CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

diagnosing-ci-and-merge-bottlenecks

Diagnoses CI and pull-request pipeline health for a GitHub repo using the engineering analytics MCP tools — pull-requests (PR list with CI status), workflow-health (per-workflow CI trends), and pr-lifecycle (a single PR's timeline). Use when asked whether CI is getting faster or slower, which GitHub Actions workflow is the slow or flaky long-pole, how long PRs take from open to merge, how an author's merge time compares to the cohort, which open PRs have failing or pending CI, or where a specific pull request is stuck. Triggers on "engineering analytics", "is CI getting slower", "slow workflow", "flaky CI", "time to merge", "cycle time", "PR throughput", "failing checks", "where is PR <n> stuck", "CI long pole", "what's holding up this PR".

75

Quality

92%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%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.

An excellent, information-dense tool-calling skill that assumes Claude's competence and provides highly actionable field-level guidance, clear multi-step workflows with real validation guards, and well-structured navigation. The main improvement is reducing redundancy between the Caveats and What-NOT-to-do sections.

Suggestions

Merge the 'What NOT to do' section into 'Caveats you must carry into every answer' (or vice versa) — both currently restate open_to_merge-coarseness, pending-unsettled, and no-reviews, costing tokens for reinforcement that one consolidated section could carry.

If the per-tool field semantics grow further, consider splitting the four tool descriptions into a separate reference file and keeping SKILL.md as a tighter overview plus the choosing-a-tool table and high-value chain.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Dense and information-rich with no padding or explaining of basic concepts (what CI/PRs are), but the 'Caveats you must carry into every answer' and 'What NOT to do' sections restate the same points (open_to_merge coarse, pending unsettled, no reviews) — minor redundancy that could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Highly concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact field names ('ci.failing', 'ready_to_merge_seconds', 'author.is_bot'), exact filter logic, explicit aggregation rules ('median and p95, never mean'), and concrete window examples ('date_from=-14d, then date_from=-28d date_to=-14d') — copy-paste ready for an instruction-only tool skill.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 'high-value chain' gives an explicit 3-step sequence (workflow-health → pull-requests → pr-lifecycle), the 'Choosing a tool' table is a decision checklist, and guards act as validation checkpoints — notably the truncation handling ('shrink date_from until the real set fits under the cap') is a genuine validate→adjust→retry loop.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into clear navigable sections (tools, caveats, choosing a tool, chain, output, what-not-to-do, persisting) with a well-signaled one-level cross-reference to the sibling insights skill, but it is a single inline monolithic document rather than an overview pointing to its own detailed reference files.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

96%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, third-person description that crisply states what it does, names three concrete tools with their capabilities, and lists a rich set of natural trigger phrases. Its only weakness is mild overlap with a sibling engineering-analytics skill on the shared 'engineering analytics' trigger term.

Suggestions

Disambiguate from the sibling insights skill in the description itself (e.g. note these are ad-hoc diagnostic reads, not saved insights/dashboards) so the shared 'engineering analytics' trigger doesn't risk routing to the wrong skill.

Consider trimming the long enumeration of trigger phrases slightly; the current list is comprehensive but borders on keyword-stuffing that dilutes the strongest natural triggers.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (CI and PR pipeline health for a GitHub repo) and lists multiple concrete capabilities via named tools — 'pull-requests (PR list with CI status)', 'workflow-health (per-workflow CI trends)', 'pr-lifecycle (a single PR's timeline)' — matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' ('Diagnoses CI and pull-request pipeline health... using the engineering analytics MCP tools') and 'when' ('Use when asked whether...') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Extensive natural trigger phrases a user would actually say — 'is CI getting slower', 'slow workflow', 'flaky CI', 'time to merge', 'cycle time', 'PR throughput', 'failing checks', 'where is PR <n> stuck', 'CI long pole', 'what's holding up this PR' — covering synonyms and phrasings comprehensively.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The diagnostic framing (CI/PR bottleneck questions) is a clear, distinct niche, but the shared 'engineering analytics' trigger term overlaps with a sibling insights skill referenced in the body, creating minor conflict risk rather than minimal.

4 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
PostHog/posthog
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.