Version: 0.8.9

GitHub Automations — how the plugin gets consumed, and every workflow this repo ships

Scope: this document has two jobs. §1 explains the two ways the jira-sdlc plugin can be installed. §2 onward is a guide to the demo GitHub Actions workflows shipped under docs/github-automations/example-workflows/ — worked examples of running the three skills in CI, meant to be read next to the workflow files and copied into other repos. They are not this repo's own development procedure (human-driven, see SDLC.md).

Where things live

This section (formerly "Applications") groups every GitHub Actions workflow this repo ships — not just the CI demos of the three skills, but also the smaller automations that keep a Jira issue's status in sync with its GitHub branch/PR/merge. It's organized by how a workflow gets invoked, not by which skill it happens to run:

Subfolder	What's in it
Jira state manipulation	The two housekeeping workflows that transition a Jira issue's status automatically — on branch push, on PR open, and on merge. No skill, no LLM call.
ChatOps	Workflows triggered by a PR/issue comment — `/review`, `/make-task`, `/make-bug`.
Manual review (workflow dispatch)	Workflows triggered by hand from the Actions tab, no comment involved.
Autopilot mode (issue → PR)	The full assigner → executor → reviewer chain, comment-triggered, ending in an open reviewed PR.

The rest of this document (§1 onward) is the same reference it always was — plugin installation modes, the demo-workflow catalogue, and the gating convention every one of these workflows follows.

1. Summary — two ways to use the plugin

Mode	How it works	When to use
Claude Code marketplace plugin	Add the marketplace, then `/plugin install jira-sdlc@<marketplace-name>` via the `/plugin` command. The three skills become available as `/jira-sdlc:jira-task-assigner`, `/jira-sdlc:jira-task-executor`, `/jira-sdlc:jira-task-reviewer`.	Default path — skills stay versioned with the marketplace release, upgrade with a reinstall.
Loose skillset	Copy `plugins/jira-sdlc/skills/` into a project's own skills folder (e.g. `.claude/skills/`). Invoke unprefixed — `/jira-task-assigner`, etc.	When you want to fork/edit the skills directly, or the target environment doesn't support the marketplace mechanism. Note the local-dev-loop caveat in CLAUDE.md: a marketplace install is a cached snapshot, so edits to a clone don't show up there until reinstalled — this is why active skill development should point `--plugin-dir` at a working copy instead.

Both modes read the same configuration: .jst/jira-sdlc-tools.env (team-shared) and .jst/jira-sdlc-tools.local.env (machine-specific, gitignored) in the target project's root. See the plugin README.md and project-config.md for what each <TOKEN> resolves to.

2. Usage applications

2a. Classic — interactive, on your own machine

You run the skills manually, one at a time, from a terminal alongside your coding assistant. Taking the simplest case — a single-step task, where the assigner decides the work is cohesive enough to stay one issue:

1. Plan it — creates the Jira issue, its branch, and its worktree:

/jira-sdlc:jira-task-assigner "Add CSV export to the reports page"

2. Implement it — cd into the worktree the assigner created and start your assistant there:

cd <WORKTREES_DIR>/worktree-<KEY> && claude
> /jira-sdlc:jira-task-executor

No key argument — it's derived from that worktree's own branch (feature/<KEY>-<slug>). The executor implements, tests, commits, pushes, and opens a PR into <DEFAULT_BASE_BRANCH>.

3. Review it — from the same worktree, once that PR is open:

> /jira-sdlc:jira-task-reviewer

Also no key argument. On a single-step issue there are no sub-tasks to iterate, so the reviewer reviews that one PR into the base branch directly and posts its verdict to GitHub and Jira. It never merges — that stays a human act.

A multistep task is the same three skills, just fanned out: the assigner creates a parent issue plus a sub-task per parallelizable piece, each with its own branch and worktree, you run one executor per sub-task worktree, and the reviewer then runs from the parent worktree to sweep the whole set. See the README's usage walkthrough for that version worked through end to end.

Either way you answer the assigner's clarifying questions, and approve or fix the reviewer's findings before merging — full interactive turn at every step.

