# Iris MCP Use Cases: CI/CD Integration
This document outlines real-world use cases for Iris MCP's reverse tunneling capability, focusing on CI/CD pipeline integration with varying levels of autonomy.
## Overview
Iris MCP's bidirectional orchestration enables CI/CD systems (running remotely) to coordinate with local development teams through SSH reverse tunneling. This allows for intelligent, context-aware workflows that bridge the gap between automated builds and human developers.
## The Autonomy Spectrum
Different organizations have different risk tolerances and trust levels for autonomous actions. Iris MCP supports a spectrum from fully manual to highly autonomous workflows:
```
Manual ─────────────────────────────────────────────────► Autonomous
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Human-Gated Assisted Semi-Autonomous Full-Auto
```
---
## Use Case 1: Human-Gated (Manual Approval)
**Scenario**: Production build fails on critical authentication module
**Workflow**:
```
1. CI/CD Build Fails (main branch)
└─> Error: TypeError: Cannot read property 'token' of undefined
at AuthService.validate (auth.service.ts:42)
2. CI/CD wakes team-jenova via reverse MCP
└─> Message: "🚨 Production build failed on commit abc123
Module: authentication
Error: TypeError in AuthService.validate
File: auth.service.ts:42
Priority: HIGH - blocking production deployment"
3. team-jenova receives alert and investigates
└─> Reads error logs
└─> Reviews recent commits
└─> Identifies root cause
4. team-jenova fixes the issue locally
└─> Updates auth.service.ts
└─> Runs local tests to verify fix
└─> Commits changes
5. team-jenova creates Pull Request
└─> PR #143: "Fix: Handle missing token in AuthService"
└─> Links to failed build
└─> Includes test results
6. **HUMAN REVIEW REQUIRED** ← Critical gate
└─> Senior developer reviews code
└─> Security team reviews auth changes
└─> QA verifies test coverage
7. Human approves and merges PR
8. CI/CD automatically rebuilds and deploys
```
**Characteristics**:
- ✅ Automated notification and context delivery
- ✅ Autonomous investigation and diagnosis
- ✅ Autonomous fix generation and PR creation
- ❌ **Human approval required for merge**
- **Best for**: Production code, security-critical modules, regulatory compliance
---
## Use Case 2: Assisted (Claude Investigates, Human Decides)
**Scenario**: Integration tests fail intermittently on staging
**Workflow**:
```
1. CI/CD Nightly Build Reports Flaky Tests
└─> Test: "User login flow" failed 3/10 runs
Last 24h failure rate: 30%
2. CI/CD wakes team-backend via reverse MCP
└─> Message: "⚠️ Flaky test detected: User login flow
Failure rate: 30% (3/10 runs)
Last passed: 6 hours ago
Possible race condition or timing issue"
3. team-backend investigates autonomously
└─> Analyzes test logs across all 10 runs
└─> Identifies timing variance in async operations
└─> Compares successful vs failed runs
└─> Generates diagnostic report
4. team-backend reports findings to developers
└─> Creates detailed investigation report
└─> Suggests fix: Add explicit wait for auth token
└─> Proposes code changes with diff
5. **HUMAN REVIEWS PROPOSAL** ← Decision gate
└─> Developer reads investigation report
└─> Reviews proposed fix
└─> Decides: approve, modify, or reject
6. If approved: team-backend creates PR
└─> Human merges after final review
```
**Characteristics**:
- ✅ Automated investigation and root cause analysis
- ✅ Autonomous diagnostic report generation
- ✅ Suggested fixes with code diffs
- ❌ **Human decides whether to proceed**
- **Best for**: Non-blocking tests, investigation-heavy issues, learning scenarios
---
## Use Case 3: Semi-Autonomous (Auto-PR with Human Gate)
**Scenario**: Dependency updates fail during automated maintenance
**Workflow**:
```
1. CI/CD Weekly Dependency Update Build Fails
└─> Package: @types/node updated 18.x → 20.x
Breaking change: fs.promises.readFile signature changed
2. CI/CD wakes team-dependencies via reverse MCP
└─> Message: "📦 Dependency update failed: @types/node
Version: 18.x → 20.x
Impact: 12 type errors in file operations
Policy: Auto-fix allowed for dependency updates"
3. team-dependencies autonomously fixes type errors
└─> Updates fs.promises.readFile calls (12 files)
└─> Updates type annotations
└─> Runs type checker to verify
└─> Runs unit tests to verify behavior
4. team-dependencies creates PR automatically
└─> PR #144: "chore: Fix type errors for @types/node 20.x"
└─> Includes: changelog, test results, type check output
└─> Auto-labels: "dependencies", "autogenerated"
5. CI/CD runs full test suite on PR
└─> All tests pass ✓
└─> Type checking passes ✓
└─> Linting passes ✓
6. **HUMAN REVIEW** (but streamlined)
└─> Developer sees: "Auto-fix PR - all checks passed"
└─> Quick review of changes (diff is clean)
└─> Approves and merges
7. Optional: Auto-merge if org policy allows
└─> "Auto-approve PRs from team-dependencies
IF: labeled 'dependencies'
AND: all CI checks pass
AND: no security alerts"
```
**Characteristics**:
- ✅ Fully autonomous fix generation and PR creation
- ✅ Autonomous testing and validation
- ⚠️ **Human approval recommended but streamlined**
- ⚠️ **Optional auto-merge with strict policies**
- **Best for**: Dependency updates, code formatting, documentation fixes
---
