Use when PR checks fail, CI is red, or GitHub Actions workflows break - systematically inspects failing checks via gh CLI, pulls logs, checks for flakiness and scopes the breaking commit, scopes external checks, then creates fix plan using existing plan skill
Scanned 9/2/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add patrickserrano/lacquer --skill github-ci-fix --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Github Ci Fix?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/patrickserrano-github-ci-fix)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: github-ci-fix
description: Use when PR checks fail, CI is red, or GitHub Actions workflows break - systematically inspects failing checks via gh CLI, pulls logs, checks for flakiness and scopes the breaking commit, scopes external checks, then creates fix plan using existing plan skill
---
# GitHub CI Fix
## Overview
Systematic workflow for debugging failing PR checks using `gh` CLI. Identifies GitHub Actions failures with logs, scopes external checks (Buildkite, etc.) as out-of-scope, then uses existing plan workflow for fixes.
## Prerequisites
```bash
gh auth status # Required scopes: repo, workflow
```
**STOP if unauthenticated:** `gh auth login --scopes repo,workflow`
## Quick Reference
| Task | Command |
|------|---------|
| Find current PR | `gh pr view --json number,url` |
| Check PR status | `gh pr checks <pr>` |
| View run details | `gh run view <run-id>` |
| Get failed logs | `gh run view <run-id> --log-failed` |
| Full run log | `gh run view <run-id> --log` |
| Recent runs for this check | `gh run list --workflow <name> --branch <branch> --json conclusion,headSha,createdAt -L 20` |
| Rerun without code changes (flakiness probe) | `gh run rerun <run-id> --failed` |
## Workflow
### 1. Verify Auth → 2. Find PR → 3. Inspect
```bash
gh auth status # If fails: ask user to authenticate
gh pr view --json number,url # Or use user-provided PR number
gh pr checks <pr> # Shows check name, status, details URL
```
### 4. Scope: GitHub Actions vs External
**GitHub Actions** (`detailsUrl` has `/actions/runs/`): Pull logs, extract snippets, fix
**External CI** (Buildkite, CircleCI): Report URL only, request user to share logs
**STOP:** Do not attempt external CI log access.
### 4.5. Flaky or Real? Scope the Breaking Commit
Before treating a failure as a bug to fix, rule out flakiness — a fix for a
flaky test is a wasted diagnosis, and a "fix" that just happens to make a
flaky test pass on the next run isn't actually verified.
**Flakiness probe:**
```bash
gh run rerun <run-id> --failed # same commit, no code change
gh run view <run-id> --json conclusion --jq .conclusion # poll until done
```
If it now passes with nothing changed, it's flaky — report that (test name,
run URL, "passed on rerun with no changes") rather than diagnosing a bug that
isn't there. Don't silently move on either: a flaky check is still worth
flagging to the user, since it can mask a real failure next time.
**Corroborate with history**, especially if a rerun isn't practical (slow or
expensive job):
```bash
gh run list --workflow <name> --branch <branch> --json conclusion,headSha,createdAt -L 20
```
A mixed pass/fail pattern across unchanged code on recent commits is the same
flakiness signal without needing a live rerun.
**If it's consistently failing (not flaky), scope the breaking commit** so
the fix targets the actual regression instead of the whole diff since last
green:
```bash
# Find the last passing SHA and first failing SHA from the run history above,
# then list the suspect commits between them:
git log --oneline <last-good-sha>..<first-failing-sha>
```
For a failure that's expensive to reproduce per-commit, `git bisect` against
the specific failing check (run it locally, or trigger the same CI job per
bisect step) narrows this further than reading the commit list alone.
### 5. Pull GitHub Actions Logs
```bash
# Extract run ID from detailsUrl: .../runs/<run-id>
gh run view <run-id> --log-failed # Preferred: failed jobs only
gh run view <run-id> --log # Alternative: full log
```
Extract 20-50 lines before failure with error messages and stack traces.
### 6. Report → 7. Plan → 8. Implement → 9. Verify
**Report:** GitHub Actions (name, URL, log snippet, diagnosis, flaky-or-real verdict, breaking commit if scoped) + External (name, URL, "share logs")
**Plan:** **REQUIRED** - Use `EnterPlanMode`. Never skip for "simple fixes".
**Implement:** After approval: code changes → tests → commit → push
**Verify:** `gh pr checks <pr>` then `gh run view <run-id> --log-failed` if still failing
## Common Patterns
```bash
# Multiple failing jobs
gh run view <run-id> --json jobs --jq '.jobs[] | select(.conclusion=="failure")'
# Log too large: use --log-failed (skips successful steps)
gh run view <run-id> --log-failed
# Re-run after fix (avoids rebuilding successful jobs)
gh run rerun <run-id> --failed
```
## Boundaries
**In scope:** GitHub Actions failures, log extraction, flaky-vs-real triage, breaking-commit scoping, scoping external checks, plan creation
**Out of scope:** External CI log access, fixes without plan approval, bypassing auth
## Red Flags - STOP
- Trying to access external CI logs via workarounds
- Creating fixes without viewing actual logs
- Proceeding without `gh` authentication
- Skipping plan creation for "quick fixes"
- Making assumptions about failures without reading logs
**If you see these, STOP and follow the workflow.**
## Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Fix |
|---------|-----|
| "I'll fix it without seeing logs" | STOP. Pull logs first. |
| "It failed, so it must be a real bug" | STOP. Rerun first — rule out flakiness before diagnosing. |
| "Buildkite is just like GitHub Actions" | STOP. External checks are out of scope. |
| "Simple fix, no need for plan" | STOP. Use plan workflow. |
| "I'll parse the web UI" | STOP. Use `gh` CLI. |
| "Auth is optional" | STOP. Required for all operations. |
## Impact
**Before:** Changes without seeing errors, confusion on check scope, inline plans, fixes chasing flaky tests
**After:** Auth verification, systematic logs, flaky-vs-real triage, breaking-commit scoping, proper boundaries, plan workflow integration
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!