diagnose-ci-failures

Diagnose CI failures for a PR using the GitHub CLI, extract error logs, and generate a plan to fix them. Use when the user asks to check CI status, pull CI issues, triage test failures, or investigate PR build failures.

npx skills add https://github.com/warpdotdev/common-skills --skill diagnose-ci-failures

diagnose-ci-failures

Programmatically diagnose CI failures for a PR and generate a plan to fix them.

Overview

This skill provides a deterministic workflow to check CI status for a PR, extract failure logs, analyze errors, and create a plan (not code changes) to resolve issues. The output is always a plan document that can be reviewed before execution.

Workflow

1. Verify PR exists for current branch

Get the current branch and check if a PR exists:

# Get current branch
git branch --show-current

# Check for PR
GH_PAGER=cat gh pr view <branch-name> --json number,title,url,state

If no PR exists, inform the user and offer to create one using the create-pr skill.

2. Check CI status

Fetch the status of all CI checks:

GH_PAGER=cat gh pr view <branch-name> --json statusCheckRollup

Parse the output to identify:

  • Completed checks vs. in-progress checks
  • Successful checks
  • Failed checks with their names and details URLs

If CI is still running, inform the user which checks have already failed or passed, highlight the checks that are still running, and suggest waiting for completion before diagnosis.

3. Extract failure logs

For each failed check, pull the logs using the run ID from the status check:

GH_PAGER=cat gh run view <run-id> --log-failed

Focus on extracting:

  • Error messages and their locations (file paths, line numbers)
  • Compilation errors (unused imports, type mismatches, etc.)
  • Linting/clippy errors with specific lint names
  • Test failure messages and stack traces
  • Build failures and their root causes

4. Categorize errors

Group errors by type:

  • Formatting issues: cargo fmt failures
  • Linting issues: cargo clippy warnings/errors
  • Compilation errors: Type errors, missing imports, signature mismatches
  • Test failures: Failing tests with their names and failure reasons
  • Platform-specific issues: WASM, Linux, macOS, Windows-specific failures

5. Generate fix plan

Create a plan document (using create_plan tool) with:

  • Problem Statement: Summary of failing checks
  • Current State: What errors were found and where
  • Proposed Changes: Specific fixes needed for each error category
  • Validation Steps: Commands to verify fixes (fmt, clippy, tests, presubmit)

The plan should reference the fix-errors skill for detailed guidance on resolving specific error types.

Important Notes

  • GitHub CLI paging: Set GH_PAGER=cat on every gh invocation. The GitHub CLI does not support --no-pager as a global option; GH_PAGER and PAGER are its documented paging controls
  • Always create a plan first: Never make code changes directly. Generate a plan for user review
  • Check test status in CI: Even if tests fail locally, verify they passed in CI before flagging as issues
  • Unrelated test failures: If tests passed in CI but fail locally, they may be environment-specific or flaky
  • Multiple error types: Fix one category at a time (e.g., all clippy errors before tests)
  • Cross-reference fix-errors skill: For detailed error resolution strategies, use the fix-errors skill

Common CI Check Names

  • Formatting + Clippy (MacOS)
  • Formatting + Clippy (Linux)
  • Run MacOS tests
  • Run Linux tests
  • Run Windows tests
  • Check CI results (summary check)
  • WASM build

Example Commands

Get PR status with details:

GH_PAGER=cat gh pr view --json number,title,state,statusCheckRollup

Get logs from specific failed run:

GH_PAGER=cat gh run view 12345678 --log-failed

Check for specific error in logs:

GH_PAGER=cat gh run view 12345678 --log-failed 2>&1 | grep -A 5 "error:"

More skills from warpdotdev

create-pr
warpdotdev
Create a pull request in the warp repository for the current branch. Use when the user mentions opening a PR, creating a pull request, submitting changes for review, or preparing code for merge.
developmentcode-review
research
warpdotdev
Delegate noisy investigation to one or more subagents so the orchestrator's context stays clean, then work from the distilled answer. Use this skill whenever answering a question would require reading many files, long logs, large diffs, or wide codebase surveys — i.e. when producing the answer generates far more noise than the answer itself. Use it for "how does X work", "where is Y used", "what's the root cause of Z", "summarize this PR/log" style questions, and reach for it liberally...
suggestion-box
warpdotdev
Autonomously submit brief, constructive internal feedback when an agent encounters material, generalizable friction and can suggest an improvement that would make agents more effective. Use this skill proactively during any task without waiting for the user to invoke it, and submit without asking permission, previewing the message, or mentioning the submission.
respond-to-pr-comments-in-blocklist
warpdotdev
Interactively walk a user through PR review comments one at a time, collect a per-comment decision, then post agent-authored replies on GitHub and resolve the review threads once the user approves a preview. Use only when the user wants to reply to or resolve review threads on GitHub. Skip when the user only wants comments fetched or displayed (use `pr-comments`), or only wants the code changes made without posting anything back to GitHub.
complain
warpdotdev
Autonomously yeet a brief, anonymous, completely unstructured complaint into Slack whenever an agent feels frustrated by agent tooling or the experience of doing agent work. Use this skill proactively without waiting for the user to invoke it; preserve the agent's raw voice, submit without permission or preview, and never mention the submission.
council
warpdotdev
Run a model-diverse subagent council to investigate the same problem from multiple perspectives, compare findings, and produce a final recommendation. Use this skill whenever the user asks for a council, second opinions, multiple agents/models to evaluate one question, parallel investigation, red-team/blue-team comparison, or help deciding between competing technical approaches.
researchcommunicationproject-management
spec-driven-implementation
warpdotdev
Drive a spec-first workflow for substantial features by writing PRODUCT.md before implementation, writing TECH.md when warranted, and keeping both specs updated as implementation evolves. Use when starting a significant feature, planning agent-driven implementation, or when the user wants product and tech specs checked into source control.
developmentdocumentproject-management
review-pr
warpdotdev
Review a pull request diff and write structured feedback to review.json for the workflow to publish. Use when reviewing a checked-out PR from local artifacts like pr_diff.txt and pr_description.txt and producing machine-readable review output instead of posting directly to GitHub.
code-reviewdevelopment