Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 开发

triage-ci-flake(分诊 ci 片)

triage-ci-flake 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

triage-ci-flake 是开发类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为操作浏览器;许可证为 MIT,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在开发类的 21,746 个 Skill 里排第 6,103。

总安装 5,145周安装 221GitHub Stars 42,128下载 1,803核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:triage-ci-flake(分诊 ci 片)
来源仓库:https://github.com/payloadcms/payload
仓库路径:skills/triage-ci-flake
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/payloadcms/payload --skill triage-ci-flake
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/payloadcms/payload --skill triage-ci-flake

这个 Skill 是做什么的

开发类 Skill 面向写代码、改代码和排查问题,一般会读写仓库文件,部分还会执行构建或测试命令。

用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 等协作信息。适合围绕代码变更、仓库状态和协作事项进行整理与分析。可通过 npx 命令从指定仓库安装并使用该技能。使用前需确认 token 权限和操作边界,避免越权访问或修改。

triage-ci-flake 属于开发类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

来源仓库内路径:skills/triage-ci-flake

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/payloadcms/payload --skill triage-ci-flake;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要操作浏览器,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

triage-ci-flake 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/payloadcms/payload --skill triage-ci-flake。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

triage-ci-flake 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

triage-ci-flake 需要什么权限?

权限级别是操作浏览器。该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

triage-ci-flake 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

triage-ci-flake 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 5,145 次,近一周安装 221 次,下载 1,803 次,GitHub 42,128 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

triage-ci-flake 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 3 个目录同时收录,说明这个 Skill 流传比较广。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理开发类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 需要许可证清楚、并且有第三方扫描结果的团队项目。

不太适合

  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

开发类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
skill-vetter

技能审查员 · OpenClaw

8,779,018986操作浏览器MIT-0通过
ontology

本体论 · OpenClaw

6,636,960576只读MIT-0通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

6,631,872764接触敏感数据未明确通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

3,757,680201接触敏感数据未明确通过
nano-banana-pro

纳米香蕉专业版 · OpenClaw

3,526,898364接触敏感数据MIT-0有提醒
triage-ci-flake

分诊 ci 片 · 本页

5,14542,128操作浏览器MIT通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Triage CI Failure

Overview

Systematic workflow for triaging and fixing test failures in CI, especially flaky tests that pass locally but fail in CI. Tests that made it to main are usually flaky due to timing, bundling, or environment differences.

CRITICAL RULE: You MUST run the reproduction workflow before proposing any fixes. No exceptions.

When to Use

  • CI test fails on main branch after PR was merged
  • Test passes locally but fails in CI
  • Test failure labeled as "flaky" or intermittent
  • E2E or integration test timing out in CI only

MANDATORY First Steps

YOU MUST EXECUTE THESE COMMANDS. Reading code or analyzing logs does NOT count as reproduction.

  1. Extract suite name, test name, and error from CI logs
  2. EXECUTE: Kill port 3000 to avoid conflicts
  3. EXECUTE: pnpm dev $SUITE_NAME (use run_in_background=true)
  4. EXECUTE: Wait for server to be ready (check with curl or sleep)
  5. EXECUTE: Run the specific failing test with Playwright directly (npx playwright test test/TEST_SUITE_NAME/e2e.spec.ts:31:3 --headed -g "TEST_DESCRIPTION_TARGET_GOES_HERE")
  6. If test passes, EXECUTE: pnpm prepare-run-test-against-prod
  7. EXECUTE: pnpm dev:prod $SUITE_NAME and run test again

Only after EXECUTING these commands and seeing their output can you proceed to analysis and fixes.

"Analysis from logs" is NOT reproduction. You must RUN the commands.