## Use Case 4: Full-Autonomous (Trusted Patterns Only)
**Scenario**: Documentation typos detected in CI/CD spelling check
**Workflow**:
```
1. CI/CD Runs Spelling/Grammar Check on Docs
└─> Found 5 typos in README.md
└─> Found 2 grammar issues in API.md
2. CI/CD wakes team-docs via reverse MCP
└─> Message: "📝 Documentation issues detected
Severity: LOW
Auto-fix policy: ENABLED for docs"
3. team-docs fixes issues autonomously
└─> Corrects typos in README.md
└─> Fixes grammar in API.md
└─> Runs spell checker to verify
4. team-docs creates PR automatically
└─> PR #145: "docs: Fix spelling and grammar"
└─> Auto-labels: "documentation", "auto-fix"
5. CI/CD auto-merges PR (policy-based)
└─> Condition 1: Source is team-docs ✓
└─> Condition 2: Files match pattern: **.md ✓
└─> Condition 3: No security implications ✓
└─> Condition 4: All CI checks pass ✓
└─> **AUTO-MERGE APPROVED**
6. Notification sent to team
└─> "FYI: Auto-merged documentation fixes (PR #145)"
└─> Developers can review post-merge if desired
```
**Characteristics**:
- ✅ Fully autonomous fix, PR, and merge
- ✅ No human interaction required
- ⚠️ **Strict policy enforcement required**
- ⚠️ **Limited to low-risk changes only**
- **Best for**: Documentation, formatting, linting auto-fixes, typos
---
## Policy Configuration Examples
### Conservative Policy (High-Risk Codebase)
```json
{
"autoApproval": {
"enabled": false,
"allowedTeams": [],
"allowedPatterns": [],
"requireHumanReview": true
}
}
```
### Balanced Policy (Typical Production App)
```json
{
"autoApproval": {
"enabled": true,
"allowedTeams": ["team-docs", "team-dependencies"],
"allowedPatterns": [
"**.md", // Documentation
"package-lock.json" // Dependency updates
],
"blockedPatterns": [
"**auth**", // Never auto-merge auth code
"**security**" // Never auto-merge security code
],
"requireAllChecks": true,
"requireHumanReview": {
"production": true,
"staging": false
}
}
}
```
### Aggressive Policy (Internal Tools / Experimental)
```json
{
"autoApproval": {
"enabled": true,
"allowedTeams": ["team-docs", "team-dependencies", "team-backend", "team-frontend"],
"allowedPatterns": ["**"],
"blockedPatterns": [
"**security**",
"**secrets**",
".env*"
],
"requireAllChecks": true,
"requireHumanReview": false,
"notifyOnMerge": true // Still send notifications
}
}
```
---
## Advanced Scenarios
### Scenario A: Multi-Team Coordination
```
CI/CD detects API breaking change
↓
CI/CD wakes team-backend (API owners)
↓
team-backend proposes fix
↓
team-backend wakes team-frontend: "API change requires frontend updates"
↓
team-frontend updates API calls
↓
Both teams create PRs that link together
↓
Human reviews coordinated changes
↓
Both PRs merged together (atomic deployment)
```
### Scenario B: Rollback Automation
```
CI/CD detects production error spike after deployment
↓
CI/CD wakes team-oncall
↓
team-oncall analyzes error logs and recent deployments
↓
team-oncall determines: last deploy (PR #142) caused issue
↓
team-oncall creates revert PR automatically
↓
team-oncall notifies on-call engineer: "Proposed rollback ready"
↓
Engineer reviews and approves (or overrides)
↓
Rollback deployed within minutes
```
### Scenario C: Security Vulnerability Response
```
Security scanner detects CVE in dependency
↓
CI/CD wakes team-security
↓
team-security analyzes vulnerability impact
↓
team-security checks for available patch
↓
team-security updates dependency and runs tests
↓
team-security creates URGENT PR with security label
↓
**HUMAN SECURITY REVIEW REQUIRED** (always)
↓
Security team approves emergency merge
```
---
## Trust Progression Over Time
As AI capabilities improve and teams build confidence, the autonomy level can increase:
**Phase 1: Learning** (Months 1-3)
- All PRs require human approval
- Claude generates reports and suggestions
- Humans learn to trust the analysis
**Phase 2: Selective Automation** (Months 4-6)
- Auto-merge for documentation and dependencies
- Assisted mode for bug fixes
- Human review for logic changes
**Phase 3: High Trust** (Months 7+)
- Auto-merge for non-critical modules
- Semi-autonomous for most fixes
- Human review only for critical paths
**Key Principle**: Start conservative, measure outcomes, increase automation based on demonstrated reliability.
---
## Metrics to Track
To determine appropriate autonomy levels:
```
- **Accuracy Rate**: % of autonomous fixes that pass human review
- **False Positive Rate**: % of flagged issues that weren't real problems
- **Time Saved**: Hours of developer time saved vs manual investigation
- **Rollback Rate**: % of auto-merged PRs that required rollback
- **Coverage**: % of build failures that were auto-resolved
```
**Safe thresholds for increasing autonomy**:
- Accuracy Rate > 95%
- Rollback Rate < 2%
- False Positive Rate < 10%
---
## Conclusion
Iris MCP's reverse tunneling enables a **spectrum of autonomy** in CI/CD workflows. Teams can start conservative with human-gated approvals and progressively increase automation as trust builds.
The key insight: **Autonomous investigation and PR creation are valuable even when human approval is required.** The speed and context preservation alone justify the integration, and full automation becomes an option as AI capabilities improve.
**The future is already here** - it's just a matter of configuring the right trust policies for your organization's risk tolerance.
