| name | commit-conventions |
| description | Use when creating git commits in any project. Covers mandatory commit body, Markdown formatting, staging discipline, the Write-tool + git-commit-F pattern for reliable commits, and post-commit verification. This skill should be used whenever Claude is about to create a git commit, even if another commit-related skill or plugin is also active โ this one provides the universal authoring rules. Triggers on: "commit", "git commit", "create a commit", "stage and commit", "fixup", "amend", "absorb", "autosquash", "reword".
|
Commit Conventions
These rules apply to ALL projects. They layer on top of any project-level
or organization-level commit conventions (e.g., Jira ticket scoping, commit
type semantics, PR templates).
Pick the path:
- Creating a brand-new commit โ follow Writing โ Staging โ Creating below.
- Amending code already on the current branch โ jump to ยง Fixup Workflow.
Don't hand-craft fixup targets; use
git absorb.
- Rewording a commit's message after rebase โ ยง Post-Autosquash Message Review.
Writing the Commit Message
Format:
<type>(<scope>): <subject>
<body>
Co-Authored-By: Claude <model> <noreply@anthropic.com>
Subject Line
- Max 72 characters
- Imperative mood ("add", not "added")
- No period at end
Body (required, except for fixups)
Every commit needs a body explaining WHY the change was made โ not just
restating what changed. A commit message without a body forces reviewers
to read the diff to understand intent, which slows down code review and
makes git history less useful.
What belongs in the body
The body's job is to give a reviewer what the diff can't: the constraint
that motivated the change, the alternatives that were rejected, and the
non-obvious decisions baked into the chosen approach.
Do include:
- The external constraint or fact that forced this change ("GHA only
propagates secrets through
uses: + secrets: inherit, not through
workflow_dispatch")
- Why this approach was chosen over alternatives ("
strings.Contains
rather than an enum because future Oracle scenarios should be covered
automatically")
- What the change deliberately does NOT do, and why ("no
BEACON_AGENT_VERSION input โ auto-alignment tracked by MIG-7276")
- Cross-references to related sites the reader should know about ("the
oracleImage() TODO cross-references this CI guard")
Don't restate things the diff already shows:
- Identifiers, strings, or values quoted from the diff. If the change
adds
slog.String("reason", "X"), don't add a paragraph that quotes
"X" back โ the reader sees it.
- File-structure inventories ("the README has three sections: 1... 2...
3..."). The reader can open the file.
- Mechanical plumbing inside a step (
set -euo pipefail, exit-status
branching, the exact kubectl invocations) when only the existence
and purpose of the step is the load-bearing fact.
- Justifications for stylistic choices the reader wouldn't otherwise
question ("multi-line
| description so the GitHub UI has room") โ
defending a routine formatting choice draws attention rather than
deflecting it.
Don't reference things the reader can't see:
The commit body's audience is "a future engineer reading git log,"
not "the agent / human at the moment of authoring." References that
only resolve in the authoring session are noise to that audience.
- Gitignored or out-of-repo artifacts (
agent-plans/..., scratch
notes, decisions ledgers, working-tree-only files, pr-description-notes.md).
Anyone reading the commit can't cat them. If the fact they capture
is load-bearing for the commit, inline the fact instead. If it isn't,
drop the reference.
- Plan-internal labels like
PR-BS1, Q13, Task 17, Phase 3 milestone, the cleanup commit per the lifecycle. Those names exist
in the agent's own progress tracking; in a commit body they read as
jargon to the reader, who has no way to resolve them. Refer to things
that ARE in the repo or git history: file paths, commit SHAs, ticket
keys, ref/branch names, PR numbers (once known).
- Cross-PR coordination narrative ("merge minutes before X",
"do this last per the race window"). The reasoning is real, but it
belongs in the PR description / merge-queue comment, not in a commit
body that outlives both.
If the change has external proof that helps a reviewer trust it (CI
run URLs, a passing dispatch, a reproduced bug log), link to it
directly in the body โ those are reachable to a future reader.
Rule of thumb: if a sentence would still be true word-for-word without
this commit, or if it just narrates the diff, cut it.
Formatting
- Wrap at 72 characters per line
- Use multiple paragraphs for longer explanations โ group related ideas
- For enumerations of 3+ items, prefer a bulleted list over a
parenthetical or semicolon-separated inline list โ easier to scan,
easier to extend in a later commit
- Name the specific owner of a resource rather than a generic category
(write "
edbpgai-bootstrap repository secrets", not "org secrets" โ
if the reader needs to grant or rotate the secret, the generic noun
doesn't tell them where to go)
- Use Markdown formatting: wrap code identifiers in backticks
(function names, component names, prop names, file names, types)
Exception: Fixup commits created by git absorb or
git commit --fixup=<sha> are subject-only by design. Autosquash discards
fixup bodies, so the why lives in the squashed commit's body โ verified
in the Post-Autosquash Message Review step.
