Review CI

CI / Workflow Review

Structured review of CI/CD pipeline configuration. Focus is on GitHub Actions (the dominant case); CircleCI / Buildkite / GitLab / Jenkins are noted where they share concerns but receive lighter coverage.

Out of scope (defer to siblings):

• Application source code → review-code
• Container images and Dockerfiles → review-infrastructure
• Application-level secrets and IAM → review-security

Workflow

1. Scope and explore

• Confirm scope with the user: full repo CI config, specific workflow(s), or changed files only (PR or branch diff).
• Resolve scope to a file list. Based on what the user requested:
  • Changed files (PR or branch): Run git diff --name-only --diff-filter=d <base>...HEAD. If the user references a PR number, use gh pr diff <number> --name-only instead. Filter to CI file types (see classification below).
  • Explicit paths: Include all CI files under given directories.
  • Full repo: Walk for CI files (default).
• If invoked from review-all: receive file_list, has_changes, base_ref, REVIEW_DIR, and pr_url from the orchestrator. Skip your own scope confirmation.

File classification. Detect by path and content:

• GitHub Actions workflows: .github/workflows/*.yml, .github/workflows/*.yaml
• Composite / reusable actions: action.yml or action.yaml files (any location, but typically .github/actions/*/action.yml)
• Dependabot / Renovate config: .github/dependabot.yml, renovate.json, .renovaterc*
• CircleCI: .circleci/config.yml
• Buildkite: .buildkite/pipeline.yml, .buildkite/*.yml
• GitLab CI: .gitlab-ci.yml
• Jenkins: Jenkinsfile
• Other: azure-pipelines.yml, cloudbuild.yaml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, wercker.yml

2. System overview

Produce a brief pipeline summary covering:

• Triggers in use: push, pull_request, pull_request_target, workflow_dispatch, schedule, workflow_call, release
• Branches / paths gated
• Reusable workflows or composite actions referenced
• Self-hosted vs. GitHub-hosted runners
• Secrets / OIDC providers in use (named, not values)
• Deploy targets (if discernible)

3. Launch investigation subagent

Launch a single investigation subagent (subagent_type="generalPurpose", model: sonnet per subagent-model-routing) with the system overview and in-scope file list.

Prompt it to:

• Read only the in-scope files.
• Apply the GitHub Actions checklist in reference.md; for non-GHA platforms, apply the cross-platform subset.
• Run the static analyzers below when available.
• For each finding, search nearby files (workflow comments, README.md, in-repo runbooks) for existing tracking.
• Return findings using the CI findings template.

4. Run static analyzers

# GitHub Actions — syntax + best-practice lint
command -v actionlint >/dev/null && actionlint <files>

# GitHub Actions — supply-chain / security focused
command -v zizmor    >/dev/null && zizmor --format plain <files>

# Generic YAML hygiene (any platform)
command -v yamllint  >/dev/null && yamllint -f parsable <files>

Tool output is input to the review. The subagent must triage: actionlint shellcheck warnings inside run: blocks are real; some structural warnings are noisy and need filtering.

5. Present results

Resolve the review output directory (same pattern as siblings):

REVIEW_DATE=$(date +%Y-%m-%d)
REVIEW_DIR=".reviews/${REVIEW_DATE}"
if [ -d "$REVIEW_DIR" ]; then REVIEW_DIR=".reviews/${REVIEW_DATE}-$(date +%H%M)"; fi
~/.claude/scripts/ensure-gitignore.sh '.reviews/'
mkdir -p "$REVIEW_DIR"

Capture run metadata (see Run metadata header) and prepend the rendered block to ${REVIEW_DIR}/CI-REVIEW.md.

Output structure:

1. Run metadata header
2. Pipeline overview (from step 2)
3. Findings table
4. Tool availability notes
5. Recommended fix order

Present the report to the user.

Run metadata header

Capture once near REVIEW_DIR resolution and prepend to the output document:

RUN_DATETIME=$(date -u +"%Y-%m-%d %H:%M UTC")
GIT_BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)
GIT_COMMIT=$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)
GIT_COMMIT_FULL=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
GIT_SUBJECT=$(git log -1 --pretty=%s)
# When scope is diff-based, also: BASE_REF=<base>; BASE_COMMIT=$(git rev-parse --short "$BASE_REF")

> **Run:** {RUN_DATETIME}
> **Branch:** {GIT_BRANCH} @ {GIT_COMMIT} (`{GIT_COMMIT_FULL}`)
> **Subject:** {GIT_SUBJECT}
> **Base:** {BASE_REF} @ {BASE_COMMIT}   <!-- omit when scope is not diff-based -->
> **Scope:** {scope description}

Finding link wrapping (PR mode)

When pr_url is set (or gh pr view --json url -q .url 2>/dev/null returns one for standalone runs), wrap every path:line reference inside the finding tables as a Markdown link:

~/.claude/scripts/pr-deeplink.sh "$pr_url" <path> <line>

The display text stays path:line. Pass L as the fourth argument for findings about removed code (default R). Findings follow terse-comments: concrete fix, optional bug:/risk:/nit:/unsure: prefix.

Output Templates

CI findings

| Priority | Workflow | Finding | Impact | Effort | Tracked |
|----------|----------|---------|--------|--------|---------|
| P0 | release.yml | Description with code references | Impact (supply chain / security / reliability) | trivial / small / moderate / large | — |
| P1 | ci.yml | Description with code references | Impact description | Effort estimate | #123 |

Workflow column values: filename relative to .github/workflows/, or action.yml, dependabot.yml, etc.

Re-evaluation table (for follow-up reviews)

| Finding | Status | What Changed |
|---------|--------|--------------|
| ~~1. Description~~ | FIXED | Brief explanation of the fix |
| 2. Description | Still applicable | No changes |

Guidelines

• Search the organization's codebase (Sourcegraph, GitHub) for existing reusable workflows and centralized composite actions before recommending custom ones.
• Treat any third-party action that is not pinned by full commit SHA as a P0 supply-chain risk unless the action is from a vendored trust list (e.g. actions/*, github/*).
• Include effort estimates.
• When the user asks for a follow-up review, find the most recent review directory and append the re-evaluation table.
• For detailed framework categories, see reference.md.
• REVIEW.md integration: If a REVIEW.md context section was provided by the review-all orchestrator (or exists at the repository root when running standalone), treat its rules as additional review criteria. "Always check" items are HIGH severity; domain-specific items (CI section) are MEDIUM severity. "Skip" patterns exclude matching files from review scope.
• Findings must cite probed evidence (path:line, grep output, command result), not pattern-matched suspicion. Per ~/.claude/rules/probe-not-assume.md.