resolve-merge-conflicts
Skill3 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Resolve every conflict in an ongoing Git rebase or merge and continue the operation to completion without routine confirmation prompts.
12 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- warpdotdev/common-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- Ronnasayd/aipptheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- Ionate-Technologies/indium-agentkittheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- zhouycheng/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- nortonx/ai-tooling-freetheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- stealth-factory/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use diagnose-ci-failures, write-product-spec and 6 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
zerx-labSkilldiagnose-ci-failures
Diagnose CI failures for a PR using the GitHub CLI, extract error logs, and generate a plan to fix them. Use when the user asks to check CI status, pull CI issues, triage test failures, or investigate PR build failures.
Also in 3 projects that use this
zerx-labSkillwrite-product-spec
Write a PRODUCT.md spec for a significant user-facing feature in Zap, focused on detailed behavior and validation. Use when the user asks for a product spec, desired behavior doc, or PRD, wants to define feature behavior before implementation, or when the feature is substantial or behaviorally ambiguous enough that a written spec would improve implementation or review.
Also in 3 projects that use this
charlesmatteSkillwrite-tech-spec
Generate a technical specification document from an existing PRD through relentless technical interview and codebase exploration. Use when user wants to write a tech spec, technical specification, technical design document, TDD (technical design doc), or go deeper on the technical details of a PRD.
Also in 3 projects that use this
gitpod-ioSkillfix-errors
Guidelines for fixing unhandled errors from the VS Code error telemetry dashboard. Use when investigating error-telemetry issues with stack traces, error messages, and hit/user counts. Covers tracing data flow through call stacks, identifying producers of invalid data vs. consumers that crash, enriching error messages for telemetry diagnosis, and avoiding common anti-patterns like silently swallowing errors.
Also in 3 projects that use this
busybutlazySkillupdate-skill
Use this skill when the user wants to modify an existing public skill in this repository's canonical-skills, revise its workflow, or update its package metadata and version.
Also in 3 projects that use this
DockerSkillreview-pr
Review one or more incoming Docker documentation pull requests as a maintainer. Independently validate technical claims, assess editorial fit and information architecture, choose a verdict, and draft exact inline or PR-wide feedback behind a confirmation gate. Use for requests such as "review PR 123", "is this PR correct?", "does this information belong here?", "validate this PR", or "help review backlog PRs". Do not use to maintain or fix a PR you own; use maintain-pr for that.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +2 more from zerx-lab
Other versions12 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 12
- github/gh-aw★ 5.6ksame name
- zerx-lab/warp★ 2.1ksame name
- zerx-lab/zap★ 2.1ksame name
- warpdotdev/common-skills★ 630same name
- Indium-AI-Labs/indium-agentkit★ 18same name
- Ionate-Technologies/indium-agentkit★ 17same name
- stealth-factory/skills★ 5same name
- khgouldy/skills★ 1same name
- nortonx/ai-tooling-free★ 1same name
- Ronnasayd/aipp★ 1same name
2 more not listed
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 repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- config/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- analyzeSkill
- app-resizabilitySkill
- code-reviewSkill
- device-interactionSkill
- figmaSkill
- git-commitSkill
- gitlab-glabSkill
- git-redateSkill
- jira-task-contextSkill
- jira-updateSkill
- mr-comment-resolutionSkill
- pragmatic-testingSkill
- swift-concurrencySkill
- tddSkill
- verifySkill
- xcodebuild-xcsiftSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 12 edited versions we read keep these.
9
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 15
Ask only when competing behaviors are materially incompatible and primary sources do not establish which one is intended, or when …
- Distinctive: line 16
If a decision is required, ask all currently known blocking questions together.
- Distinctive: line 18
Do not start a new rebase or merge.
- Distinctive: line 32
Read the complete conflict and enough surrounding code to understand both behaviors.
- Distinctive: line 36
Remove conflict markers and verify that Git reports no unmerged entries.
