| name | cicd-expert |
| description | This skill should be used when the user mentions pipelines in the context of design, review, debugging, optimization, security, migration, self-hosted runners, or deployment, and the specific workflow is not obvious -- for example "design a pipeline for...", "review my CI", "pipeline is slow", "optimize this workflow", "secure my pipeline", "migrate from Jenkins to GitHub Actions", "audit my self-hosted setup". This is the main entry point for the CI/CD Expert plugin: it classifies the request, dispatches the cicd-expert agent (running on the session model), and routes to the right workflow (design / review / optimize / debug / audit-security / migrate / self-hosted-audit). If the scope is explicitly a cross-project audit (3+ repos OR "cross-project pipeline audit" OR `--team`), it routes to the `cross-project-pipeline-audit` skill instead. |
| argument-hint | [optional: task description or scope] |
| allowed-tools | Agent, Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, TodoWrite, WebSearch, WebFetch, mcp__plugin_context7_context7__resolve-library-id, mcp__plugin_context7_context7__query-docs |
CI/CD Expert
Classifies the user's CI/CD request and dispatches the cicd-expert agent with the right workflow briefing.
Step 1: Classify the request
| Signal | Route to |
|---|
| "design", "create", "build a pipeline", "set up CI" | design-pipeline skill |
| "review", "audit", "check", "is my pipeline good" | review-pipeline skill |
| "slow", "optimize", "faster", "reduce time", "cost" | optimize-pipeline skill |
| "failing", "broken", "debug", "error", "why is CI" | debug-pipeline skill |
| "security", "supply chain", "permissions", "pinning" | audit-pipeline-security skill |
| "migrate", "move from X to Y", "convert", "switch to" | migrate-pipeline skill |
| "self-hosted", "runner fleet", "ARC", "runner isolation" | self-hosted-audit skill |
| "cross-project", "--team", 3+ repos mentioned | cross-project-pipeline-audit skill |
| Ambiguous | Ask 1-2 targeted questions, then route |
Step 2: Resolve scope
| User arg | Scope |
|---|
(empty) or diff | CI config files in uncommitted + staged changes |
staged | Only staged CI config changes |
pr | CI config diff vs main/master |
<file> | Single workflow/pipeline file |
<directory> | All CI config files in dir |
all | Entire project CI surface |
Resolve to absolute paths. Run git status to confirm working tree state if scope is diff-based.
Step 3: Dispatch
If Step 1 matched a specific skill (design-pipeline, review-pipeline, optimize-pipeline,
debug-pipeline, audit-pipeline-security, migrate-pipeline, self-hosted-audit, or
cross-project-pipeline-audit), invoke that skill directly -- its own workflow-specific briefing
(findings tables, concept-mapping tables, phased plans) supersedes this generic dispatch. The snippet
below is the fallback used ONLY for the Ambiguous row, after its clarifying questions are answered and
no specific skill applies.
Dispatch the cicd-expert agent with the resolved workflow type and scope per the shared contract
../../references/dispatch-contract.md: subagent_type: "cicd-expert:cicd-expert", model omitted
(inherits the session model; inline execution allowed per the contract's Execution mode when the
session model is already the strongest tier), description "CI/CD expert: ", prompt
= a briefing following the contract's conventions (original user request verbatim, workflow,
working directory, scope).
Step 4: Relay findings
Check the contract's acceptance criteria first. Present the Summary + structured findings. Offer to apply fixes one-by-one or batch-apply approved changes.
Never do
- Dispatch
cicd-team-lead directly by subagent_type -- plugin-namespaced dispatch strips the Agent
tool it needs for sub-dispatch; always route cross-project scope through the
cross-project-pipeline-audit skill
- Skip Step 1 classification and jump straight to a generic dispatch
- Add emojis
