gitpush
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Run the gates, write the commit message, commit and push. Use when the user says /gitpush or asks to commit and push. Requires explicit approval before the commit and never pushes past a failing gate.
- Reads credentials
- Commits and pushes
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- bohanyt/hermes-custom-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- sangre72/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Jan 1, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- bohanyt/hermes-custom-skills★ 1same name
- sangre72/claude-skills★ 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 repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- .claude/skills/vercel-composition-patterns/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .claude/skills/vercel-react-best-practices/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .claude/skills/vercel-react-view-transitions/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- analyzeSkill
- auditSkill
- browserSkill
- checkSkill
- shipSkill
- vercel-composition-patternsSkill
- vercel-react-best-practicesSkill
- vercel-react-view-transitionsSkill
- web-design-guidelinesSkill
- writing-guidelinesSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 19
Default: commit + push to the current branch.
- Distinctive: line 23
Run all three and read the output:
- Distinctive: line 31
A failing gate stops this skill: Do not commit, do not offer to commit anyway, do not describe the failure as pre-existing without checking …
- Very specific: line 40
If the change touches webview/src/, the definition of done also wants browser evidence — run /browser and fold what you measured into the …
- Distinctive: line 97
After the user approves the message:
- Distinctive: line 100
Commit with a heredoc so the formatting survives:
- Very specific: line 106
Never
--no-verify: If a hook fails, that is the hook working. - Distinctive: line 129
Show the message before committing: No silent commits.
≈ “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
You are running the commit/push flow. Optional input: $ARGUMENTS.
Parse it (all optional, any combination):
- A branch name → the push target. If it differs from the current branch, ask before switching or pushing there. Never auto-switch.
- "commit only" / "no push" / "без пуша" → run Phases 0–3 and stop after the commit.
- Anything else → extra context woven into the commit message. It does not replace the generated one.
Default: commit + push to the current branch.
Phase 0 — The gates. Not optional, not after the fact
Run all three and read the output:
bun run lint # tsc over BOTH projects, then eslint, then stylelint
bun run test # the count in CLAUDE.md, or better
bun run format:checkA failing gate stops this skill. Do not commit, do not offer to commit
anyway, do not describe the failure as pre-existing without checking git
stash first. Report which gate failed and what it said, then fix it or hand
back.
This phase exists because the alternative has already happened: a commit whose
message claimed verification while lint and format:check were both red. The
gates run before the message is written, not after.
If the change touches webview/src/**, the definition of done also wants
browser evidence — run /browser and fold what you measured into the message.
Phase 1 — Pre-flight
In parallel:
git status --shortgit branch --show-currentgit log --oneline @{u}..HEAD— local commits not yet pushedgit fetch originthengit log --oneline HEAD..@{u}— is the remote ahead
Then stop and ask if any of these are true:
- Nothing to commit and nothing unpushed → say so and exit. Never make an empty commit.
- Remote is ahead → propose
git pull --rebase. On conflict, stop; do not force. - A
.env, a credential-shaped file, or anything underghost.one/appears in status → stop immediately and warn.ghost.one/is an unrelated project living in-tree; it is gitignored, and its appearance means something broke. - A
.vsix,dist/,node_modules/or a large binary is staged → surface it. These are always accidents here.
Phase 2 — Write the message
The repo's style, matched to what is already in the log:
<type>(<scope>): <title, lowercase, under 70 chars, no period>
<Prose. Why this exists and what it changes — not a restatement of the
diff, which the reader can see. Wrap at 80. Several short paragraphs beat
one long one.>
<Where a non-obvious decision was made, say what the alternative was and
why it lost. Where something was measured, give the number.>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com><type>: feat · fix · refactor · chore · docs · style · perf ·
test · build. <scope> is optional and short — ui, cli, agents,
motion, brand.
What makes a message good here, from the log:
- It records what was invisible. "A dangling
s.someNamerenders unstyled and the build stays green" is worth more than a list of renamed files. - It records what was measured. "opacity at the quarter mark went 0.47 → 0.94 at the same 200ms" beats "improved the easing".
- It records the road not taken. "The obvious fix was to trace it parametrically, and measuring says don't: the rays curve."
- It never claims verification that did not happen.
Phase 3 — Commit
After the user approves the message:
git add -A— or a precise list if pre-flight surfaced anything unexpected- Commit with a heredoc so the formatting survives:
git commit -F - <<'MSG' <message> MSG - Never
--no-verify. If a hook fails, that is the hook working. - Never
--amenda pushed commit.
Phase 4 — Push
Skip entirely on "commit only".
git push origin HEAD- Never
--forceor--force-with-leaseunless the user says so explicitly, and never ontomainunder any phrasing.
On a non-fast-forward rejection: stop, show the error, propose a rebase.
Phase 5 — Report
- Branch, short hash, title
- Push status and the commit URL
(
https://github.com/oldmilky/luno-for-cc/commit/<sha>) - The gate results as numbers, not adjectives
Hard rules
- Gates first. A red gate ends the skill.
- Show the message before committing. No silent commits.
- Never commit
.env, credentials, build output, orghost.one/. - Never force-push. Never push to a branch the user did not name.
- Never make an empty commit.
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.