2b. CI usage — GitHub Actions demos

This repo ships several demo workflows under docs/github-automations/example-workflows/ showing how to run the skills headlessly in CI. Each is self-contained and meant to be copy-pasted into another repo's .github/workflows/ — they don't run in this one, except demo-fcc-nvidia-nim-reviewer-workflow-dispatch.yml, which this repo also keeps a copy of in its own .github/workflows/ (CI.md).

Workflow file	Trigger	What it does
`demo-claude-reviewer.yml`	Comment `/review` on a PR	Reviewer only, against an already-open PR — a standalone review gate. Deep dive: ci-review-pr-demo.md.
`demo-claude-issue-to-task.yml`	Comment `/make-task` on an issue	Assigner only — turns the commented GitHub issue into a Jira Task + branch + worktree on the runner. Stops there (nothing persists past the job on a hosted runner). Deep dive: ci-issue-to-task-demo.md.
`demo-claude-issue-to-bug.yml`	Comment `/make-bug` on an issue	Assigner only — the byte-identical `/make-bug` twin of the row above; same run, producing a Jira Bug instead of a Task. Deep dive: ci-issue-to-task-demo.md.
`demo-claude-feature-flow.yml`	Comment `/make-feature` on an issue	Full feature flow: assigner → executor → reviewer, chained, one job per skill. Branch `feature/<KEY>-<slug>` off `<DEFAULT_BASE_BRANCH>`; PR targets `<DEFAULT_BASE_BRANCH>`. Deep dive: ci-feature-flow-demo.md.
`demo-claude-hotfix-flow.yml`	Comment `/make-hotfix` on an issue	Full hotfix flow, same three-job chain and gating. Branch `hotfix/<KEY>-<slug>` off `origin/<PRODUCTION_BRANCH>`; PR targets `<PRODUCTION_BRANCH>`. Deep dive: ci-hotfix-flow-demo.md.
`demo-fcc-nvidia-nim-feature-flow.yml`	Comment `/fcc-make-feature` on an issue	Same three-job feature flow, but on Free Claude Code + NVIDIA NIM as the model backend instead of the Claude Code CLI — shows how to swap the LLM provider. Deliberately a different trigger word than `/make-feature` so the two workflows don't both fire off one comment.
`demo-fcc-nvidia-nim-reviewer.yml`	Comment `/fcc-review` on a PR	Reviewer-only, FCC + NVIDIA NIM backend — the provider-swap counterpart to `demo-claude-reviewer.yml`.
`demo-fcc-nvidia-nim-reviewer-workflow-dispatch.yml`	Manual `workflow_dispatch` (model picker)	Reviewer-only, FCC + NVIDIA NIM — the dispatch twin of `demo-fcc-nvidia-nim-reviewer.yml`: same reviewer run with no comment trigger, and the NIM model picked from the dispatch dropdown instead of pinned.

Common patterns across the CI demos

One job per skill, each a fresh runner VM, each under its own Jira identity (assigner/executor/reviewer email + token).
No shared disk — WORKTREES_DIR is rebuilt per job under $RUNNER_TEMP/worktrees. Jobs 2/3 reconstruct a linked worktree from the branch job 1 pushed; the executor and reviewer skills hard-stop unless they're running in a linked worktree on a feature/* or hotfix/* branch.
No environment, no approval pause — no demo declares environment:. Who may trigger a run is decided by a cheap precheck (the OWNER comment guard, or write access for workflow_dispatch), and after that the jobs run start to finish. See §3.1.
Secrets are repository secrets named exactly as the .jst/jira-sdlc-tools.local.env keys they become — this is what lets a job's bootstrap step be a single loop over a KEYS list instead of a hand-mapped one. See §3.2.
No GH_TOKEN/GITHUB_TOKEN exported into skill steps — statuscheck logs gh in from GITHUB_PAT_TOKEN read out of the env file; exporting either token variable into the environment makes gh auth login refuse, since it insists the variable be cleared first.
Headless, no questions — skills run with -p --dangerously-skip-permissions. A run where the assigner would normally ask a clarifying question produces no branch and fails loud (the guard checks for exactly one new branch).
Self-review — the reviewer posts its verdict as a PR comment (APPROVED — … / CHANGES REQUESTED — …, never gh pr review --approve) because the same gh identity opened the PR and GitHub blocks self-approval.
Reporting back to the issue — each job comments its transcript on the triggering issue (collapsed <details>, tail capped to stay under GitHub's comment size limit).

2c. The same demos, by scenario

The table in §2b lists one row per file. This one lists one row per scenario — the flow being demonstrated — with the workflows that implement it. Several scenarios ship more than once: same skills, same job shape, different model backend behind them. Pick the row for the flow you want, then the implementation whose backend you have credentials for.

Scenario	What the flow does	Trigger	Implementations
Feature flow	Full three-skill chain: assigner → executor → reviewer. GitHub issue becomes a Jira issue + `feature/<KEY>-<slug>` branch off `<DEFAULT_BASE_BRANCH>`, gets implemented, and ends as an open reviewed PR into `<DEFAULT_BASE_BRANCH>`. Nothing is merged.	comment — bare or with prose	• `demo-claude-feature-flow.yml` — Claude Code CLI · `/make-feature` • `demo-fcc-nvidia-nim-feature-flow.yml` — Free Claude Code + NVIDIA NIM · `/fcc-make-feature`
Hotfix flow	The same three-skill chain on the emergency path: `hotfix/<KEY>-<slug>` cut off `origin/<PRODUCTION_BRANCH>`, PR targets `<PRODUCTION_BRANCH>`, and the assigner is forced single-step (no sub-tasks).	comment — bare or with prose	• `demo-claude-hotfix-flow.yml` — Claude Code CLI · `/make-hotfix`
Review a PR	Reviewer skill alone, against an already-open PR. Rebuilds a linked worktree for the PR branch, reviews the diff, and posts the verdict to GitHub (as a comment) and Jira. Merges nothing.	comment — bare or with prose, or manual `workflow_dispatch`	• `demo-claude-reviewer.yml` — Claude Code CLI · `/review` • `demo-fcc-nvidia-nim-reviewer.yml` — Free Claude Code + NVIDIA NIM · `/fcc-review` • `demo-fcc-nvidia-nim-reviewer-workflow-dispatch.yml` — Free Claude Code + NVIDIA NIM · `workflow_dispatch` (model-pickable, no comment)
Issue to task / bug	Assigner alone. A commented GitHub issue becomes a Jira Task (`/make-task`) or Bug (`/make-bug`) with its branch and worktree, and the run stops there — no implementation, no PR.	comment — bare or with prose	• `demo-claude-issue-to-task.yml` — Claude Code CLI · `/make-task` • `demo-claude-issue-to-bug.yml` — Claude Code CLI · `/make-bug`

Three things the matrix makes visible:

Backend coverage is uneven, deliberately. The feature flow and the PR review exist on more than one backend because those are the two flows worth proving portable; the hotfix and issue-to-* demos ship Claude-only. A missing cell is an un-built demo, not an unsupported combination — the skills themselves don't know which model is driving them.
The trigger word encodes the backend, not the flow. /make-feature and /fcc-make-feature run the same scenario on different models. They're deliberately different words so that one comment doesn't start both workflows at once on a repo where both are installed.
The trigger comment can carry prose, and the prose steers the run. Every comment-triggered demo above accepts its command bare or followed by a space or a newline and free-form text:
```
/make-feature split this into sub-tasks per service, and skip the docs
```
The workflow strips the command token and hands the remainder to the skill — appended to the assigner's prompt as a labelled EXTRA DIRECTION FOR THIS RUN section (the GitHub issue stays the task description), or passed to the reviewer as its skill argument, which jira-task-reviewer reads as free-form notes about the run. A bare command behaves exactly as it always has.

What this does not loosen is the gate: the author check (OWNER) and the issue-vs-PR check are untouched and still live in the job-level if:, the prose is never gating input, and the command still has to be the first token followed by a separator — /reviewer-anything and a mid-sentence mention both stay inert.

3. Gating assistant workflows

Every workflow that executes a coding assistant is gated on who can trigger it, and nothing else. A cheap, secret-free precheck job decides that before any assistant job starts. None of them declares an environment:, so there is no production environment to create and no approval pause: once the precheck passes, the jobs run start to finish on repository secrets. (Earlier revisions declared environment: production on every assistant job to scope secrets and optionally pause for a Required-reviewers approval. JST-319 dropped it.)

