Validate the inventory
Reject incomplete or malformed plan records before scoring. Model ownership, dependencies, technologies, and business criticality explicitly.
CASE STUDY 01 / CI/CD MODERNISATION
From pipeline inventory
to controlled cutover.
A public, runnable example of how I would assess and sequence a CI/CD migration. It turns a synthetic Bamboo estate into dependency-aware waves, checks the new workflow against the old one, and documents the decision to cut over or roll back.
THE ENGINEERING QUESTIONHow do you migrate a large, interdependent pipeline estate without treating “workflow succeeded” as sufficient evidence?
01 / METHOD
A path to a decision.
Each stage produces a reviewable input for the next one, so teams can explain why a pipeline is ready for a migration wave.
Prioritise the risk
Use explainable risk factors to identify plans that need more care, then group dependent plans into ordered migration waves. Cycles are flagged rather than hidden.
Compare the outcomes
Gate migration on source and target parity: build and test results, artifact digest, and security findings. A green target workflow alone does not prove equivalence.
Control the change
Use a reusable GitHub Actions workflow and a cutover runbook with owners, validation steps, stop conditions, and a rollback path.
02 / EVIDENCE
Follow the implementation.
These links point to the public repository and a successful CI run, so the work is inspectable beyond this summary.
01 / SOURCECode, examples, and testsOpen repository ↗02 / VERIFICATIONPassing GitHub Actions runOpen CI evidence ↗
The repository includes a runbook and tests for inventory, migration sequencing, and parity decisions. The linked CI run verifies the repository state at that run; it is not a production migration result.
03 / BOUNDARIES
What this proves and what it does not.
The lab demonstrates the structure of a migration decision and the code used to make it repeatable. It uses synthetic records and does not contain employer systems, credentials, or production build plans. Its passing tests show the example behaves as specified; they do not prove performance at enterprise scale or a zero-disruption cutover.
In a real programme, I would also confirm runner capacity, secret migration, compliance requirements, artifact retention, ownership, and rollback timing against the organisation’s environment.
EXPLORE THE REST