Core Workflow

digraph triage_ci {
    "CI failure reported" [shape=box];
    "Extract details from CI logs" [shape=box];
    "Identify suite and test name" [shape=box];
    "Run dev server: pnpm dev $SUITE" [shape=box];
    "Run specific test by name" [shape=box];
    "Did test fail?" [shape=diamond];
    "Debug with dev code" [shape=box];
    "Run prepare-run-test-against-prod" [shape=box];
    "Run: pnpm dev:prod $SUITE" [shape=box];
    "Run specific test again" [shape=box];
    "Did test fail now?" [shape=diamond];
    "Debug bundling issue" [shape=box];
    "Unable to reproduce - check logs" [shape=box];
    "Fix and verify" [shape=box];

    "CI failure reported" -> "Extract details from CI logs";
    "Extract details from CI logs" -> "Identify suite and test name";
    "Identify suite and test name" -> "Run dev server: pnpm dev $SUITE";
    "Run dev server: pnpm dev $SUITE" -> "Run specific test by name";
    "Run specific test by name" -> "Did test fail?";
    "Did test fail?" -> "Debug with dev code" [label="yes"];
    "Did test fail?" -> "Run prepare-run-test-against-prod" [label="no"];
    "Run prepare-run-test-against-prod" -> "Run: pnpm dev:prod $SUITE";
    "Run: pnpm dev:prod $SUITE" -> "Run specific test again";
    "Run specific test again" -> "Did test fail now?";
    "Did test fail now?" -> "Debug bundling issue" [label="yes"];
    "Did test fail now?" -> "Unable to reproduce - check logs" [label="no"];
    "Debug with dev code" -> "Fix and verify";
    "Debug bundling issue" -> "Fix and verify";
}

Step-by-Step Process

1. Extract CI Details

From CI logs or GitHub Actions URL, identify:

  • Suite name: Directory name (e.g., i18n, fields, lexical)
  • Test file: Full path (e.g., test/i18n/e2e.spec.ts)
  • Test name: Exact test description
  • Error message: Full stack trace
  • Test type: E2E (Playwright) or integration (Vitest)

2. Reproduce with Dev Code

CRITICAL: Always run the specific test by name, not the full suite.

SERVER MANAGEMENT RULES:

  1. ALWAYS kill all servers before starting a new one
  2. NEVER assume ports are free
  3. ALWAYS wait for server ready confirmation before running tests
# ========================================
# STEP 2A: STOP ALL SERVERS
# ========================================
lsof -ti:3000 | xargs kill -9 2>/dev/null || echo "Port 3000 clear"

# ========================================
# STEP 2B: START DEV SERVER
# ========================================
# Start dev server with the suite (in background with run_in_background=true)
pnpm dev $SUITE_NAME

# ========================================
# STEP 2C: WAIT FOR SERVER READY
# ========================================
# Wait for server to be ready (REQUIRED - do not skip)
until curl -s http://localhost:3000/admin > /dev/null 2>&1; do sleep 1; done && echo "Server ready"

# ========================================
# STEP 2D: RUN SPECIFIC TEST
# ========================================
# Run ONLY the specific failing test using Playwright directly
# For E2E tests (DO NOT use pnpm test:e2e as it spawns its own server):
pnpm exec playwright test test/$SUITE_NAME/e2e.spec.ts -g "exact test name"

# For integration tests:
pnpm test:int $SUITE_NAME -t "exact test name"

Did the test fail?

  • ✅ YES: You reproduced it! Proceed to debug with dev code.
  • ❌ NO: Continue to step 3 (bundled code test).

3. Reproduce with Bundled Code

If test passed with dev code, the issue is likely in bundled/production code.

IMPORTANT: You MUST stop the dev server before starting prod server.

# ========================================
# STEP 3A: STOP ALL SERVERS (INCLUDING DEV SERVER FROM STEP 2)
# ========================================
lsof -ti:3000 | xargs kill -9 2>/dev/null || echo "Port 3000 clear"

# ========================================
# STEP 3B: BUILD AND PACK FOR PROD
# ========================================
# Build all packages and pack them (this takes time - be patient)
pnpm prepare-run-test-against-prod

# ========================================
# STEP 3C: START PROD SERVER
# ========================================
# Start prod dev server (in background with run_in_background=true)
pnpm dev:prod $SUITE_NAME

# ========================================
# STEP 3D: WAIT FOR SERVER READY
# ========================================
# Wait for server to be ready (REQUIRED - do not skip)
until curl -s http://localhost:3000/admin > /dev/null 2>&1; do sleep 1; done && echo "Server ready"

# ========================================
# STEP 3E: RUN SPECIFIC TEST
# ========================================
# Run the specific test again using Playwright directly
pnpm exec playwright test test/$SUITE_NAME/e2e.spec.ts -g "exact test name"
# OR for integration tests:
pnpm test:int $SUITE_NAME -t "exact test name"

Did the test fail now?

