Team — can others build on it?
Brief 96

CI Feedback-Loop Audit

CI as a feedback loop — how fast, trustworthy, and clear the signal is between pushing code and knowing it is safe to merge.

CIFEEDBACK.md4 phases7 lenses~2.6k chars

Free & open · no signup · read-only — it ends by asking · nothing leaves your machine

What it does

You are working inside this repo. Mission: judge the CI pipeline as a feedback loop — speed, reliability, and clarity of the signal between a push and a confident merge — because slow or flaky CI trains people to ignore it.

Read-only pass. Read the pipeline config and recent run history; change nothing but the report file.

What it looks for

7 lenses it looks through

Phase 2 sweeps the codebase through every one of these, citing file and line for each finding.

1

Duration

total time from push to green, and the long pole in the pipeline

2

Parallelism & caching

jobs that could run concurrently; missing dependency or build caches

3

Flaky gates

steps that fail intermittently and erode trust in the signal

4

Signal clarity

on failure, is the cause obvious or a log-diving expedition

5

Redundancy

the same check run in several places; stages that add time but not confidence

6

Fast-fail ordering

cheap checks (lint, typecheck) before slow ones (e2e), or everything at once

7

Required vs advisory

which checks block merge, and whether that matches their reliability

The deliverable

What lands in your repo

One structured report at the repo root — or in reports/, if you keep one — the same shape every time, ready for a teammate — or the optional Studio — to act on.

CIFEEDBACK.md
1
The pipeline, timed
each stage, its duration, and its blocking status
2
Slow & flaky
the offenders ranked by time cost and by failure noise
3
Fixes
each: stage · change · time saved or trust gained · effort
4
Target pipeline
the reordered, cached, parallelized shape and its expected time-to-signal
One file. Evidence-backed. It ends by asking before touching anything.
How it works

What it makes the agent do

Every Goal Prompt follows the same four steps, so results are consistent and repeatable — no matter which one you run.

1
Phase 1

Map the pipeline

List every stage from push to green.

2
Phase 2

Audit through 7 lenses

Duration — total time from push to green, and the long pole in the pipeline.

3
Phase 3

Curate

Rank by time or trust reclaimed.

4
Phase 4

Report

Create CIFEEDBACK.md at repo root.

Get started

Three ways to run this Goal Prompt

01 · COPY

Paste it in

Copy it and paste it into your agent inside the repo you want checked.

02 · INSTALL

As a slash command

Install the goal plugin once — two commands — then just type /goal:ci-feedback-loop.

1/plugin marketplace add GhostlyGawd/goal-prompts
2/plugin install goal@goal-prompts

Or install only this Goal Prompt as /goal-ci-feedback-loop:

curl -fsSL https://goal-prompts.vercel.app/install | BRIEF=96 sh
03 · AGENT

From an agent (MCP)

Let an agent fetch it mid-conversation, or pull the raw Goal Prompt by URL.

https://goal-prompts.vercel.app/raw/96.md
Transparency

The exact prompt

Nothing hidden — this is the whole Goal Prompt, verbatim. Read it in a minute, edit it, or copy it as-is.

Read the full brief (2,583 characters)
# Goal: CI Feedback-Loop Audit

You are working inside this repo. Mission: judge the CI pipeline as a feedback loop — speed, reliability, and clarity of the signal between a push and a confident merge — because slow or flaky CI trains people to ignore it.

Read-only pass. Read the pipeline config and recent run history; change nothing but the report file.

## Phase 1 — Map the pipeline
- List every stage from push to green: what runs, in what order, and how long each takes.
- Note which checks block merge and which are advisory.
- Skim recent runs for failures: real breakages versus flakes and infra hiccups.

## Phase 2 — Audit through 7 lenses
1. **Duration** — total time from push to green, and the long pole in the pipeline
2. **Parallelism & caching** — jobs that could run concurrently; missing dependency or build caches
3. **Flaky gates** — steps that fail intermittently and erode trust in the signal
4. **Signal clarity** — on failure, is the cause obvious or a log-diving expedition
5. **Redundancy** — the same check run in several places; stages that add time but not confidence
6. **Fast-fail ordering** — cheap checks (lint, typecheck) before slow ones (e2e), or everything at once
7. **Required vs advisory** — which checks block merge, and whether that matches their reliability

## Phase 3 — Curate
- Rank by time or trust reclaimed: the long pole and the flakiest gate usually top the list.
- For each, name the fix — cache, parallelize, reorder, split, or quarantine.
- Separate "make it faster" from "make it trustworthy"; both change behavior.

## Phase 4 — Report
Create `CIFEEDBACK.md` at repo root:
1. **The pipeline, timed** — each stage, its duration, and its blocking status
2. **Slow & flaky** — the offenders ranked by time cost and by failure noise
3. **Fixes** — each: stage · change · time saved or trust gained · effort
4. **Target pipeline** — the reordered, cached, parallelized shape and its expected time-to-signal

Start the report with today's date. If `CIFEEDBACK.md` already exists from a previous run, read it first and lead with what changed since.

## Rules
- A flaky gate is worse than a slow one; it teaches people to ignore red
- Order checks cheap-to-expensive so failures surface fast
- No CI in this repo? Say so in a one-paragraph null report and stop — a null result is a valid finding.
- If a `reports/` directory exists at the repo root, write the report there instead of the root.
- Before asking, present the top findings as a ranked list in plain words
- Report only — end by asking which pipeline fixes to make first

House rules for this Goal Prompt

  • A flaky gate is worse than a slow one; it teaches people to ignore red
  • Order checks cheap-to-expensive so failures surface fast
  • No CI in this repo? Say so in a one-paragraph null report and stop — a null result is a valid finding.
  • If a reports/ directory exists at the repo root, write the report there instead of the root.
  • Before asking, present the top findings as a ranked list in plain words
  • Report only — end by asking which pipeline fixes to make first
Keep exploring

More Team briefs

Runs inside these playbooks — curated sequences you can launch with one paste: