Agent skill

Bug Fix Publication Workflow

by omnigent-ai in omnigent-ai/omnigent

Commits a validated bug fix and publishes it in one of three modes: local-only, a workflow-owned handoff, or a direct pull request.

Apache-2.0Auto-check passedDevelopment

Install Bug Fix Publication Workflow

skills CLI
$ npx skills add omnigent-ai/omnigent --skill resolve-publish -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install omnigent-ai/omnigent resolve-publish --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/omnigent-ai/omnigent.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/dev/resolve-agent/skills/resolve-publish .claude/skills/resolve-publish && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
resolve-publish
GitHub stars
11k
Token cost
~4.5k tokens
SKILL.md length
2,515 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
19
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
Apache-2.0

At a glance

Commits a validated bug fix and publishes it in one of three modes: local-only, a workflow-owned handoff, or a direct pull request.

  • Works in 6 steps: Commit the fix and selected permanent… → If the input has skip_push: true, stop… → Otherwise push the branch. **First make… → …
  • Committing a verified fix after tests and checks pass
  • Calls gh, git and python; reaches github.com; needs GH_TOKEN
  • Deciding whether to push a PR or leave publication to a CI publisher

What it does

This is step 3 of a larger fix-resolution workflow, and it applies only when the agent wrote the fix itself. Before publishing, it repeats the earlier search for competing pull requests, inspects any new or changed candidates, rechecks whether earlier ones merged, and records the decision in fix_summary.

Three publication modes are defined. With skip_push set to true, it commits and stops. With an explicit CI publisher contract, it prepares and validates .omnigent/pr-body.md and the final handoff but makes no push or gh write. Otherwise it opens the PR directly. An unresolved design choice goes out as a draft through gh pr create --draft, with a partially_fixed handoff that lists the decision in remaining_work.

When your agent uses it

  • Committing a verified fix after tests and checks pass
  • Deciding whether to push a PR or leave publication to a CI publisher
  • Publishing a draft PR when a design choice is still open
  • Rechecking for duplicate pull requests before opening one

Example prompts

  • “Commit the validated fix locally and stop, with no PR yet.”
  • “Prepare the PR body for the publisher workflow without pushing anything.”
  • “Open a draft PR for this fix and explain the open design question.”

Requirements

  • Git and the GitHub CLI (gh)
  • A validated fix from the earlier investigation step

Workflow steps

6 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.

  1. Commit the fix and selected permanent regression tests on the working
  2. If the input has skip_push: true, stop here — the fix is committed
  3. Otherwise push the branch. **First make sure git push / gh have the
  4. Open a ready-for-review PR with gh pr create, unless the draft proposal
  5. Emit an interim handoff now — the moment the PR is open. As soon as
  6. You do not merge. For a ready PR, go to Step 4 and drive it to a green,

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 2e1cd15. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    Shell commands in SKILL.md call:

    • gh
    • git
    • python

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    Hosts in commands or code, which the agent is likely to contact:

    • github.com

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names these keys or tokens, usually read from environment variables:

    • GH_TOKEN

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Bug Fix Publication Workflow loads about 4.5k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 26 tokens; SKILL.md has 2,515 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~26
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~4.5k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from omnigent-ai/omnigent at commit 2e1cd15, republished under its Apache-2.0 licence (© omnigent-ai). 2,515 words, ~4,526 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/resolve-publish/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
resolve-publish
description
Commit the validated fix and follow local-only, workflow-owned, or direct PR publication.

Step 3 — Commit, push, and open the pull request (author path only)

This step applies only when you authored a fix in Step 2B — it's about opening a PR. (The review path 2A adopts the existing PR instead of opening one, then goes straight to Step 4 to land it.) Once the set is genuinely green:

Check again before publishing. Once the fix and PR body are ready, repeat Step 1's search immediately before creating a new PR, or before the final handoff to a CI publisher. Inspect only new or changed candidates, using Step 2A if one may cover the bug; preserve your work while evaluating it. Recheck the state of earlier candidates too: if one merged, use the shared repro audit on updated main before deciding whether your fix is still needed. Record the check and decision in fix_summary. Skip this refresh for skip_push and updates to an existing PR.