3.1 The author gate — a cheap precheck before any assistant job

Every workflow reachable by someone other than the repository owner carries an author gate on a precheck job (check_pr_exists, check_branch, or the job-level if: of a single-job demo). That job stays secret-free deliberately, so a bad trigger is rejected before a runner holding credentials starts and before a model token is spent. The predicate depends on the trigger:

issue_comment — github.event.comment.author_association == 'OWNER'. MEMBER is not accepted — a single merged PR earns MEMBER association, which is too loose for a trigger that runs an LLM with write permissions. With no approval pause behind it, this guard is the only boundary, so never loosen it.
workflow_dispatch — usually no author gate at all: only users with write access can dispatch a workflow, so the trigger is already restricted. An owner-only github.triggering_actor == github.repository_owner check also never matches on an org-owned repo, where repository_owner is the org, not a person. demo-fcc-nvidia-nim-reviewer-workflow-dispatch.yml carries none. demo-kimi-openrouter-reviewer.yml still uses that check, and it only works in a user-owned repo. If you do keep one, prefer triggering_actor over actor so a non-owner cannot re-run an owner's earlier dispatch.

3.2 Repository secrets

All credentials live as repository secrets (Settings → Secrets and variables → Actions). Each job checks its whole set up front and fails loud, naming every missing one, rather than letting the CLI die halfway through. The trade-off of dropping the environment: a repository secret is readable by every workflow in the repo, on any branch someone with write access pushes, where an environment secret was readable only by jobs that declared it.

Secret	Used by	Notes
`JIRA_ACCOUNT_URL`	every job	e.g. `<your-site>.atlassian.net`, no scheme.
`JIRA_ASSIGNER_EMAIL` / `JIRA_ASSIGNER_TOKEN`	assigner job	Assigner's own Jira identity.
`JIRA_EXECUTOR_EMAIL` / `JIRA_EXECUTOR_TOKEN`	executor job (+ `_EMAIL` also read by the assigner job, as the assignment target, not a credential)	Executor's own Jira identity.
`JIRA_REVIEWER_EMAIL` / `JIRA_REVIEWER_TOKEN`	reviewer job	Reviewer's own Jira identity.
`CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN`	every job on the Claude-Code-backed demos	Read by the `claude` CLI from the environment — never written into the env file. Not used by the FCC + NVIDIA NIM demos, which authenticate to NIM instead (see below).
`NVIDIA_NIM_API_KEY`	`demo-fcc-nvidia-nim-feature-flow.yml`, `demo-fcc-nvidia-nim-reviewer.yml`, `demo-fcc-nvidia-nim-reviewer-workflow-dispatch.yml`	The FCC + NIM demos' equivalent of `CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN` — model backend credential instead of the Claude Code CLI's.

GITHUB_PAT_TOKEN is not a secret to create here: every workflow always populates it from the runner's built-in secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN, which can push, open a PR, and comment given each job's permissions: block. It stays an env-file key (see "Common patterns across the CI demos" above) because the skills' statuscheck reads it from .jst/jira-sdlc-tools.local.env to log gh in — a real PAT is only needed there, for local/dev use. One limitation of the built-in token carries over unchanged in CI: PRs it opens don't trigger other workflows.

3.3 Setting secrets via GitHub CLI

gh secret set JIRA_ACCOUNT_URL      --repo <OWNER>/<REPO> --body "<your-site>.atlassian.net"
gh secret set JIRA_ASSIGNER_EMAIL   --repo <OWNER>/<REPO> --body "<assigner-identity-email>"
gh secret set JIRA_ASSIGNER_TOKEN   --repo <OWNER>/<REPO> --body "<assigner-api-token>"
gh secret set JIRA_EXECUTOR_EMAIL   --repo <OWNER>/<REPO> --body "<executor-identity-email>"
gh secret set JIRA_EXECUTOR_TOKEN   --repo <OWNER>/<REPO> --body "<executor-api-token>"
gh secret set JIRA_REVIEWER_EMAIL   --repo <OWNER>/<REPO> --body "<reviewer-identity-email>"
gh secret set JIRA_REVIEWER_TOKEN   --repo <OWNER>/<REPO> --body "<reviewer-api-token>"
gh secret set CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN --repo <OWNER>/<REPO> --body "<claude-code-oauth-token>"
# Only for the FCC + NVIDIA NIM demos, in place of CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN
gh secret set NVIDIA_NIM_API_KEY    --repo <OWNER>/<REPO> --body "<nvidia-nim-api-key>"

