semantic-commit

name	semantic-commit
description	Analyze pending code changes and commit them in semantically grouped commits. Use when: committing code, grouping changes, splitting commits, organizing staged files, preparing atomic commits. Enforces that each commit is a single coherent unit of work -- functionally and technically meaningful.
argument-hint	Optional scope hint (e.g. 'auth module changes') or leave blank to auto-detect

Semantic Commit

Analyze all pending code changes, partition them into semantically meaningful groups, and commit each group as a separate, atomic commit with a descriptive conventional-commit message.

When to Use

• After completing implementation work that touched multiple concerns
• When git status shows a mix of unrelated changes across files
• Before submitting a PR to clean up the commit history

Note: This skill is a user-facing utility invoked via commit-changes.prompt.md. Pipeline agents (Coder, Review Coordinator, Docs Agent, etc.) use their own inline commit workflows defined in their <commit_policy> sections and do NOT dispatch this skill.

Principles

1. One logical change per commit - a commit should be explainable in a single sentence
2. Functional cohesion - group files that serve the same functional purpose (e.g. a feature endpoint + its tests + its docs)
3. Technical cohesion - group files that share the same technical concern when they do not belong to a single feature (e.g. dependency updates, linter config, CI pipeline)
4. Atomic correctness - each commit must leave the codebase in a valid state; never commit half a rename or a function call without the function definition
5. No mixed concerns - never combine a bug fix with a feature, a refactor with a config change, or test-only changes with source changes (unless the test is for the exact code being added in that commit)

Commit Message Format

<type>(<scope>): <short imperative description>

Field	Rules
type	feat, fix, refactor, test, docs, chore, style, perf, ci, build
scope	Module, component, or area touched (e.g. auth, api, ci, deps). Omit only if the change is truly cross-cutting.
description	Imperative mood, lowercase start, no period, max 72 characters. Describes what the commit does, not why.

If a task or work-package ID is known, append it in parentheses: feat(auth): add token refresh endpoint (WP03 T03-02)

Procedure

Step 1 - Assess the working tree

git status
git diff --stat
git diff --stat --cached

Collect the full list of modified, added, deleted, and renamed files. Note which are staged vs unstaged.

Step 2 - Read the diffs

For each changed file, read the diff to understand what changed:

git diff -- <file>          # unstaged
git diff --cached -- <file> # staged

Build a mental model of every discrete change: new function, moved class, updated config value, added test, fixed bug, etc.

Step 3 - Identify semantic groups

Partition the changes into groups following these heuristics (in priority order):

Priority	Grouping heuristic	Example
1	Feature slice - source + test + docs for one feature	auth/login.py + tests/test_login.py + docs/api-reference.md (login section)
2	Bug fix - minimal set of files that fix one defect	cart/pricing.py + tests/test_pricing.py
3	Refactor unit - rename, extract, restructure one concept	utils/helpers.py (split) + utils/string_helpers.py + utils/date_helpers.py + all updated imports
4	Config / tooling - build, lint, CI, dependency changes	pyproject.toml + .github/workflows/ci.yml
5	Documentation standalone - docs not tied to a code change	README.md + docs/setup-guide.md
6	Style / formatting - whitespace, import sorting, linting	auto-formatted files with no logic changes

Splitting rules:

• If a single file contains changes belonging to two groups (e.g. a bug fix AND a new feature in the same file), note this and ask the user whether to commit the file with the dominant group or to interactively stage hunks.
• If changes are too entangled to split cleanly, commit them together under the broader scope and note it in the commit body.

Step 4 - Validate group integrity

For each group, verify:

• The group compiles/parses on its own (no broken imports, dangling references)
• Tests in the group pass in isolation with the rest of the codebase at HEAD
• No file appears in more than one group
• The commit message accurately describes exactly what this group does

If a group would break the build when applied alone, merge it with the group it depends on.

Step 5 - Commit each group

For each group, in dependency order (foundational changes first):

# Reset staging area to start clean
git reset HEAD

# Stage only the files for this semantic group
git add <file1> <file2> ...

# Verify only intended files are staged
git diff --cached --stat

# Commit with a conventional message
git commit -m "<type>(<scope>): <description>"

Critical rules:

• NEVER use git add . or git add -A - always list files explicitly
• NEVER use git add -p without user confirmation - hunk splitting is interactive
• ALWAYS verify the staged diff before committing
• ALWAYS commit groups in dependency order so each commit leaves the repo valid
• If the user provided a task/WP ID, include it in the commit message

Step 6 - Final verification

git log --oneline -<N>   # N = number of commits just made

Present the commit log to the user for confirmation.

Edge Cases

Situation	Action
Only one logical change	Single commit - no need to split
All changes are in one file	Single commit unless the diff clearly shows unrelated hunks
Merge conflicts present	Stop and alert the user - do not commit on top of conflicts
Uncommitted .env or secrets	NEVER commit - warn the user and skip those files
Generated / lock files	Group with the dependency change that caused them (e.g. package-lock.json with package.json)
Empty staging after reset	Re-check git status - files may already be committed or discarded

What This Skill Does NOT Do

• It does not push to a remote -- the user or a CI pipeline decides when to push
• It does not amend or rebase existing commits -- it only creates new commits from pending changes
• It does not resolve merge conflicts
• It does not make judgment calls about whether code is correct -- it only organizes and commits