required checks (or explicitly deferred)

Red Flags

  • CI commands diverge from local lint/test/build scripts
  • Runtimes and action versions left unpinned
  • Branch protection missing — CI is advisory only
  • Secrets committed or inlined in workflow YAML

Prune Log

Last pruned: 2026-07-04

  • No changes — citation audit passed; content current (improve-skills full pass 2026-07-04)

Impact Report

Repo: [name] | Workflows: N | Gates: [list]
Runtime pinned: [yes/no] | Cache: [yes/no]
Protections: [enforced/deferred]

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

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Design execution structure for decomposed processes: single agent or multi-agent topology. Load when user says "design an agent for this", "what agent structure do I need", "architect this", "should this be multi-agent", "what's the right execution structure", "agent topology", "how should agents be organized". Takes process-decomposer output as primary input. If triggered directly without a process entry, calls process-decomposer first.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Internal skill. Called by setup-evaluation after a PASS. Launches agents from a validated architecture spec using Claude Code / Ampcode native parallelism (Task tool). Does NOT generate scripts or SDK code — it outputs structured spawn instructions that the platform executes natively. Never invoked directly by the user. Never launches without a setup-evaluation PASS.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Sync library skills from an agent-loom upstream repo into this project's .agents/skills while preserving project-local and forked skills. Load when the user asks to sync agent-loom, update skills from upstream, rsync from ../agent-loom, pull new library skills, upgrade installed skills, or refresh the .agents folder without losing custom project skills. Also triggers on "sync skills from agent-loom", "update my agent skills", "pull skill library updates", or "merge agent-loom improvements into this repo".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Instrument a shipped product's AI agents with tracing and observability so you can see what they did, why outputs happened, and what each run cost. Plain-language primer plus free-tier-first backend selection (Langfuse, Phoenix, LangSmith, Braintrust) and OpenTelemetry/OpenInference instrumentation. Load when the user asks to add observability, add tracing, instrument my agents, see what my agent is doing in production, set up Langfuse or Phoenix or LangSmith, debug why my agent gave a bad answer, or track LLM cost per request. Also fires when agent-system-architecture or setup-evaluation requires an observability plan for an agent-chain product. NOT for tracing the coding agent itself — that is run-trace. Precondition for runtime-learning-loop.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Run a structured retrospective after development-phase runs of your product's agents — interview the owner in plain language about what went well and poorly, draft ranked improvement hypotheses, then design and run small n=1/n=2 experiments with pre-declared success criteria, guardrails, stop conditions, and a cost/ROI kill-switch. Load when the user says how did that run go, retro this run, the agent output was bad, what should we improve, draft hypotheses, run a small experiment, or after repeated dev runs of an agentic system produce uneven quality. Priority: output quality over performance over cost, each with diminishing-returns stops. NOT a product A/B test (experimentation), NOT coding-agent harness repair (harness-evolution), NOT production-scale learning (runtime-learning-loop).

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

查看 dvy1987 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题