Secrets already stored on a production environment from an earlier setup are not visible to these jobs any more. Re-create them at the repository level with the commands above.

3.4 Copy-pasteable gate snippet

For an issue_comment-triggered workflow:

jobs:
  check_comment:
    name: guard — comment gate
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    # Secret-free precheck: decides who may trigger the run
    outputs:
      should_run: ${{ steps.guard.outputs.should_run }}
    steps:
      - id: guard
        if: >-
          contains(github.event.comment.body, '/make-feature') &&
          (github.event.comment.author_association == 'OWNER') &&
          (github.event.issue.pull_request == null)
        run: echo "should_run=true" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT

  assign:
    name: assigner
    needs: check_comment
    if: needs.check_comment.outputs.should_run == 'true'
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      # ... skill steps

A workflow_dispatch workflow needs no author guard (§3.1). Its precheck validates the dispatch instead — see the check_branch job in demo-fcc-nvidia-nim-reviewer-workflow-dispatch.yml.

4. Quick reference — which demo to start from

Goal	Start with
See a full feature flow in CI	`demo-claude-feature-flow.yml` + ci-feature-flow-demo.md
See a hotfix flow targeting production	`demo-claude-hotfix-flow.yml` + ci-hotfix-flow-demo.md
Just want automated PR review on a comment	`demo-claude-reviewer.yml`
Turn a commented issue into a Jira Task (or Bug) with the assigner alone	`demo-claude-issue-to-task.yml` / `demo-claude-issue-to-bug.yml` + ci-issue-to-task-demo.md
Try a different LLM backend on the feature flow	`demo-fcc-nvidia-nim-feature-flow.yml`
Try a different LLM backend on review only	`demo-fcc-nvidia-nim-reviewer.yml`
Review a PR on FCC + NIM with the model picked at dispatch time	`demo-fcc-nvidia-nim-reviewer-workflow-dispatch.yml`

5. What these demos are not

Not a replacement for this repo's own SDLC — work here is human-driven end to end (SDLC.md).
Not production incident response — the hotfix demo exercises the branch semantics of a hotfix, not an actual incident process.
Not a durable pipeline on hosted runners — worktrees don't persist across jobs; each job explicitly rebuilds what it needs from the pushed branch.
Not a composite action — bootstrap steps are deliberately duplicated across workflow files so each one stays copy-pasteable into another repo without pulling in a shared helper file.

Document	Covers
ci-feature-flow-demo.md	Deep dive on `demo-claude-feature-flow.yml`
ci-hotfix-flow-demo.md	Deep dive on `demo-claude-hotfix-flow.yml`
ci-review-pr-demo.md	Deep dive on the review-a-PR scenario and its implementations
ci-issue-to-task-demo.md	Deep dive on `demo-claude-issue-to-task.yml` and its `/make-bug` twin `demo-claude-issue-to-bug.yml`
SDLC.md	This repo's actual release/hotfix procedure
CI.md	Workflow-by-workflow CI reference
project-config.md	Every `<TOKEN>` resolved from `.jst/jira-sdlc-tools.env`

Where things live​

1. Summary — two ways to use the plugin​

2. Usage applications​

2a. Classic — interactive, on your own machine​

2b. CI usage — GitHub Actions demos​

Common patterns across the CI demos​

2c. The same demos, by scenario​

3. Gating assistant workflows​

3.1 The author gate — a cheap precheck before any assistant job​

3.2 Repository secrets​

3.3 Setting secrets via GitHub CLI​

3.4 Copy-pasteable gate snippet​

4. Quick reference — which demo to start from​

5. What these demos are not​

6. Related docs​