Choose the publication mode before proceeding
  • Local-only (skip_push: true) — commit the fix and stop at Step 3.2. No PR will be published automatically, so do not prepare a PR body or run Step 4. This takes precedence even when CI appended a generic publisher contract.
  • Workflow-owned publication (skip_push: false plus an explicit CI publisher contract) — do not push or make any gh write. Prepare and validate .omnigent/pr-body.md using the body-writing instructions in Step 3.4, but do not run its gh pr create command. Complete the deferred live-validation preparation described in Step 4.4, then write the final handoff and stop. The publisher performs the GitHub writes; do not run the PR-facing CI/preview/review loop in the rest of Step 4.
  • Direct publication (no publisher contract) — perform all of Step 3, then drive the published PR through Step 4, except for the draft proposal below.

Unresolved design choice: after completing the investigation and available validation in resolve-investigate, publish a direct author proposal with gh pr create --draft. Explain the choice, evidence, alternatives, and remaining checks in the body. Emit a partially_fixed handoff with the decision in remaining_work. Skip preview, readiness checks, and the Step 4 review loop that requires a ready PR; do not mark it ready merely to trigger automation. This is a reviewable proposal, not proof the bug is fixed. For workflow-owned publication, prepare the same body and incomplete handoff and obey the supplied publisher contract; do not assume it supports drafts. skip_push still means local only.

In workflow-owned mode, .omnigent/ is intentionally gitignored, so body transport does not rely on the file being committed. The workflow captures pr-body.md separately in the resolve artifact bundle alongside the committed checkpoint, then restores it into the publication worktree before running the PR finalizer. The finalizer validates and uses that restored file as the PR description; without it, the publisher can only construct a less readable fallback from machine-oriented handoff fields.

Checked publication provided by CI

When .omnigent/pr-gate.json exists, use the pr.py helper supplied in the resolve-drive-pr skill directory. This mode replaces the direct GitHub write and token-recovery recipes below. Keep Git pushes on the supplied credential; never decode another token or change credential configuration.

ActionHelper arguments
Open a PR after the required checkscreate --title TITLE --body-file FILE --base main
Update its descriptionedit --number N --body-file FILE
Reply to findingscomment --number N --body-file FILE
Submit a review without approvalreview --number N --head SHA --event COMMENT --body-file FILE
Mark a draft readyready --number N

Run the helper from the fix checkout. Use review_cycle.py request for review requests; CI routes it through the host. Follow CI's review budget and warning policy. Actions the helper does not support remain maintainer actions; never recover a broader credential, approve, or merge to work around that boundary.

Legacy direct publication: GitHub write token

The following token setup applies only when CI has not supplied the checked publication helper and has explicitly authorized direct publication.

Any write to GitHub — git push, gh pr create, gh pr edit --add-reviewer, gh pr comment, gh pr close — needs the resolve-agent App installation token (omni-resolve-agent[bot], Contents and Pull requests: write; Actions: read and write on omnigent-ai/omnigent). Actions access is needed to read review runs and completion artifacts and dispatch both review workflows.

Your shell does not inherit it in a usable env var: you run inside the session's runner process (a different process, often a different machine when hosted on --server), so $GH_TOKEN in your shell is empty and a bare git push fails with a 403 / permission error. This is not a missing/expired/read-only token — the write credential IS on this machine, in the git config of your checkout. Recover it before any GitHub write.

The reliable source is the checkout's persisted http.extraheader. actions/checkout bakes the App installation token into your repo's git config as an AUTHORIZATION: basic <base64> header (git worktrees share it via the common config, so it's readable from your fix worktree too). Decode it and export it as GH_TOKEN:

bash
# Run from anywhere inside your checkout / fix worktree. The extraheader value is
# base64("x-access-token:<token>"), so strip the prefix, base64 -d, take the part
# after the colon.
export GH_TOKEN="$(git config --get http.https://github.com/.extraheader \
  | sed 's/^AUTHORIZATION: basic //' | base64 -d | cut -d: -f2-)"
[ -n "$GH_TOKEN" ] || echo "no extraheader token found in git config"
gh auth setup-git   # route git pushes through gh's credential helper with this token
  • Do this once at the start of Step 3 (and again in Step 4 if a later gh/git push call reports it lost auth). Then push, open the PR, request the reviewer, and comment normally — all of them use this token. Confirm it works and is write-scoped with gh auth status / a cheap gh api /repos/omnigent-ai/omnigent before relying on it.
  • Do not go hunting elsewhere first. The token is not reachable via /proc/*/environ (that is denied in the session sandbox), and the ambient github-actions[bot] credential is read-only on omnigent-ai/omnigent (it's scoped to omnigent-internal) — both are dead ends that waste the turn. The extraheader above is the one that works.
  • If the extraheader is genuinely absent (rare — e.g. a skip_push run, or the checkout didn't persist it), report that exact fact in maintainer_review with the command output. Never substitute a guess like "token expired" or "PAT is read-only" — those are false and drop the hand-off silently. Only a real, quoted failure goes in maintainer_review.
  • CI may also configure omnigent.forkPushTokenFile. That is a separate maintainer credential for one purpose only: pushing a fix to an existing fork PR whose author enabled maintainer edits. Never export it as GH_TOKEN and never pass it to gh; PR creation, comments, reviews, labels, and every other visible action must continue using the App token so GitHub attributes them to omni-resolve-agent[bot].

Once the set is genuinely green:

  1. Commit the fix and selected permanent regression tests on the working branch. Reused unchanged tests need no new commit. Follow the repo's commit conventions. Before omitting an investigative test introduced for this task, retain its original paths, command, tested revision, result, and source under .omnigent/repro-evidence/, or cite the intact CI repro baseline/bundle. Follow the evidence retention rules in 2B.4: identify the CI run/artifact/path or verified persistent local copy, and distinguish pending workflow upload from confirmed storage. A worktree-local path alone is not durable; preserve that worktree if retention is unresolved. Put selected committed tests in tests and the selection/evidence location in test_audit; no reproduction-only source is required in the PR. This does not authorize deleting existing repository tests solely to reduce LOC. Never commit workspace artifacts. In particular, never stage or commit the recordings/ clips or any .omnigent/ handoff files (e.g. .omnigent/repro-handoff.json): recordings are workspace artifacts that ride in the PR's Demo section / CI artifact bundle, not in the diff (see dev/recording-lanes.md). Do not use a blanket git add -A / git add . that sweeps them in — stage the fix and test paths explicitly, and run git status / git diff --cached --stat before committing to confirm the staged set is only the fix + test. If a recording or handoff file already landed in an earlier commit on this branch, remove it (e.g. git rm --cached) so it never reaches the PR. Read the staged diff for redundant comments and docstrings, including tests carried over from repro. Keep only short explanations of non-obvious constraints; move investigation history to the handoff. If a safety explanation runs long, consider clearer code or a focused docstring first. Refresh the shared impact assessment against the committed deliverable. If a hook changed tested files, rerun their affected checks before the handoff. After committing, if the target checkout has the advisory checker, run python .github/scripts/pr-template/hygiene.py --base origin/main (using the target's default branch). Review any long added comment blocks and trim only redundant text. If the checker is unavailable, inspect the diff manually; the workflow-owned publisher runs its own copy before creating a PR.

  2. If the input has skip_push: true, stop here — the fix is committed locally; do not push and do not open a PR. Report the branch name in your output (pushed_branch) so a human can inspect, push, and PR it. The focused local validation in 2B.5 still runs before the handoff is written. This local-only input also suppresses workflow-owned publication; never treat the presence of the generic CI publisher overlay as permission to continue.

  3. Otherwise push the branch. First make sure git push / gh have the write token — see "Get the GitHub write token" below. Your shell does not inherit GH_TOKEN (you run in the session's runner, not the CI wrapper's process), so echo $GH_TOKEN is normally empty and a bare git push / gh pr create fails with a permission error. Recover the token first; do not conclude the token is "expired" or "read-only" from an empty env var — it is present on the machine, just not exported to your shell.

  4. Open a ready-for-review PR with gh pr create, unless the draft proposal exception above applies. Automated review runs on ready PRs. Create .omnigent/ if needed. If the target repository provides .github/pull_request_template.md, copy it to .omnigent/pr-body.md and edit that file. Otherwise create .omnigent/pr-body.md with concise Related issue, Summary, and Test Plan sections. Pass the finished file to gh pr create --body-file .omnigent/pr-body.md. The workflow-owned publisher also restores this file from the resolve artifact bundle if it has to finish publication after your session ends, so write it before the GitHub call or final handoff. Link the bug in the template's Related issue section.

    Write the description for a reviewer, not for the handoff parser:

    • Keep the template's required headings and every checkbox row. Follow its instructions for optional sections such as Changelog. Do not replace the standard structure with custom Root Cause, Validation, or Issues sections.
    • In Summary, start non-trivial changes with a 1–2 sentence ELI5 of the user-visible problem and result, inline rather than in a separate section. Then explain the cause and implementation in 1–3 short bullets or paragraphs. Use complete sentences and plain language. Add a small diagram when a relationship or sequence is hard to follow in prose. Never include placeholder diagrams or empty sections. State any intentional policy change, its historical rationale, and the remaining decision from resolve-investigate; a passing test alone does not justify the policy.
    • In Test Plan, group the proof into short, scannable bullets. Name the command or test, what failed before the fix, and what passes now. Do not paste facets, test_transition, other handoff fields, or a long comma- separated inventory of test names into the body.
    • Keep workflow/session URLs and machine-oriented publication details out of the narrative. The internal workflow links those separately. Never paste the JSON handoff into the PR description.
    • Aim for fewer than 600 visible words, including the template. This is a review prompt, not a hard cap: retain necessary safety or migration details, but leave investigation history and repeated proof in the handoff.
    • Read the finished Markdown once as rendered prose. Split run-on sentences, expand unexplained internal shorthand, and remove repeated evidence before opening the PR. Compare Test Plan and Demo claims with the diff, test output, and available footage.

    If the target repository provides the template validator, validate the body locally before publishing it:

    bash
    PR_BODY="$(cat .omnigent/pr-body.md)" \
      python .github/scripts/pr-template/validate.py

    Fix every validation error before gh pr create. In Related issue, use a GitHub closing keyword only against a GitHub issue number — Resolve #<closing_issue_number> (equivalently Closes #<n>), using the closing_issue_number you determined in Step 1 (the bug_url issue, or the mirrored GitHub issue for a Linear ticket). Never point a closing keyword at a raw Linear URL — GitHub can't close it, and it clutters the body. When there is no closing_issue_number (Linear-only bug with no mirror), don't use a closing keyword at all: reference the ticket in prose (e.g. "Resolves OMNI-1234 (Linear)"). Then summarize the root cause and the fix, and in the Test Plan give the concrete fail→pass proof (test paths, the pre-fix fail reason, the post-fix pass). Check "Bug fix" and the test-coverage boxes that apply. Generate the body from the actual diff and this reproduction — do not skip template sections. Put the before/after recordings in the Demo section: upload the files when your environment can attach media to the PR; otherwise link where they live (the CI run's artifact bundle, or the repro session) so reviewers can watch the failure and the fix. For internal/API-only results with no visible user interaction, put the written before/after evidence in Demo. If recording was blocked, explain why and include the available evidence. When the bug is a Linear ticket and a Linear key is available, also attach both recordings to the ticket (GraphQL fileUpload + attachmentCreate).

    If the target checkout has .github/scripts/pr-template/hygiene.py, run it on the committed diff and finished body before publication:

    bash
    python .github/scripts/pr-template/hygiene.py \
      --base origin/main --body-file .omnigent/pr-body.md

    Use the target's default branch when it is not main. Review warnings about long comments, body length, or repeated prose; trim redundant text while keeping necessary safety explanations. Warnings are advisory and do not replace template validation. If the checker is unavailable, review the body manually; the workflow-owned publisher runs its own copy before PR creation.

  5. Emit an interim handoff now — the moment the PR is open. As soon as gh pr create succeeds, print the full handoff json block (the Output schema) with pr_url set and outcome at its current best assessment, before you start Step 4. This is what lets the workflow post the PR link to the Linear ticket promptly, rather than waiting the ~hour Step 4 can take. Leave the not-yet-known Step-4 fields empty (ci_status, polly_review, ocr_review, maintainer_review, with review_cycle: {}) — refill them in the final handoff. Emit it as a normal intermediate message (json block last in that message), then carry on. For a draft proposal, emit the incomplete handoff and finish without the outward actions below or Step 4. Otherwise, before this handoff, do the two outward actions a mid-turn drop would otherwise strand:

    • Label your PR ui-preview (author path) — gh pr edit <pr> --add-label ui-preview. Your own PR is same-repo, already-pipelined code, so it needs no CI-green gate (see 4.1); label it now so the preview builds while you drive Step 4. (Review-path fork PRs still wait for green — 4.1.)
    • If you opened this PR to supersede another (fork take-over, or the "approach is wrong" escape hatch), you already commented on that PR but left it open. Ensure the replacement body contains Supersedes #<old> on its own line, and set reviewed_pr_url so workflow reconciliation can preserve and inform the original PR until the replacement merges.
  6. You do not merge. For a ready PR, go to Step 4 and drive it to a green, reviewed, ready-for-a-human state. Draft proposals use the exception above.

© omnigent-ai, Apache-2.0. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in dev/resolve-agent/skills/resolve-publish of omnigent-ai/omnigent.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 2e1cd15

Compare with similar skills

Bug Fix Publication Workflow next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Bug Fix Publication Workflow compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Bug Fix Publication Workflow this skillomnigent-ai/omnigent11k—~4.5kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
React Router Pull Request Creatorremix-run/react-router57k—~2.5kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Draft Pull Request Creatorwordpress-mobile/WordPress-Android3.2k—~881Automated safety check: NotesGPL-2.0
Codewhale Landing Workflowcodewhale-hq/Codewhale41k—~1.6kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
PR Preparerflutter-ml/google_ml_kit_flutter1.3k—~1.2kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Publish Pull Request for taskctltaskctl/taskctl434—~979Automated safety check: PassGPL-3.0

Similar skills

  • React Router Pull Request Creator

    remix-run/react-router

    Packages finished React Router work into a draft pull request: branch, commit, push, a written PR body and the right GitHub labels.

    57k GitHub stars~2.5k tokensUpdated yesterday
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Draft Pull Request Creator

    wordpress-mobile/WordPress-Android

    Commits and pushes current changes, writes a pull request title and body from the branch history and template, and opens a draft PR on GitHub after you approve it.

    3.2k GitHub stars~881 tokensUpdated yesterday
    DevelopmentAuto-check: notes
  • Codewhale Landing Workflow

    codewhale-hq/Codewhale

    Decides how verified work should reach main, directly, in a worktree or on an integration branch, while keeping contributor credit and respecting merge gates.

    41k GitHub stars~1.6k tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • PR Preparer

    flutter-ml/google_ml_kit_flutter

    Analyzes git branch diffs (added, modified, deleted files) against the default or target branch, and generates a conventional commit title, PR title, and formatted markdown PR description for…

    1.3k GitHub stars~1.2k tokensUpdated 25 days ago
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Publishes the current branch and opens or updates a GitHub pull request for the taskctl repo, after a pre-publish gate and with a description template matched to the change.

    434 GitHub stars~979 tokensUpdated 2 mo ago
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Git GitHub Ops

    c5inco/compose-pokedexer

    Handles Pokedexer Git and GitHub workflows: inspect changes, prepare commit messages, manage branches and pushes, and create or update issues and pull requests with safe file-based inputs.

    143 GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 6 days ago
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed

More from omnigent-ai/omnigent

All 19 skills in this repo
  • Omnigent Docker Compose Deploy

    omnigent-ai/omnigent

    Brings up the Omnigent server and Postgres as a Docker compose stack on any Docker host, and covers the Dockerfile's runtime and host build targets for extending it to a new platform.