  • ✅ YES: Bundling or production build issue. Look for:

- Missing exports in package.json - Build configuration problems - Code that behaves differently when bundled

  • ❌ NO: Unable to reproduce locally. Proceed to step 4.

4. Unable to Reproduce

If you cannot reproduce locally after both attempts:

  • Review CI logs more carefully for environment differences
  • Check for race conditions (run test multiple times: for i in {1..10}; do pnpm test:e2e...; done)
  • Look for CI-specific constraints (memory, CPU, timing)
  • Consider if it's a true race condition that's highly timing-dependent

Common Flaky Test Patterns

Race Conditions

  • Page navigating while assertions run
  • Network requests not settled before assertions
  • State updates not completed

Fix patterns:

  • Use Playwright's web-first assertions (toBeVisible(), toHaveText())
  • Wait for specific conditions, not arbitrary timeouts
  • Use waitForFunction() with condition checks

Test Pollution

  • Tests leaving data in database
  • Shared state between tests
  • Missing cleanup in afterEach

Fix patterns:

  • Track created IDs and clean up in afterEach
  • Use isolated test data
  • Don't use deleteAll that affects other tests

Timing Issues

  • setTimeout/sleep instead of condition-based waiting
  • Not waiting for page stability
  • Animations/transitions not complete

Fix patterns:

  • Use waitForPageStability() helper
  • Wait for specific DOM states
  • Use Playwright's built-in waiting mechanisms

Linting Considerations

When fixing e2e tests, be aware of these eslint rules:

  • playwright/no-networkidle - Avoid waitForLoadState('networkidle') (use condition-based waiting instead)
  • payload/no-wait-function - Avoid custom wait() functions (use Playwright's built-in waits)
  • payload/no-flaky-assertions - Avoid non-retryable assertions
  • playwright/prefer-web-first-assertions - Use built-in Playwright assertions

Existing code may violate these rules - when adding new code, follow the rules even if existing code doesn't.

Verification

After fixing:

# Ensure dev server is running on port 3000
# Run test multiple times to confirm stability
for i in {1..10}; do
  pnpm exec playwright test test/$SUITE_NAME/e2e.spec.ts -g "exact test name" || break
done

# Run full suite
pnpm exec playwright test test/$SUITE_NAME/e2e.spec.ts

# If you modified bundled code, test with prod build
lsof -ti:3000 | xargs kill -9 2>/dev/null
pnpm prepare-run-test-against-prod
pnpm dev:prod $SUITE_NAME
until curl -s http://localhost:3000/admin > /dev/null; do sleep 1; done
pnpm exec playwright test test/$SUITE_NAME/e2e.spec.ts

The Iron Law

NO FIX WITHOUT REPRODUCTION FIRST

If you propose a fix before completing steps 1-3 of the workflow, you've violated this skill.

This applies even when:

  • The fix seems obvious from the logs
  • You've seen this error before
  • Time pressure from the team
  • You're confident about the root cause
  • The logs show clear stack traces

No exceptions. Run the reproduction workflow first.

Rationalization Table

Every excuse for skipping reproduction, and why it's wrong:

RationalizationReality
"The logs show the exact error"Logs show symptoms, not root cause. Reproduce.
"I can see the problem in the code"You're guessing. Reproduce to confirm.
"This is obviously a race condition"Maybe. Reproduce to be sure.
"I've seen this error before"This might be different. Reproduce.
"The stack trace is clear"Stack trace shows where, not why. Reproduce.
"Time pressure - need to fix fast"Reproducing IS fast. Guessing wastes time.
"The test file shows the issue"Reading ≠ running. Execute the commands.
"I'll analyze the code first"Code analysis comes AFTER reproduction.
"Let me investigate the root cause"Reproduction IS the investigation.
"I need to understand the error"Understanding comes from seeing it fail.

Red Flags - STOP

These thoughts mean you're about to violate the skill:

  • "Let me just fix the obvious issue" → STOP. Execute reproduction first.
  • "I'll increase the timeout" → STOP. Find root cause via reproduction.
  • "This looks like X from the logs" → STOP. Run the test.
  • "I'll run the full suite" → STOP. Run specific test first.
  • "Let me check the code" → STOP. Run reproduction first.
  • "I can see the problem in the stack trace" → STOP. Reproduce to confirm.
  • "The logs are clear enough" → STOP. Execute the commands.
  • "Let me analyze..." → STOP. Analysis comes after reproduction.

All of these mean: Stop immediately. Execute the reproduction commands. No analysis without execution.

Example Session

CORRECT approach - executes commands first:

User: CI failed on i18n suite - https://github.com/.../actions/runs/XXX

Agent:
1. Extracted details from CI logs:
   - Suite: i18n
   - Test: "ensure translations update correctly when switching language"
   - File: test/i18n/e2e.spec.ts:124
   - Error: "Error loading language: en" TypeError: network error

2. Executing reproduction workflow:
   [Uses Bash tool to kill ports]
   $ lsof -ti:3000 | xargs kill -9 2>/dev/null || echo "Port 3000 clear"

   [Uses Bash tool with run_in_background=true]
   $ pnpm dev i18n

   [Waits for server to start with curl check]
   $ until curl -s http://localhost:3000/admin > /dev/null; do sleep 1; done && echo "Server ready"

   [Uses Bash tool to run Playwright directly]
   $ pnpm exec playwright test test/i18n/e2e.spec.ts -g "ensure translations update correctly when switching language"

   Output shows: Test PASSED locally

3. Test passed with dev code, trying bundled code:
   [Kills ports again]
   $ lsof -ti:3000 | xargs kill -9 2>/dev/null

   [Uses Bash tool]
   $ pnpm prepare-run-test-against-prod

   [Uses Bash tool with run_in_background=true]
   $ pnpm dev:prod i18n

   [Waits for server]
   $ until curl -s http://localhost:3000/admin > /dev/null; do sleep 1; done

   [Uses Bash tool]
   $ pnpm exec playwright test test/i18n/e2e.spec.ts -g "ensure translations update correctly when switching language"

   Output shows: Test FAILED - reproduced!

4. Now that I've reproduced it, analyzing the failure...
   [Code analysis, root cause identification]

5. Implementing fix: [specific changes]

6. Verification:
   [Uses Bash tool]
   $ for i in {1..10}; do pnpm test:e2e i18n -g "exact test"; done
   All 10 runs passed!

INCORRECT approach - analyzes without executing:

User: CI failed on i18n suite

Agent: Looking at the error logs, I can see this is a race condition...
[Analyzes code, proposes fix without running any commands]

❌ WRONG - This violates the skill. Must execute reproduction commands first.

Common Mistakes

MistakeFix
Running full test suite firstRun specific test by name
Skipping dev code reproductionAlways try dev code first
Not testing with bundled codeIf dev passes, test with prepare-run-test-against-prod
Proposing fix without reproducingFollow the workflow - reproduce first
Using networkidle in new codeUse condition-based waiting with waitForFunction()
Adding arbitrary wait() callsUse Playwright's built-in assertions and waits

Key Principles

  1. Reproduce before fixing: Never propose a fix without reproducing the issue
  2. Test specifically: Run the exact failing test, not the full suite
  3. Dev first, prod second: Check dev code before bundled code
  4. Follow the workflow: No shortcuts - the steps exist to save time
  5. Verify stability: Run tests multiple times to confirm fix

Completion: Creating a PR

After you have:

  1. ✅ Reproduced the issue
  2. ✅ Implemented a fix
  3. ✅ Verified the fix passes locally (multiple runs)
  4. ✅ Tested with prod build (if applicable)

You MUST prompt the user to create a PR:

The fix has been verified and is ready for review. Would you like me to create a PR with these changes?

Summary of changes:
- [List files modified]
- [Brief description of the fix]
- [Verification results]

IMPORTANT:

  • DO NOT automatically create a PR - always ask the user first
  • Provide a clear summary of what was changed and why
  • Include verification results (number of test runs, pass rate)
  • Let the user decide whether to create the PR immediately or make additional changes first

This ensures the user has visibility and control over what gets submitted for review.

平台分布

Claude Code

30.94%
按下载量换算558

Codex

23.05%
按下载量换算416

Antigravity

19.24%
按下载量换算347

OpenCode

13.45%
按下载量换算243

Gemini CLI

7.36%
按下载量换算133

Cursor

4.04%
按下载量换算73

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

操作浏览器

该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

继续浏览同类 Skills