git-commit
Skill4 starsChanged 40 days agoMITView on GitHub
Execute atomic git commits with conventional commit message analysis, intelligent staging, and message generation. Trigger: When user asks to commit changes, create a git commit, or mentions "/commit".
- Reads credentials
174 other projects use a version of this, 33 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- HAOYI99/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- swjybky/deepwritetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- PC2005-cloud/dsh-pettheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- stuff4ai/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- apattichis/agentic-research-toolkittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Darna-Digital/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use git-pr, github-pr-create and 9 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.
klauswgSkillgit-pr
Prepare, review, publish, or update a complete GitHub pull request for the current repository, including local commit readiness, safe push strategy, semantic title validation, repository-native PR templates, issue linking, and checks verification. Use when the user asks to draft, create, submit, publish, open, or update a pull request. Always require the user to review and explicitly approve the exact final PR before any push or GitHub write.
Also in 11 projects that use this
mjun0812Skillgithub-pr-create
Pull Requestを作成するSkill。現在のbranchからpull requestを作成する。言語指定可能。 ユーザーが「PR作って」「pull request作成して」のように依頼したら使うこと。
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillgit-branch
Branch management for implementation. Use when you need to create a branch, switch branches, checkout, or verify branching strategy before implementing code. Do not use for commits (use git-commit), pull requests (use pull-request), or advanced git operations (rebase, merge).
Also in 4 projects that use this
klauswgSkillgit-issue
Prepare, review, create, or update evidence-based GitHub issues for the current repository with duplicate detection, repository-native templates, valid labels, and post-publication verification. Use when the user asks to draft, file, submit, publish, edit, or refine a GitHub issue, bug report, feature request, performance issue, or technical proposal. Always require the user to review and explicitly approve the exact final issue before any GitHub write.
Also in 3 projects that use this
gologo13Skillgit-push
Push current branch to origin and sync with remote updates; keywords: git, rebase. Use only on explicit request; before execution, review diffs and list impact scope.
Also in 6 projects that use this
GoogleSkillgithub-pr-review
Review a GitHub pull request and leave inline comments in a natural human reviewing voice, indistinguishable from comments typed by hand on the GitHub web UI. Deliberately bounded to defects a reader can settle by looking at the anchored line, rather than a deep audit, so every comment is cheap for the author to check. Scales to 2-20 comments by PR size, parallelises analysis across sub-agents, drafts for approval, then posts individually with human pacing. Use when the user says "review this PR", "review PR 123", pastes a github.com/.../pull/N link, or asks for comments on a pull request. Don't use for reviewing local uncommitted changes or a diff against a branch (use the `review` skill for that).
Also in 4 projects that use this
Other versions174 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 33
- doocs/leetcode★ 37k52% same
- doocs/md★ 14k28% same
- GitTools/GitVersion★ 3.1k48% same
- lnikell/loopndroll★ 56753% same
- diodeme/Gold-Band★ 16449% same
- getlago/lago-front★ 16353% same
- jmrplens/gitlab-mcp-server★ 4740% same
- jaskirat1616/grok-skills★ 2249% same
- louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-template★ 1953% same
- klauswg/sasuke★ 1753% same
23 more not listed
Wrote their own version · 141
- github/awesome-copilot★ 41ksame name
- tisfeng/Easydict★ 15ksame name
- spinabot/brigade★ 11ksame name
- PC2005-cloud/dsh-pet★ 5.9ksame name
- igorescodro/alkaa★ 1.6ksame name
- microsoft/hve-core★ 1.6ksame name
- mattmireles/gemma-tuner-multimodal★ 1.5ksame name
- rohaquinlop/complexipy★ 909same name
- decebals/claude-code-java★ 763same name
- swjybky/deepwrite★ 722same name
131 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 repository18 other files it gives its agents.
- api-designSkill
- changelog-maintenanceSkill
- code-mentorSkill
- create-readmeSkill
- database-designSkill
- dockerSkill
- frontend-design-anti-slopSkill
- frontend-engineeringSkill
- github-essentialsSkill
- java-junitSkill
- java-springbootSkill
- java-springboot-testingSkill
- latexSkill
- solution-designSkill
- ui-componentsSkill
- update-readmeSkill
- vault-tech-noteSkill
- web-mvcSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 134 edited versions we read keep these.