- Distinctive: line 39
Use git diff --check and the unmerged-path list as gates before continuing.
- Distinctive: line 53
If Git stops on another conflict, return immediately to step 2.
- Distinctive: line 55
If a replayed commit becomes empty, verify that all of its intended behavior is already present in the rebased result.
- Distinctive: line 57
Do not bypass failing hooks or use destructive recovery commands.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 12 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
Resolve Merge Conflicts
Complete an already-running rebase or merge. Invocation is authorization to resolve its conflicts, stage the resolved conflict files, and repeatedly continue until Git reports that the operation has finished. Do not pause for confirmation between conflict rounds.
Automation contract
- Infer routine resolutions from the code, the replayed commit, target-branch history, tests, and project guidance.
- Ask only when competing behaviors are materially incompatible and primary sources do not establish which one is intended, or when completion would require a destructive choice unrelated to normal conflict resolution.
- If a decision is required, ask all currently known blocking questions together. After the user answers, resume the loop automatically without requesting another general confirmation.
- Preserve unrelated working-tree changes. Never stash, reset, abort, force-push, or stage unrelated files.
- Do not start a new rebase or merge. If none is in progress, stop and report that clearly.
1. Establish the operation
Inspect Git status, the in-progress rebase/merge metadata, unmerged paths, and applicable repository instructions. Determine why Git stopped without asking the user for information already recorded by Git.
For a rebase, inspect the commit currently being replayed with git rebase --show-current-patch and relevant history. Remember that during a rebase Git's ours/theirs labels are counterintuitive: the current rebased target is one side and the commit being replayed is the other. Reason from intent and content, not the labels.
Completion criterion: the operation type, current replayed change, conflicted paths, and any unrelated work are accounted for.
2. Resolve the current stop
For every unmerged path:
- Read the complete conflict and enough surrounding code to understand both behaviors.
- Trace each side to primary sources where useful: commit messages and diffs, nearby history, Jira/MR context already available, tests, and project documentation.
- Preserve both intents when compatible. When they conflict, choose the behavior consistent with the target branch's current contracts and the replayed commit's actual purpose. Do not invent unrelated behavior.
- Handle modify/delete, rename, generated-file, and binary conflicts according to the same intent, rather than selecting a side mechanically.
- Remove conflict markers and verify that Git reports no unmerged entries.
- Stage exactly the files resolved for this conflict round. Avoid broad staging commands such as
git add -A.
Use git diff --check and the unmerged-path list as gates before continuing. A clean marker check alone is not proof that the semantic resolution is correct; inspect the resulting staged diff as well.
Completion criterion: every conflict in the current round is semantically resolved, no unmerged entries remain, and only operation-related paths were staged.
3. Continue until finished
Continue non-interactively so Git reuses the existing commit message instead of opening an editor:
GIT_EDITOR=true git rebase --continue
# or, for an ongoing merge
GIT_EDITOR=true git merge --continueIf Git stops on another conflict, return immediately to step 2. Repeat for every conflict round without asking for routine permission.
If a replayed commit becomes empty, verify that all of its intended behavior is already present in the rebased result. When it is, skip that now-redundant commit and continue automatically. If behavior would be lost, resolve that discrepancy instead of skipping.
Do not bypass failing hooks or use destructive recovery commands. Stop only when an error cannot be resolved within the ongoing operation, and report the exact blocker and Git state.
Completion criterion: Git reports the rebase or merge completed and no operation metadata or unmerged entries remain.
4. Verify and report
Inspect final status and recent history. Run focused verification appropriate to the resolved behavior when practical; when invoking xcodebuild, use the xcodebuild-xcsift workflow. Do not amend, create an extra commit, push, or force-push unless separately requested.
Report concisely:
- that the operation completed, or the exact blocker if it did not
- conflicts resolved and any meaningful resolution choices
- empty commits skipped, if any, and why they were redundant
- verification run and its result
- final Git status
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.

