MCP.Market

Cidiff MCP server

by CloudCorpRecords·io.github.CloudCorpRecords/cidiff·v0.1.2

Base-vs-head CI differ: which PR failures are introduced, pre-existing, external, or fixed.

A92/100grade A
What users say
No reviews yet
Be the first
Safety scan
A92/100

not scanned yet

Adoption
New

0 stars11 downloads/wk

Reviews

Write one

Nobody has reviewed Cidiff yet.

If you have run it, two minutes of your experience saves the next person an afternoon.

Cidiff tools

No tool declarations could be read from the package source. They show once the server is installed.

Not scanned yet. New listings are scanned within a day or two of arriving.

How Cidiff compares

Against every graded Developer tools MCP server, from our own scans and uptime checks. Updated after each scan run.

Safety score
92/100
higher than 90% of 1,119 Developer tools servers
Downloads a week
11
more than 3% of 430 Developer tools servers with a package

Release history: 2 versions in the registry since 2026-10-23, latest 2026-10-26, typically one every 3 days.

Install Cidiff in Claude Code, Cursor or VS Code

Runs npx -y @reneturcios/cidiff on your machine. Read the scan report first; the gateway never runs local packages.

claude mcp add cidiff -- npx -y @reneturcios/cidiff
Add to Cursor

What the publisher says

From the Cidiff repository's README, as published. We do not edit it. Read it on GitHub

cidiff

Which of these CI failures are actually yours?

A red PR with 12 failing checks usually has one real problem. The rest were already failing on the base branch, belong to a deploy preview service, or are waiting on a maintainer to approve the workflow run. Today you find that out by clicking through every check twice, once on the PR and once on the base, and comparing by eye.

cidiff does that comparison for you. It reads the check runs and commit statuses on the PR head commit and on its base commit, and classifies every check:

Exit code 1 when introduced failures exist, 0 otherwise, so it drops straight into a CI gate or a maintainer's triage script.

The honesty rules

cidiff was extracted from the CI triage inside Greenlight, where it classified 89 failing checks across 46 open PRs in one sweep and found zero introduced. Getting that number right depends on refusing to guess:

  • No base evidence means indeterminate, never a verdict. A failing head check with no base run is reported as unproven, in both directions.
  • Base failures are only "fixed" when the head actually ran checks. On day one, dogfooding against a real fork PR (usebruno/bruno #9569) showed the trap: the PR's check suites were stuck at action_required, waiting for a maintainer to approve the workflow, so the head commit had zero check runs. A naive differ reported every base failure as fixed and every base pass as passing. cidiff detects the empty head, reads the check suites, and says in plain warnings: CI has not run on this head, these failures cannot be classified yet.
  • Legacy commit statuses count as evidence. Snyk, CodeRabbit, and older CI systems report through the Statuses API, not check runs. cidiff merges both, with real check runs winning on name collisions.
  • External blockers classify first. A failing Vercel preview is not a test failure, and a check that needs maintainer approval is not a code failure. Both are reported as external before any base comparison happens.

Usage

CLI

# Classify a PR's checks against its base
npx @reneturcios/cidiff pr usebruno/bruno 9569

# Machine readable output
npx @reneturcios/cidiff pr owner/repo 123 --json

# Compare two commits directly
npx @reneturcios/cidiff runs owner/repo --head <sha> --base <sha>

Example output (the fork PR case above, real output):

cidiff usebruno/bruno PR #9569: 0 introduced, 0 pre-existing, 0 external, 0 fixed, 6 indeterminate, 0 pending, 2 passing
  [WARNING] No check runs on head commit 885c6fafed1e (only 2 commit status(es)). The workflow system has produced no evidence to diff against; base check failures below are indeterminate, not fixed.
  [WARNING] 3 check suite(s) on the head commit are action_required: CI is waiting on maintainer approval to run (typical for fork PRs). The failures cannot be classified until CI actually runs.
  [INDETERMINATE] Unit Tests (Linux): Failing on base, and the head commit has no check runs, so there is nothing to compare. CI may not have run on the head yet
  [PASSING] CodeRabbit, security/snyk (Bruno)
Verdict: no introduced failures. Any failing checks are pre-existing, external, or unproven either way (indeterminate).

Shortened. The full README is on GitHub.

Nothing above is checked by us. What we check is on the safety report.

Cidiff: common questions

Is Cidiff MCP server safe?
Yes, by our scan: it is graded A (92/100). Read the Cidiff safety report
How do I install Cidiff?
It runs on your machine. Copy the Claude Code, Cursor, VS Code or Claude Desktop config from the install section.
Does Cidiff need an API key?
Not as far as the registry entry and our scan can tell: no credentials are declared or required.
Is Cidiff maintained?
The last commit was 10 days ago (2026-10-23). The latest release is v0.1.2.
What can I use instead of Cidiff?
Servers from other publishers that do the same job: Suvadu MCP server, Zuul MCP server and Contextatlas MCP server.
How does Cidiff compare with other Developer tools MCP servers?
safety score 92/100 (higher than 90% of 1,119 Developer tools servers); downloads a week 11 (more than 3% of 430 Developer tools servers with a package). Full comparison.

Alternatives to Cidiff

Same job from other publishers: the closest match first, then the best rated.

  • Suvadu
    Local shell history and AI agent sessions over MCP: search commands, failures, risk and git changes
    A
  • Zuul
    Zuul CI — build failure analysis, log search, pipeline status, and job configuration
    A
  • Contextatlas
    Pre-computed atlas of your codebase for Claude Code: LSP + ADRs + git. 45-72% token reduction.
    A