CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

analyze-azdo-build

Analyze Azure DevOps CI build failures in dd-trace-dotnet pipeline. This skill should be used when the user mentions a failing CI build, PR checks failing, Azure DevOps pipeline failures, test failures in CI, or when they share a build ID or PR number and want to understand what went wrong. Analyzes build failures, categorizes them (infrastructure/flaky/real), and provides actionable recommendations.

69

Quality

87%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A highly actionable, well-sequenced troubleshooting workflow with genuine validation checkpoints (WhatIf preview, user confirmation, post-retry re-check) and concrete copy-paste commands throughout. The two weaknesses are duplicated overview/detail sections that inflate token cost, and a progressive-disclosure structure whose two most load-bearing reference files (failure-patterns.md, scripts-reference.md) are absent from the bundle, leaving categorization rules and prerequisite install instructions dangling.

Suggestions

Add the missing bundle files failure-patterns.md and scripts-reference.md, or remove/inline their pointers — the body relies on them for the Prerequisites install instructions ("provide installation instructions from scripts-reference.md") and the entire failure-categorization ruleset, so both paths currently dead-end.

Collapse the "## Task" section into "## Implementation Steps" (the two describe the same Phase 1/Phase 2 flow twice) and drop or flesh out Example 2, which only says "[Quick summary as in Example 1]".

Move the Timeline Record Structure section and the detailed snapshot-mismatch detection rules into a reference file to slim the main body to the quick-analysis core.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient — commands and rules dominate — but there is real duplication that could be tightened: the "## Task" section (Phase 1/Phase 2 overview) restates the "## Implementation Steps" phases, the "Investigation menu" appears in both Output Format and Example 1, pointers to failure-patterns.md repeat three times, and Example 2 adds almost nothing beyond "[Quick summary as in Example 1]". Not a 4 because the Task/Implementation duplication and near-empty Example 2 are more than 'minor instances of over-explanation'; not a 2 because nothing explains concepts Claude already knows and every section carries actionable information.

3 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: exact pwsh invocations with parameters ("pwsh -NoProfile -Command \".\tracer\tools\Get-AzureDevOpsBuildAnalysis.ps1 -PullRequest $PR_NUMBER -Verbose\""), concrete snapshot-update commands per OS, a fully worked Example 1 output with real build data, and specific error-handling commands like "gh pr checks <PR> --repo DataDog/dd-trace-dotnet". Copy-paste ready and covering the common cases (no-args, pr, build).

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear two-phase sequence (quick analysis → ask user → deep analysis only on request) with numbered steps, and the risky batch operation (retrying failed stages) has explicit validation checkpoints: preview with "-WhatIf" first, "Confirm with user", then run, plus "optionally re-check status" as a feedback loop. The Error Handling section (Build Not Found, Logs Too Large, Rate Limiting) provides recovery branches, matching the anchor-5 pattern.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Signaling is excellent — the "Additional Resources" section gates each reference precisely ("Load ONLY during Phase 2 categorization", "Load ONLY if the PowerShell script fails", "Load ONLY if bypassing the PowerShell script") and references are one level deep. But scored against the actual bundle: of the three referenced files, only references/cli-reference.md exists — failure-patterns.md and scripts-reference.md (referenced five-plus times, including the Prerequisites install instructions and the core categorization rules) are missing, so the primary disclosure paths are broken. Not a 2 because the in-body structure and existing reference are well organized; not a 4 because two of three referenced paths do not resolve.

3 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

95%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong description: third-person voice, explicit trigger clause with natural user phrasing, concrete categorization scheme, and a tightly scoped niche. The only softness is that "analyze" and "provides actionable recommendations" are slightly generic verbs compared to fully concrete capability lists.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Quotes several concrete actions — "Analyze Azure DevOps CI build failures", "categorizes them (infrastructure/flaky/real)", "provides actionable recommendations" — with named categories making the categorization concrete. Falls short of a 5 because "analyze" and "provides actionable recommendations" are more abstract than anchor-5's fully concrete action verbs (extract, fill, merge, convert), and coverage of what the analysis covers (logs, timeline, retry) is not hinted at.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: what ("Analyzes build failures, categorizes them (infrastructure/flaky/real), and provides actionable recommendations") and when ("This skill should be used when the user mentions a failing CI build, PR checks failing..."). The explicit 'Use when'-equivalent clause with concrete trigger phrases matches the anchor-5 example exactly.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Covers the natural phrases a user would actually say in this domain: "failing CI build", "PR checks failing", "Azure DevOps pipeline failures", "test failures in CI", plus "build ID or PR number" and "want to understand what went wrong" — comprehensive including synonyms. Not below 4 because no common trigger variation for this niche (CI/pipeline/build/PR-check failure) is obviously missing.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Pins itself to a clear niche — "Azure DevOps CI build failures in dd-trace-dotnet pipeline" — with repo- and platform-specific triggers. Minimal overlap risk with generic CI/test debugging skills; a user mentioning this pipeline or these triggers almost certainly means this skill.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

81%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

relative_links

Relative link issues: 6 missing

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository
DataDog/dd-trace-dotnet
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.