plugins/teamcraft-glgd/skills/pipeline-health/SKILL.md
Interpret CI/CD pipeline status with context — not raw logs, but an explanation of what failed and why. Optionally create a trackable GitLab issue from a persistent pipeline failure. Use when CI is failing, the build is broken, the pipeline is red, asking "why did the pipeline fail", or wanting to understand a CI/CD error. Also run when an MR's pipeline won't pass, deployments are stuck, or a recurring pipeline failure needs to be tracked as an issue.
npx skillsauth add codingthefuturewithai/claude-code-primitives teamcraft-glgd:pipeline-healthInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Surface what failed in a pipeline and why — not raw logs, but an interpreted explanation a developer or DevOps engineer can act on. When a failure is persistent, offer to create a trackable GitLab issue from it so it does not get lost.
$ARGUMENTS is the starting point. If neither was provided, ask before searching.If a branch name or pipeline ID was provided in $ARGUMENTS, use it. If not, ask the user to specify — which branch or which pipeline run they want to investigate.
Find the GitLab project from .teamcraft/project.md if it exists in the environment. If not, use mcp__gitlab__list_projects to see what is visible, surface the results, and ask the user which project they want to investigate. Never ask them to supply a namespace string.
Use mcp__gitlab__list_pipelines to locate the pipeline. For a branch, the most recent pipeline is typically the relevant one — confirm with the user if there is ambiguity.
Fetch the pipeline details and its jobs. For any failed or errored job, use mcp__gitlab__get_pipeline_job_output to read the actual log output.
Read the logs carefully. The goal is not to surface the log — it is to understand what the log is saying. Parse the failure at the right level of abstraction:
Not: "The test stage failed."
But: "The auth service integration tests are failing because JWT_SECRET is not set in the CI environment. The test runner is erroring on the first test that calls the token validation endpoint, and all subsequent tests in that suite are also failing as a result."
That level of explanation is the deliverable. A developer reading this should know what broke and what to do about it.
Present the failure explanation to the user. Cover:
What failed — which stage, which job, and the nature of the failure in plain language.
Why it failed — the root cause as read from the logs. Be specific: environment variables, dependency issues, test failures with test names, build errors with the error message.
What to fix — a concrete, actionable suggestion. Not generic advice. What specifically to change, add, or investigate.
If multiple jobs failed, cover each one. Group failures that share a common root cause.
If the user or the context suggests this failure has appeared across multiple pipeline runs on this branch, note that explicitly. A one-time flaky test and a structural configuration failure are different problems — the data helps distinguish them.
If the failure appears persistent (same job, same error across multiple runs), offer to create a GitLab issue to make it trackable.
If the failure is persistent and the user wants to track it, read references/example-bug-issue.md and draft a bug issue matching its structure. The draft must include all sections from the reference: Problem Statement, Environment, Steps to Reproduce, Current/Expected Behavior, Debug Information, Investigation Areas, Potential Approaches, Testing Requirements, Priority, and Labels. Populate from what the pipeline logs revealed.
Show the complete draft. Do not create the issue until the user confirms.
After confirmation, create the issue in GitLab. Share the issue URL and IID.
After presenting findings, offer the developer their options:
mcp__gitlab__retry_pipeline_jobmcp__gitlab__retry_pipelinemcp__gitlab__cancel_pipelinePresent these as choices. Do not act without explicit instruction.
tools
Capture feedback about Teamcraft itself and turn it into a well-structured GitHub issue on the plugin's repo. Vets whether the problem is really a Teamcraft skill defect (vs. misuse, the harness, or the user's own project) by root-causing against the actual skill source, then helps the developer decide whether to file and publishes via the GitHub CLI. Use when the user says 'improve teamcraft', 'a teamcraft skill did the wrong thing', 'file feedback on teamcraft', 'report a teamcraft bug', 'I have an idea to make teamcraft better', or when a Teamcraft skill clearly misbehaved and the user wants that captured upstream.
tools
Learn the Teamcraft plugin itself — how its workflow, skills, and artifacts fit together. A guided overview for a human getting started, or a system map for Claude orienting itself to how Teamcraft works before working in a Teamcraft repo. Teaching only; needs no project or environment access. Use when someone wants to understand Teamcraft (the tool, not their specific project), asks "how does Teamcraft work", "explain the workflow", "which skill do I use for X", or when Claude needs the big picture of how the skills hook together.
tools
--- name: teamcraft:work-board description: Launch (or re-launch) the user's live, multi-project work board. The dashboard is a single HTML file copied to a stable user-side location at ~/.claude/teamcraft-board.html and opened in the user's default browser. It has two views via a header toggle — a drag-and-drop Kanban Board and a live Status tab (analytics: work by status, throughput, cycle time, aging, blocked chains, recomputed on every poll). Each project is added via a header dropdown; the
development
Run pre-PR reviews (code health, security, acceptance criteria), address findings, and submit the PR for review. Ends when the PR is ready and CI has passed. Use when implementation is done and ready for review, or when the user says "I'm done coding", "validate this", "ready for review", "submit this for review", "run the pre-PR reviews", or "prepare this for review".