Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add tmj-90/gaffer --skill ci-cd-pipelinegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tmj-90/gafferWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/tmj-90/gaffer/ci-cd-pipeline)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tmj-90/gaffer/ci-cd-pipeline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tmj-90/gaffer/ci-cd-pipeline/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tmj-90/gaffer/ci-cd-pipeline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tmj-90/gaffer/ci-cd-pipeline.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00067 | $0.00798 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00399 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00160 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
ci-cd-pipeline scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 9d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Build pragmatic CI/CD pipelines
A pipeline that runs in 2 minutes and deploys reliably beats one that does everything and breaks weekly. Detect the real stack; emit stages that match the project's actual commands.
Canonical pipeline stages
lint → test → build → scan → deploy-staging → smoke-test → deploy-prod
Not every project needs all stages. Drop what adds no signal; never skip test and lint.
Stack detection signals
| File present | Inferred stack |
|---|---|
package.json + tsconfig.json |
TypeScript/Node |
pom.xml |
Java/Maven |
build.gradle |
Java/Gradle |
requirements.txt / pyproject.toml |
Python |
go.mod |
Go |
Cargo.toml |
Rust |
Dockerfile |
Container build needed |
.terraform/ or *.tf |
Terraform plan/apply stage |
Steps
- Detect the stack. Read
package.json,pom.xml, lockfiles, andDockerfile— do not guess. Extract the actual test, lint, and build commands from the project's own scripts. - Choose the minimal stage set. Map detected commands to pipeline stages. If a stage has no command, omit it — a placeholder stage that always passes adds noise.
- Configure caching. Cache dependency directories keyed by lockfile hash (e.g.
pnpm-lock.yaml,go.sum). A cache miss should still produce a correct build. - Add secrets hygiene. All credentials via CI secret store — never hardcoded. Mask secrets in logs. Principle of least privilege for deploy tokens.
- Emit the pipeline file. GitHub Actions (
.github/workflows/ci.yml) or GitLab CI (.gitlab-ci.yml) depending on the platform. Validate YAML syntax before committing. - Verify. Trigger the pipeline on a feature branch; confirm all stages pass; record timings; submit for review.
Build / Test
- Validate YAML with the platform's own linter (
actionlintfor GitHub Actions,gitlab-ci-lintfor GitLab) before push. - Confirm cache restores by running the pipeline twice — second run should be significantly faster.
- Deploy stages: dry-run (
--dry-runor preview) first; then gate production deploy on staging smoke-test pass.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 9d ago First seen · 65 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 4ef3a17763f4
ci-cd-pipeline is a skill published in the GitHub repository tmj-90/gaffer (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 798 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
agent-loop-ext
Crash-resilient external agent loop with state persistence and CI/CD integration.
gh-ci-analyzer
A guide for using GitHub’s command-line tool to investigate failed GitHub Actions runs. GitHub Actions is GitHub’s system for automatically building, testing, and deploying code.
bulwark-brainstorm
Role-based brainstorming with dual modes: --scoped (sequential Task tool, 5 roles) and --exploratory (Agent Teams peer debate, 4 roles). Use for feasibility assessment and idea validation.
plan-creation
Create structured implementation plans via a 4-role scrum team (Product Owner, Architect, Eng/Delivery Lead, QA/Critic) with optional Agent Teams peer debate mode.
anthropic-validator
Validates Claude Code assets (skills, hooks, agents, commands, MCP servers, plugins) against official Anthropic standards. Fetches latest docs dynamically and produces structured validation reports.
code-review
Comprehensive code review with distinct aspect based sections. Use when reviewing code, checking for security issues, finding type safety problems, auditing code quality, or when user asks to review code, PRs or changes. Three-phase workflow runs static tools, LLM judgment, and writes diagnostic log.