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 tomzx/agents --skill handle-pr-cigit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tomzx/agentsWrote 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/tomzx/agents/handle-pr-ci)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tomzx/agents/handle-pr-ci"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomzx/agents/handle-pr-ci/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/tomzx/agents/handle-pr-ci"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomzx/agents/handle-pr-ci.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 | $0.00028 | $0.00864 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00346 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00173 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
handle-pr-ci 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 22d 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 — 136 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Handle PR CI
Fetches failing CI check logs for a pull request, diagnoses the root cause of each failure, implements fixes, pushes, and confirms all checks pass.
Prerequisites
- Apply the shared SDLC conventions in
skills/sdlc/references/shared.md. - If no argument is provided, target the pull request from
$PR_NUMBER(and$REPO). ghCLI authenticated with read/write access to the target repository- PR number (
$1) identifying an open pull request with at least one failing CI check
Workflow
Fetch CI check status ($1)
|
v
Any failing checks?
/ \
Yes No
| |
v v
Fetch logs Report all
per failure checks green, stop
|
v
Diagnose root cause
|
v
Implement fix
|
v
Present fix to user for approval
/ \
Approved Rejected
| |
v v
Commit + push Stop
|
v
Monitor CI re-run
|
v
All checks green?
/ \
Yes No
| |
v v
Done Loop back to
fetch logs
Steps
-
Fetch the current CI check status:
gh pr checks $1 --watch=false -
If all checks are passing, report success and stop.
-
For each failing check, fetch its log output:
gh run view <run-id> --log-failed -
Diagnose the root cause of each failure. Distinguish between:
- Flaky/transient failures (network timeouts, rate limits): note as transient, suggest re-running rather than a code fix.
- Code failures (test failures, lint errors, type errors, build errors): identify the specific file and line causing the failure.
-
For code failures, implement the fix in the codebase.
-
Present the diagnosis and proposed fix to the user for approval before committing.
-
On approval, commit and push:
git add <changed files> git commit -m "<fix description>" git push -
Monitor the CI re-run until checks complete:
gh pr checks $1 --watch
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.
- 22d ago Changed · +10 lines 5c04c2b3ef8d
- 1mo ago First seen · 126 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 65d256a4ed44
handle-pr-ci is a skill published in the GitHub repository tomzx/agents (13 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 864 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
repair-github-ci
Fix failing GitHub CI / Actions checks via fixgithubprci and push to the existing PR head, or fix a branch's failing CI via a linked repair worktree.
mcore-create-issue
Investigate a failing GitHub Actions run or job and create a GitHub issue for the failure.
debug-task
Diagnose and fix moon tasks that are broken, misconfigured, or behaving unexpectedly. Use this skill when a moon task is failing, not running, skipped, hanging, producing stale or wrong output, cached when it shouldn't be, re-running every time, or missing outputs after a cache hit. Also covers pipeline hangs, tasks…
operating-github-ci-fixer
Use when the user asks OpenSRE to fix failing GitHub CI, GitHub Actions checks, failing pull request checks, a broken PR branch, or CI on a named branch such as main.
meta-long-running-build-watchdog
Watches a long-running command via tmux, lets sub-agent diagnose failures and propose a fix, and records the diagnosis to memory. Designed for overnight model fine-tunes, CI image builds, or repeated regression suites that may fail intermittently.
gh-fix-ci
Use when a user asks to debug or fix failing GitHub PR checks that run in GitHub Actions; use gh to inspect checks and logs, summarize failure context, draft a fix plan, and implement only after explicit approval. Treat external providers (for example Buildkite) as out of scope and report only the details URL.