12
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
- could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
- Distinctive: line 21
Core principle: one commit = one deliverable behavior: If the working tree has multiple unrelated changes, do NOT commit them together.
- Distinctive: line 43
If 2+ unrelated concerns exist: stop. Do NOT stage everything.
- Distinctive: line 79
If the staged changes fail any check — stop, unstage (git restore --staged .), and re-split.
- Distinctive: line 105
If you have a GPG or SSH signing key configured:
- Distinctive: line 213
Keep description under 72 characters
- Distinctive: line 278
When including a body, focus on what changed and why, not implementation diary:
- Distinctive: line 303
Use paragraphs, not bullet lists
- Distinctive: line 327
NEVER update git config
- Distinctive: line 328
NEVER run destructive commands (--force, hard reset) without explicit request
- Distinctive: line 329
NEVER skip hooks (--no-verify) unless user asks
- Distinctive: line 330
NEVER force push to main/master
- Distinctive: line 331
If commit fails due to hooks, fix and create NEW commit (don't amend)
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 134 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
When to Use
- Creating a new git commit
- User asks to "commit changes" or "create a commit"
- User mentions "/commit" command
- Analyzing changes for conventional commit format
Instructions
Core principle: one commit = one deliverable behavior. If the working tree has multiple unrelated changes, do NOT commit them together. Commit one, then the next.
0. Classify the Changes (MANDATORY)
# See everything that changed (tracked + untracked)
git status --porcelain
# See full diff
git diff
# Also see staged if resuming a partial commit
git diff --stagedGroup every change by which deliverable behavior it belongs to:
- Bug fix A (e.g., null pointer in login)
- Feature B (e.g., dark mode toggle)
- Refactor C (e.g., extract auth helper)
- Config D (e.g., CI workflow change)
If 2+ unrelated concerns exist: stop. Do NOT stage everything. Show the user the groups and ask: "Which one do you want to commit now?"
If only one concern: proceed directly to step 1.
1. Stage This Atomic Change ONLY
Stage only the files or hunks that belong to the selected logical change:
# Stage specific files
git add path/to/file1 path/to/file2
# Stage individual hunks when a file has mixed concerns
git add -p path/to/file-with-mixed-changes
# Stage by pattern
git add src/feature-b/*Never commit secrets (.env, credentials.json, private keys). Add these to .gitignore preventively.
Never use bare git add . without first verifying it only captures one concern.
2. Verify Atomic Staging (MANDATORY GATE)
git diff --stagedConfirm the staged diff passes The Review Test:
- Is this ONE deliverable behavior?
- Does the repo compile/build with ONLY this change?
- Can someone understand what it does from the diff?
- Are tests included if this adds or changes behavior?
If the staged changes fail any check — stop, unstage (git restore --staged .), and re-split.
3. Generate Commit Message
Analyze the staged diff to determine:
- Type: What kind of change is this?
- Scope: What area/module is affected?
- Description: One-line summary of what changed (present tense, imperative mood, <72 chars)
4. Execute Commit
# Multi-line (body is mandatory)
git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
<type>(<scope>): <description>
<body>
[optional footer]
EOF
)"5. Signed Commits (GPG/SSH)
If you have a GPG or SSH signing key configured:
# Sign a single commit
git commit -S -m "type(scope): description"
# Or configure Git to sign all commits by default
git config --global commit.gpgsign trueGitHub marks signed commits as Verified. See GitHub's signing guide to set up a key.
Commands
# Check what's staged
git diff --staged
# Check status
git status --porcelain
# Stage specific files for an atomic commit
git add src/feature-b/*
# Stage individual hunks (mixed concerns in one file)
git add -p src/file-with-mixed-changes
# Commit with message
git commit -m "type(scope): description"
# Multi-line commit (body is mandatory in this skill)
git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
type(scope): description
Body text here
Footer: reference
EOF
)"
# Unstage everything (keep changes in working tree)
git restore --staged .
