git-delivery
Skill1 starsChanged 30 days agoMITView on GitHub
Prepare scoped Git commits and concise GitHub PR titles and descriptions from the actual diff and verification. Use when asked to stage, commit, push, draft or update a PR description, or open a PR. Perform only the authorized actions.
- Commits and pushes
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- fmind/dottheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- fmind/dotfilestheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- z-Zihan/Evirtheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- fmind/dot★ 13same name
- fmind/dotfiles★ 13same name
- z-Zihan/Evir★ 11same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository23 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- address-feedbackSkill
- agent-planningSkill
- anti-ai-writingSkill
- api-designSkill
- ci-cd-workflowsSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- decision-partnerSkill
- explain-itSkill
- frontend-engineeringSkill
- implement-planSkill
- jira-ticketsSkill
- readme-designSkill
- release-readinessSkill
- review-lenseSkill
- root-cause-debugSkill
- safe-migrationsSkill
- skill-authoringSkill
- technical-documentationSkill
- test-authoringSkill
- using-skillsSkill
- writing-clean-simple-codeSkill
- writing-optimized-sqlSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. 0 are common, 14 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
14
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
- Distinctive: line 11
Never dismiss any GitHub review or approval, including stale, bot, or addressed reviews.
- Distinctive: line 15
Read anti-ai-writing before drafting messages or descriptions.
- Distinctive: line 35
Before each commit or push, run the applicable checks against the exact candidate and record commands, working directories, actual results, …
- Distinctive: line 39
If a required check is unavailable or an unrelated failure prevents it from passing, report the concrete limitation and leave delivery …
- Distinctive: line 51
Write a short, concrete subject matching repository style.
- Distinctive: line 56
Create a new commit unless amendment is specifically authorized.
- Distinctive: line 62
After committing, verify the commit contents and working state.
- Distinctive: line 67
Before opening a PR or creating a release tag, identify the exact candidate revision and intended destination.
- Distinctive: line 72
If a check does not apply, state the reason instead of inventing a passing result.
- Distinctive: line 73
Keep detailed command output available, but put only reviewer-relevant results in the PR description.
- Distinctive: line 92
Before an authorized push, verify the branch, remote, destination, and outgoing commits.
- Distinctive: line 96
Before creating or editing a PR, resolve its repository, head/base branches, title, body, and requested state.
- Very specific: line 103
Create new PRs as drafts unless the user explicitly requests a ready-for-review PR.
- Distinctive: line 106
Verify the created PR's draft state.
- Distinctive: line 110
Do not change Git configuration, discard unrelated changes, skip checks or hooks, or perform destructive operations to finish delivery.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Git Delivery
Never dismiss any GitHub review or approval, including stale, bot, or addressed reviews. Never enable automatic dismissal of stale reviews or approvals in repository settings or automation. Preserve review history; request re-review only when authorized.
Read anti-ai-writing before drafting messages or descriptions. Follow repository instructions and templates directly; do not infer PR requirements from commit or branch naming. Do not require a ticket for fully specified ticketless work or invent one.
1. Establish scope and checks
Identify the requested actions and preserve authorization already given. A message draft does not authorize staging; staging does not authorize committing; committing does not authorize pushing or opening a PR. Do not ask again for an action already authorized within the same scope.
Inspect status, unstaged and staged diffs, recent commit style, the active branch, and relevant repository conventions. For a PR, verify the intended base, merge base, and full candidate diff, including relevant commits. Identify unrelated work before any mutation. Discover required checks from repository instructions, CI workflows, package scripts, and tool configuration. Include lint, separate formatter checks, type checks, and relevant tests for affected packages, using configured tool versions and working directories.
Before each commit or push, run the applicable checks against the exact candidate and record commands, working directories, actual results, and exit codes. Reuse recorded results only when they still cover the unchanged candidate. Fix introduced failures and rerun affected checks after edits, formatter fixes, or hook changes. If a required check is unavailable or an unrelated failure prevents it from passing, report the concrete limitation and leave delivery blocked unless the user explicitly authorizes proceeding with that unmet check. Do not defer local validation to CI.
2. Prepare and commit
Stage specific paths or hunks belonging to the request. Inspect the complete staged diff immediately before committing; selecting paths does not exclude files already staged. Check for secrets and accidental generated artifacts. Preserve unrelated staged work; use a verified isolated commit procedure or ask when scope cannot be safely separated. Do not unstage someone else's work to simplify the commit.
Write a short, concrete subject matching repository style. Add a body only when the reason, behavior, or tradeoff needs explanation. Base the message on the staged diff, not the plan or conversation history. Use a message file or safely quoted input; do not interpolate untrusted prose into shell commands.
Create a new commit unless amendment is specifically authorized. Amendment never implies permission to rewrite published history. Keep hooks and signing enabled unless the user explicitly requests otherwise. If a hook changes files or a commit fails, inspect the actual status and diff before retrying; do not assume the commit succeeded or amend an earlier commit to recover from a failed attempt.
After committing, verify the commit contents and working state. Report the actual result without implying unrelated working changes were included or removed.
3. Verify the delivery candidate
Before opening a PR or creating a release tag, identify the exact candidate revision and intended destination. Confirm that the candidate contains the intended changes; local working changes are not part of a remote PR. Record applicable checks from repository instructions and CI with their commands, working directories, actual results, and exit codes. Include the executed test count when a test runner applies. If a check does not apply, state the reason instead of inventing a passing result. Keep detailed command output available, but put only reviewer-relevant results in the PR description.
Reuse checks only while they cover the unchanged candidate. A failed or unavailable required check blocks delivery unless the user explicitly authorizes proceeding with that unmet check. Do not impose a test runner where none applies or require an empty working tree when unrelated changes can be safely excluded. Preserve unrelated work; use a verified isolated checkout when needed to establish the candidate. This verification does not authorize a commit, push, PR, tag, or release.
4. Prepare PRs and remote actions
For titles, descriptions, or PR creation, read PR description guidance. Draft from the final candidate and observed verification. Include a concise Validation section, or the repository template's equivalent, summarizing checks and manual flows actually verified. Keep detailed runner output in the working record. Drafting alone does not authorize publication.
Before an authorized push, verify the branch, remote, destination, and outgoing commits. Use a normal push. If rejected, inspect divergence and report the conflict; do not force-push or rewrite history as an automatic recovery.
Before creating or editing a PR, resolve its repository, head/base branches, title, body, and requested state. Present the exact proposed title/body and destination before publication unless that exact content and destination are already approved. Prepare the complete draft before asking for any missing approval. After creation, attach the PR when the host provides an attachment tool. Verify and report actual remote state; check for a successful write before retrying an ambiguous failure.
Create new PRs as drafts unless the user explicitly requests a ready-for-review
PR. Set the creation tool's draft flag explicitly (gh pr create --draft or
draft: true); a locally drafted description does not set GitHub's PR state.
Verify the created PR's draft state. Preserve an existing PR's state when editing
it, and mark a draft ready for review only when explicitly authorized. Passing
checks or a request to open or publish a PR does not imply ready-for-review state.
Do not change Git configuration, discard unrelated changes, skip checks or hooks, or perform destructive operations to finish delivery. These require specific user authorization. Never force-push a protected branch without a specific request.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