Example:
feat(MIG-7922): add File Assessments table to application details
Add the `FileAssessmentsTable` component to the Application Details
page, backed by the `useFileAssessments` hook. The table shows
assessment results per file so users can see which files need attention
without navigating to a separate view.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Staging
Never use git add . or git add -A. Always stage specific files by
name: git add path/to/file1 path/to/file2.
When multiple agents work in parallel on the same worktree, git add .
can sweep up another agent's unstaged changes into your commit. Even in
solo work, it risks committing .env files, credentials, or other
unintended files. Explicit staging is always safer.
Creating the Commit
Shell escaping is fragile for multi-line commit messages, especially
with backticks and special characters like ! in fixup!. Use the
Write tool + git commit -F pattern instead:
- Write the commit message to a unique file matching
/private/tmp/claude/commit-<id>.txt using the Write tool
(e.g. commit-msg.txt, commit-fixup-upload.txt). Use a
descriptive <id> so parallel agents don't overwrite each other.
- Run:
git commit -F /private/tmp/claude/commit-<id>.txt
After Committing
Run git status to verify the commit succeeded and no unintended files
were included.
Fixup Workflow
When amending code already on the current branch (relative to upstream),
use git absorb for target attribution. Don't hand-roll the
"which commit owns this hunk?" decision when blame-based attribution
already exists and is correct.
Hard requirements
Both tools must be installed:
git absorb โ runs git blame on each staged hunk against commits
in the current branch range and creates fixup! commits with the
correct --fixup=<sha> target.git-branchless โ used in the post-autosquash step (below) to
reword commits without manual interactive rebase.
If either is missing, report it to the user and stop. Don't fall back
to a hand-rolled blame loop.
Steps
-
Stage the change. Specific files only, per the staging rule above.
git absorb only inspects staged hunks โ anything you forget to
stage is silently skipped. Run git status after staging to confirm
nothing relevant is left out.
-
Run git absorb. Let absorb create fixup! commits with its
own auto-generated bodies โ don't pass -m.
Skip --dry-run: the resulting commits are trivially reversible with
git reset --soft HEAD~N, and step 3 inspects the outcome via
git log / git status anyway.
-
Inspect the outcome. Run git log --oneline -10 to see what
absorb created, and git status to see if any hunks were left
unstaged because absorb couldn't attribute them.
-
Handle leftovers. For each leftover hunk or file, judge semantic
fit using git log --oneline <merge-base>..HEAD --stat:
| Situation | Action |
|---|
| Clear single semantic match to a branch commit | Hand-author a fixup: git commit --fixup=<sha>. No message file โ git auto-generates fixup! <subject> and ignores -F/-m with --fixup. The PostToolUse verify-fixup-scope.py hook runs as a file-scope safety net. |
| Clearly net-new (new file, unrelated concern) | Normal commit using the standard rules above. |
| Uncertain | Ask the user. Run git log --oneline <merge-base>..HEAD and present the candidate commits inline; don't default to a standalone commit. |
Why no -m to git absorb
-m applies the same body to every fixup absorb generates. When absorb
produces multiple fixups (each targeting a different commit), each has
its own why, so a shared body is wrong. Letting absorb use its
auto-generated subject-only message is fine for fixups specifically โ
autosquash discards the fixup body anyway. The semantic review of the
final squashed commit happens in the post-autosquash step.
Post-Autosquash Message Review
After the user approves and runs git rebase --autosquash <base>, the
fixups are folded into their targets. Squashing in new code can make
the original commit's subject or body stale. Review every commit that
absorbed a fixup.
- Capture target subjects before rebase. Run
git log --grep='^fixup!' --format='%s' <base>..HEAD and strip the
fixup! prefix from each. Those subjects identify the commits to
re-review post-rebase.
- After the rebase, for each captured target subject, find the
post-rebase commit with that subject โ that's the squashed result
to review.
- Review each one. Run
git show <sha>. For each:
- Does the subject still describe what the commit does?
- Does the body still cover the why of everything now in the
diff (original work + absorbed fix)?
- Report โ don't auto-reword. Per-commit verdict:
still accurate / body should mention <X> /
subject no longer describes the change. The user decides whether
to reword.
Rewording on approval
When the user approves a reword:
- Write the new full commit message to
/private/tmp/claude/reword-msg-<id>.txt using the Write tool.
Include subject, body, and Co-Authored-By trailer.
- Run:
GIT_EDITOR='cp /private/tmp/claude/reword-msg-<id>.txt' git branchless reword <sha>
Always spell out git branchless reword โ git reword may be
aliased to git stack reword (a different tool), which would silently
do the wrong thing. git branchless reword automatically rebases
descendants onto the rewritten commit; no manual git rebase -i
needed.
- Verify:
git log --format=%B -n 1 <new-sha> (the SHA changes โ read
it from the branchless output). If the message is empty, the cp
path was wrong and git aborted; re-check the file path.