# Unstage a single file
git restore --staged path/to/file
# Amend last commit message (before pushing)
git commit --amend -m "type(scope): corrected message"
# Add forgotten files to last commit (before pushing)
git add forgotten-file.ts && git commit --amend --no-edit
# Create fixup commit for later rebase
git commit --fixup HEAD~2
# Autosquash fixup commits during rebase
git rebase -i --autosquash HEAD~5
# Preview the commit without creating it
git commit --dry-runConventional Commit Format
<type>[optional scope]: <description>
[optional body]
[optional footer(s)]Note: A blank line is REQUIRED between description and body. Body is mandatory — explain the why, not just the what.
Commit Types
| Type | Purpose |
feat | New feature |
fix | Bug fix |
docs | Documentation only |
style | Formatting/style (no logic) |
refactor | Code refactor (no feature/fix) |
perf | Performance improvement |
test | Add/update tests |
build | Build system/dependencies |
ci | CI/config changes |
chore | Maintenance/misc |
revert | Revert commit |
Breaking Changes
# Exclamation mark after type/scope
feat!: remove deprecated endpoint
# BREAKING CHANGE footer
feat: allow config to extend other configs
BREAKING CHANGE: `extends` key behavior changedBest Practices
- One logical change per commit
- Present tense: "add" not "added"
- Imperative mood: "fix bug" not "fixes bug"
- Reference issues:
Closes #123,Refs #456 - Keep description under 72 characters
Atomic Commits & Logical Order
Definition
A commit represents a deliverable behavior, fix, migration, or documentation unit — not a file type or architectural layer.
Logical Order
Commits must follow dependency order so each step is independently verifiable:
- Dependencies first — models, types, schemas, migrations
- Behavior after — services, use cases, business logic
- Integration at the end — wiring, endpoints, UI, configuration
Tests belong in the same commit as the behavior they verify. Docs belong in the same commit as the user-visible change they explain.
The Review Test
Before committing, confirm:
- Can this commit be understood on its own?
- Does the repo compile / build with ONLY this commit applied?
- Can I revert this commit without breaking unrelated work?
- Are tests included if this commit adds or changes behavior?
Good vs Weak Splits
Weak — split by file type (avoid):
feat: add User model
feat: add User service
feat: add User controller
feat: add User testsWhy: each commit leaves the repo in a broken or incomplete state. Tests arrive after the fact, so nothing is verifiable mid-series.
Strong — split by behavior, logical order:
feat(auth): add User model with validation rules
feat(auth): implement user registration with tests
feat(auth): wire registration endpointWhy: each commit is self-contained. The repo compiles after every step. git bisect works reliably.
Anti-Patterns
| Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails |
| Tests in a separate commit | Behavior can't be verified until tests arrive — breaks git bisect |
| Docs as a follow-up commit | Docs arrive after the feature shipped, confusing users |
| Refactor + feature in one commit | Two concerns: impossible to review or revert cleanly |
| Mid-series compilation broken | Every commit must compile — otherwise the series is not atomic |
git add . without reviewing staging | Groups unrelated changes into one commit, losing atomicity |
Commit Body
The body is MANDATORY. Include a blank line between the description and body.
When including a body, focus on what changed and why, not implementation diary:
Good body:
Add rate limiting to API endpoints
Users were hitting the API too frequently, causing server strain.
This change implements token bucket algorithm to throttle requests.Bad body (implementation diary):
Add rate limiting
- Added RateLimiter class
- Created middleware
- Added config file
- Fixed testsBody Guidelines
- Explain the reason for the change
- Describe the problem being solved
- Mention consequences or trade-offs
- Use paragraphs, not bullet lists
- Wrap at 72 characters
Footer
Footer is optional. Use for:
- Breaking changes:
BREAKING CHANGE: <description> - Issue references:
Closes #123,Refs #456
Related Skills
| Skill | When to Use |
work-unit-commits | Plan commits as reviewable slices — use before writing code |
chained-pr | Split large changes into stacked PRs that protect review focus |
Resources
Git Safety Protocol
- NEVER update git config
- NEVER run destructive commands (--force, hard reset) without explicit request
- NEVER skip hooks (--no-verify) unless user asks
- NEVER force push to main/master
- If commit fails due to hooks, fix and create NEW commit (don't amend)
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.

