Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Generate and optimize GitHub Actions CI/CD workflows. Use when designing workflows, planning multi-environment deployments, optimizing pipeline cost and runtime, or implementing blue- green, canary, or rolling deployment strategies.
.claude/skills/borghei-devops-workflow-engineer/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 34% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 172% | 0% |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 79% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 32% | 0% |
| case-15 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -5% | 0% |
Generate GitHub Actions workflow YAML, analyze existing pipelines for optimization opportunities, and create deployment plans with strategy selection, health checks, and rollback procedures.
Before generating the workflow, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:
workflow_generator.py --type)--language/--test-framework)deployment_planner.py plan)Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact.
| Tool | Purpose | Command | |------|---------|---------| | workflow_generator.py | Generate GitHub Actions YAML (ci, cd, release, security-scan, docs-check) | python scripts/workflow_generator.py --type ci --language python --test-framework pytest | | pipeline_analyzer.py | Analyze workflows for optimization findings, cost estimates, severity ratings | python scripts/pipeline_analyzer.py .github/workflows/ --format json | | deployment_planner.py | Generate a deployment plan with strategy, health checks, rollback | python scripts/deployment_planner.py --type webapp --environments dev,staging,prod --strategy canary |
All tools support --format json and --output/-o for file writing.
Load the reference that matches the task — keep this file lean and pull detail on demand:
| Skill | Integration | |-------|-------------| | release-orchestrator | Release workflows align with versioning and changelog | | senior-devops | Deployment strategies complement infra automation | | senior-secops | Security scanning steps feed SecOps dashboards | | senior-qa | CI quality gates map to QA acceptance criteria | | incident-commander | Rollback procedures connect to incident playbooks |
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-06 | fail→pass | 13,460 | 12,839 | -5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,416 | 3,235 | +34% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | 15,492 | 15,975 | +3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,061 | 4,103 | +34% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 31,243 | 29,446 | -6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,189 | 6,155 | +19% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | pass→pass | 19,892 | 14,930 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,251 | 4,037 | -5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 11,415 | 15,235 | +33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,201 | 3,942 | +79% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 14,077 | 17,285 | +23% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,391 | 3,942 | +65% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 7,382 | 4,236 | -43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 579 | 1,573 | +172% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 4,959 | 2,382 | -52% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 731 | 1,309 | +79% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 6,662 | 2,508 | -62% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,009 | 1,333 | +32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 10,822 | 15,900 | +47% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,504 | 3,585 | +138% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 9,625 | 3,982 | -59% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,642 | 1,556 | -5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 10,649 | 8,417 | -21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,735 | 2,229 | +28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 14,814 | 10,618 | -28% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,439 | 2,755 | +13% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 7,463 | 9,815 | +32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,259 | 2,680 | +113% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 9,637 | 7,299 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,657 | 2,127 | +28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 6,468 | 5,655 | -13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 926 | 1,883 | +103% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 9,580 | 4,096 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,400 | 1,530 | +9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 15,024 | 14,680 | -2% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,184 | 3,291 | +51% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 5,058 | 11,810 | +133% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 687 | 2,847 | +314% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 4,342 | 7,630 | +76% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 771 | 2,175 | +182% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 3,677 | 5,344 | +45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 592 | 1,789 | +202% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→pass | 8,670 | 5,741 | -34% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,257 | 1,883 | +50% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | fail→pass | 8,340 | 3,237 | -61% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,141 | 1,404 | +23% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 23 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +43 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 23 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.