github-ci-fix
GitHub CI Fix
Section titled “GitHub CI Fix”Overview
Section titled “Overview”Systematic workflow for debugging failing PR checks using gh CLI. Identifies GitHub Actions failures with logs, scopes external checks (Buildkite, etc.) as out-of-scope, then uses existing plan workflow for fixes.
Prerequisites
Section titled “Prerequisites”gh auth status # Required scopes: repo, workflowSTOP if unauthenticated: gh auth login --scopes repo,workflow
Quick Reference
Section titled “Quick Reference”| Task | Command |
|---|---|
| Find current PR | gh pr view --json number,url |
| Check PR status | gh pr checks <pr> |
| View run details | gh run view <run-id> |
| Get failed logs | gh run view <run-id> --log-failed |
| Full run log | gh run view <run-id> --log |
| Recent runs for this check | gh run list --workflow <name> --branch <branch> --json conclusion,headSha,createdAt -L 20 |
| Rerun without code changes (flakiness probe) | gh run rerun <run-id> --failed |
Workflow
Section titled “Workflow”1. Verify Auth → 2. Find PR → 3. Inspect
Section titled “1. Verify Auth → 2. Find PR → 3. Inspect”gh auth status # If fails: ask user to authenticategh pr view --json number,url # Or use user-provided PR numbergh pr checks <pr> # Shows check name, status, details URL4. Scope: GitHub Actions vs External
Section titled “4. Scope: GitHub Actions vs External”GitHub Actions (detailsUrl has /actions/runs/): Pull logs, extract snippets, fix
External CI (Buildkite, CircleCI): Report URL only, request user to share logs
STOP: Do not attempt external CI log access.
4.5. Flaky or Real? Scope the Breaking Commit
Section titled “4.5. Flaky or Real? Scope the Breaking Commit”Before treating a failure as a bug to fix, rule out flakiness — a fix for a flaky test is a wasted diagnosis, and a “fix” that just happens to make a flaky test pass on the next run isn’t actually verified.
Flakiness probe:
gh run rerun <run-id> --failed # same commit, no code changegh run view <run-id> --json conclusion --jq .conclusion # poll until doneIf it now passes with nothing changed, it’s flaky — report that (test name, run URL, “passed on rerun with no changes”) rather than diagnosing a bug that isn’t there. Don’t silently move on either: a flaky check is still worth flagging to the user, since it can mask a real failure next time.
Corroborate with history, especially if a rerun isn’t practical (slow or expensive job):
gh run list --workflow <name> --branch <branch> --json conclusion,headSha,createdAt -L 20A mixed pass/fail pattern across unchanged code on recent commits is the same flakiness signal without needing a live rerun.
If it’s consistently failing (not flaky), scope the breaking commit so the fix targets the actual regression instead of the whole diff since last green:
# Find the last passing SHA and first failing SHA from the run history above,# then list the suspect commits between them:git log --oneline <last-good-sha>..<first-failing-sha>For a failure that’s expensive to reproduce per-commit, git bisect against
the specific failing check (run it locally, or trigger the same CI job per
bisect step) narrows this further than reading the commit list alone.
5. Pull GitHub Actions Logs
Section titled “5. Pull GitHub Actions Logs”# Extract run ID from detailsUrl: .../runs/<run-id>gh run view <run-id> --log-failed # Preferred: failed jobs onlygh run view <run-id> --log # Alternative: full logExtract 20-50 lines before failure with error messages and stack traces.
6. Report → 7. Plan → 8. Implement → 9. Verify
Section titled “6. Report → 7. Plan → 8. Implement → 9. Verify”Report: GitHub Actions (name, URL, log snippet, diagnosis, flaky-or-real verdict, breaking commit if scoped) + External (name, URL, “share logs”)
Plan: REQUIRED - Use EnterPlanMode. Never skip for “simple fixes”.
Implement: After approval: code changes → tests → commit → push
Verify: gh pr checks <pr> then gh run view <run-id> --log-failed if still failing
Common Patterns
Section titled “Common Patterns”# Multiple failing jobsgh run view <run-id> --json jobs --jq '.jobs[] | select(.conclusion=="failure")'
# Log too large: use --log-failed (skips successful steps)gh run view <run-id> --log-failed
# Re-run after fix (avoids rebuilding successful jobs)gh run rerun <run-id> --failedBoundaries
Section titled “Boundaries”In scope: GitHub Actions failures, log extraction, flaky-vs-real triage, breaking-commit scoping, scoping external checks, plan creation Out of scope: External CI log access, fixes without plan approval, bypassing auth
Red Flags - STOP
Section titled “Red Flags - STOP”- Trying to access external CI logs via workarounds
- Creating fixes without viewing actual logs
- Proceeding without
ghauthentication - Skipping plan creation for “quick fixes”
- Making assumptions about failures without reading logs
If you see these, STOP and follow the workflow.
Common Mistakes
Section titled “Common Mistakes”| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| “I’ll fix it without seeing logs” | STOP. Pull logs first. |
| “It failed, so it must be a real bug” | STOP. Rerun first — rule out flakiness before diagnosing. |
| “Buildkite is just like GitHub Actions” | STOP. External checks are out of scope. |
| “Simple fix, no need for plan” | STOP. Use plan workflow. |
| “I’ll parse the web UI” | STOP. Use gh CLI. |
| “Auth is optional” | STOP. Required for all operations. |
Impact
Section titled “Impact”Before: Changes without seeing errors, confusion on check scope, inline plans, fixes chasing flaky tests After: Auth verification, systematic logs, flaky-vs-real triage, breaking-commit scoping, proper boundaries, plan workflow integration