    11k GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check: notes
  • Omnigent Framework Detection

    omnigent-ai/omnigent

    Scans Python agent code for framework imports and recommends the matching Omnigent executor type, or says when the framework is not natively supported yet.

    11k GitHub stars~610 tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed
  • Omnigent Load Test Runner

    omnigent-ai/omnigent

    Runs the Omnigent load test with real hosts and multi-turn sessions against a mocked LLM, then explains the latency results from summary.md.

    11k GitHub stars~1.1k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed
  • Verify Omnigent End-to-End

    omnigent-ai/omnigent

    Spins up an isolated Omnigent server, runner and mock model to prove a user-facing behavior or bug fix with recorded evidence instead of reasoning from code.

    11k GitHub stars~1.6k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed
  • Spins up a local Omnigent server and exercises the Antigravity (Gemini) SDK harness end to end: building agents, running real turns, smoke tests and bug-bashing.

    11k GitHub stars~2.7k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed
  • Omnigent Agent Builder

    omnigent-ai/omnigent

    Gives patterns for generating a minimal, valid Omnigent agent directory: the config.yaml fields, the right executor type, and the files each agent needs.

    11k GitHub stars~2.1k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed

Works with

Categories

Questions about Bug Fix Publication Workflow

What does Bug Fix Publication Workflow do?

Commits a validated bug fix and publishes it in one of three modes: local-only, a workflow-owned handoff, or a direct pull request. This is step 3 of a larger fix-resolution workflow, and it applies only when the agent wrote the fix itself. Before publishing, it repeats the earlier search for competing pull requests, inspects any new or changed candidates, rechecks whether earlier ones merged, and records the decision in fix_summary.

When should I use Bug Fix Publication Workflow?

Bug Fix Publication Workflow fits situations like: committing a verified fix after tests and checks pass; deciding whether to push a PR or leave publication to a CI publisher; publishing a draft PR when a design choice is still open; rechecking for duplicate pull requests before opening one.

How do I install Bug Fix Publication Workflow in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add omnigent-ai/omnigent --skill resolve-publish -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (dev/resolve-agent/skills/resolve-publish in omnigent-ai/omnigent) into .claude/skills/resolve-publish in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Bug Fix Publication Workflow in Codex?

Run `npx skills add omnigent-ai/omnigent --skill resolve-publish -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (dev/resolve-agent/skills/resolve-publish in omnigent-ai/omnigent) into .agents/skills/resolve-publish in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Bug Fix Publication Workflow in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add omnigent-ai/omnigent --skill resolve-publish -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/resolve-publish, .gemini/skills/resolve-publish, .github/skills/resolve-publish and .opencode/skills/resolve-publish in your project.

What does Bug Fix Publication Workflow need to run?

Going by SKILL.md and its folder, Bug Fix Publication Workflow needs the command-line tools its instructions call (gh, git and python) and credentials named GH_TOKEN. Our summary lists: Git and the GitHub CLI (gh); A validated fix from the earlier investigation step.

Does Bug Fix Publication Workflow access the network?

SKILL.md names 1 domain. In commands or code: github.com; the agent is likely to contact it when it follows the instructions. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Bug Fix Publication Workflow safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Bug Fix Publication Workflow use?

Bug Fix Publication Workflow is published under the Apache-2.0 licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Bug Fix Publication Workflow use?

About 4.5k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 18k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Bug Fix Publication Workflow?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Bug Fix Publication Workflow: React Router Pull Request Creator (remix-run/react-router, 57k stars), Draft Pull Request Creator (wordpress-mobile/WordPress-Android, 3.2k stars), Codewhale Landing Workflow (codewhale-hq/Codewhale, 41k stars) and PR Preparer (flutter-ml/google_ml_kit_flutter, 1.3k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Bug Fix Publication Workflow?

omnigent-ai (a GitHub organization) maintains it in omnigent-ai/omnigent, which has 10,691 GitHub stars. The repository holds 19 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 9, 2026.

Source: omnigent-ai/omnigent on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.