How to use a Righthand with Buildkite

Quick answer

Use Righthand to prepare a Buildkite build handoff that ties jobs and artifacts to the intended source revision. Preserve blocked steps rather than treating the pipeline label as a completion claim.

Start with a reviewable deliverable, keeping Buildkite as the accepted home for its records. This guide uses an explicitly approved snapshot or browser read; it does not assume that every provider API action is exposed by your Righthand connection.

Evidence and access

Buildkite documents builds and associated job resources through its REST API. See the official Buildkite reference. Provider capabilities and Righthand's available tools are separate checks.

Request the approved pipeline's build packet with build number, commit, branch, step results, artifact references, and required acceptance criteria. Verify the required tools and owner-approved scope through Righthand integrations; use the supplied packet when a native read is unavailable.

Define the objects and authority

Include these fields in the working input: organization, pipeline slug, build number, commit, branch, job state, artifact link. These are the requested review columns, not a promise that every provider endpoint returns them under those exact names.

Build triggering, step unblocking, and production deployment remain with the release owner. A build URL alone proves none of those outcomes.

Illustrative first-run brief

Use the owner-provided Buildkite snapshot or approved read-only view. Review the supplied build and job records for one release. List failed, blocked, and completed steps with artifact references. Do not unblock or retry jobs. Run once for the agreed sample, using America/Los_Angeles for the review deadline and preserving source timestamps separately. Return the draft in this conversation by Friday at 3 PM Pacific for the release owner to review. Include source references and missing fields. Do not write records, spend money, change permissions, or send external messages. Stop and report an unavailable source rather than substituting another account.

Expected result and verification

A passed compilation step can coexist with a blocked production step. The handoff keeps that boundary visible.

Compare build number and commit with each consequential job and the expected artifact provenance. Record the source cutoff, applied filters, and items excluded from the sample. The reviewer should be able to follow each consequential finding back to an original object. A well-written summary is not evidence that a proposed action happened. If a later write is authorized, verify its specific result separately before changing the task's status.

Illustrative input and draft output

These synthetic entries show the requested review, not live account results or a provider field schema.

Common failure and recovery

Parallel or retried jobs can be mistaken for the accepted release run. Resolve exact job IDs before recommending action.

If an artifact came from another build, identify the mismatch and ask the build owner for the exact-build receipt instead of assuming interchangeability.

FAQ

What should the reviewer verify first?

Verify build number, commit, branch, step status, and artifact provenance. A successful step cannot establish the status of steps that never executed.

How should a repeat run be scoped?

Retain build and step identifiers for repeated reviews. Keep retried jobs and changed commits explicit, and validate deployment adoption separately from CI completion.

For connection and permission details, use Righthand Docs. Review Pricing alongside any separate provider charges before expanding the workflow.