source-control
Skill17 starsChanged 50 days agoMITView on GitHub
Git conventions for commit messages and workflow. Use for git commit, conventional commits, branch strategy, rebasing, merge conflicts, git workflow. Not for general code changes that happen to need a commit afterward.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- dracocephalum/dc-agenticstheir own version, first seen Oct 10, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- dracocephalum/dc-agentics★ 0same 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 repository37 other files it gives its agents.
- adrSkill
- android-kotlinSkill
- apple-swiftSkill
- autoresearch-promptSkill
- blog-writerSkill
- cloud-infrastructureSkill
- commitSkill
- cover-imageSkill
- freezeSkill
- gemini-reviewSkill
- golangSkill
- harness-mechanicSkill
- harness-traceSkill
- humanizerSkill
- ios-debuggerSkill
- knowledge-syncSkill
- learning-docsSkill
- learning-loopSkill
- obsidianSkill
- orchestratorSkill
- plan-forgeSkill
- process-clippingsSkill
- project-analyzerSkill
- project-checksSkill
- pr-reviewSkill
- pythonSkill
- railsSkill
- react-nextjsSkill
- refine-requirementsSkill
- releasing-softwareSkill
- rubySkill
- scoreSkill
- second-opinionSkill
- skill-forgeSkill
- terraformSkill
- test-design-reviewerSkill
- verify-frontendSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
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 84
After a PR is opened, CI failures and review comments arrive asynchronously.
- Very specific: line 93
Never force-push inside a loop.
- Distinctive: line 96
Stop condition is part of the prompt (CI green + comments addressed).
- Very specific: line 102
Commit, push the feature branch and open the PR without asking.
- Distinctive: line 103
NEVER work on main/master unless explicitly authorized
- Very specific: line 106
Run make check && make test-e2e before committing (see language skills for the expansion)
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
ABOUTME: Git conventional commit format and version control best practices
ABOUTME: Commit message standards, branch strategies, workflow patterns
Source Control
Quick Reference
git commit -m "feat: add user authentication"
git checkout -b feat/user-auth
git fetch origin && git rebase origin/main
git stash && git stash popConventional Commits
Format: <type>(<scope>): <subject> (scope/body/footer optional), standard Conventional Commits types.
Rules: Imperative mood, present tense, lowercase, no period, max 50 chars
# Good
git commit -m "feat(auth): add JWT validation"
git commit -m "fix: resolve race condition"
# Bad
git commit -m "Fixed stuff" # Not conventional
git commit -m "Feat: Add thing" # Capital letterCommit Process
- Check state:
git status && git diff HEAD && git branch --show-current && git log --oneline -5 - Verify NOT on main/master (abort if so, unless authorized)
- Stage specific files (never
git add -A):git add <specific-files> - Commit with conventional format:
git commit -m "<type>(<scope>): <subject>"
Branch Naming
| Type | Pattern |
| Feature | feat/user-auth, feature/dashboard |
| Fix | fix/login-bug, bugfix/api-error |
| Hotfix | hotfix/security-patch |
| Chore | chore/update-deps |
Workflow
| Use | When |
| Rebase | Keep feature branch current, clean linear history |
| Merge | Integrate to main (via PR), preserve history |
Post-PR Loop (babysitting)
After a PR is opened, CI failures and review comments arrive asynchronously. Instead of Max polling, offer a time-based loop:
/loop 10m check PR #<N>: if CI failed, diagnose and fix; if new review comments, address them; commit fixes on the PR branch and push; stop when CI is green and no comments are unaddressedRules for the loop:
- Push scope: the loop pushes fixes to the PR branch only; merging the PR stays with Max, even when CI is green and every comment is addressed.
- Never force-push inside a loop;
--force-with-leaseonly, and only for rebase-on-main conflicts Max asked for. - Commits inside the loop follow the same conventional format and pre-commit gate (
make check && make test-e2e); hooks are never bypassed under loop time pressure. - Match the interval to the external system: CI that takes ~10 minutes doesn't need a 2-minute loop.
- Stop condition is part of the prompt (CI green + comments addressed); the loop must not idle-run after the PR merges: cancel it from the session that started it (interrupt, or ask the loop to stop).
Rules
- Commit, push the feature branch and open the PR without asking; never merge a PR (no
gh pr merge, no auto-merge, no local merge into the integration branch or main): the merge is Max's review gate - NEVER work on
main/masterunless explicitly authorized - Small, logical commits; no huge unrelated changes
--force-with-lease, never bare--forceon shared branches- Run
make check && make test-e2ebefore committing (see language skills for the expansion) - Conflict resolution and recovery commands (reset, reflog, revert, amend): use standard git, no project-specific conventions here.
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.

