commit

# Commit Workflow You are creating a git commit for Rock RMS. This skill orchestrates two pre-commit checks (related specs, release-note classification) and hands off to the standard git commit flow defined in the system prompt's "Committing changes with git" section. **Do not duplicate or override the system prompt's safety rules**: this skill layers on top of them, it does not replace them. **Argument:** $ARGUMENTS --- ## Output Style **Be terse. Do not narrate the workflow.** - Do NOT announce phases ("Phase 1:", "Phase 2:", "Skipping Phase 1"). Phases are internal structure for this skill, not user-facing labels. - Do NOT explain what you are about to do or what you skipped. If a phase has nothing to ask the user about, move on silently. - Ask direct questions only. Use yes/no for binary choices, or a numbered list (1. 2. 3.) when there are several options. Never ask an open-ended question if a closed one will do. - Always include the **drafted commit message in a fenced code block** when asking the user to confirm. The user should be able to read the exact text that will be committed. - One question per turn unless they are tightly related (e.g., release-note y/n + the draft can come together). Example of the right tone: > Found one spec that may be related: **Lava entity ToString regression** (`specs/260428-lava-entity-select-tostring-regression.md`). > > Mark it complete after this commit? > 1. Yes > 2. No Example of the wrong tone: > ## Phase 1: Detect related specs > > I'll now look through the active specs to see if any of them might be related to the changes in this commit. Let me check each one and report back... --- ## Workflow The phases run in order. **Run them silently if there is nothing to ask the user about.** Surface a question only when the skill genuinely needs an answer. 1. **Detect related specs.** Find active specs that look related to the diff. If any score, ask about each. If none score, move on without comment. 2. **Classify the commit.** Ask whether this belongs in release notes. Draft the commit message and show it for confirmation. 3. **Commit.** Hand off to the standard git commit flow with the confirmed message. 4. **Complete flagged specs.** After the commit succeeds, capture the hash and invoke the `spec` skill in completion mode for each spec the user flagged. If the diff is empty (`git diff --cached` and `git diff` both empty), stop and tell the user there is nothing to commit. --- ## Phase 1 — Detect Related Specs ### 1.1 Gather signals Run these in parallel: - `git status --porcelain` to see what files changed. - `git diff --stat HEAD` to see the size and shape of the change. - `git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD` to get the current branch name. - Glob `specs/*.md` to list active specs (do NOT include `specs/completed/**`). If `specs/` is empty or only contains `completed/`, skip the rest of Phase 1. ### 1.2 Score specs for relevance For each active spec, read its YAML frontmatter and any "Affected Code Paths" or "Proposed Fix" section. A spec is **likely related** if any of the following hold: - **Branch-name match.** The branch contains a recognizable token from the spec's filename (excluding the timestamp prefix) or from the spec's H1 title. - **File-path overlap.** The diff touches a file listed in the spec's `related_files` frontmatter or in its "Affected Code Paths" section. - **Conversation mention.** The user explicitly named the spec in this conversation (by topic, filename, or title). Score conservatively. **Only ask about specs with a real signal.** Asking about every active spec on every commit is noise; the user will start ignoring the prompt. If no spec scores, skip ahead to Phase 2 silently. ### 1.3 Ask about each candidate If one candidate, ask in yes/no form. If two or more, present a numbered list and let the user pick which to mark complete. **One candidate:** > Found one spec that may be related: **[spec H1 title]** (`[path]`). > > Mark it complete after this commit? > 1. Yes > 2. No **Multiple candidates:** > Found these specs that may be related: > > 1. **[spec 1 H1 title]** (`[path 1]`) > 2. **[spec 2 H1 title]** (`[path 2]`) > 3. **[spec 3 H1 title]** (`[path 3]`) > > Which (if any) should be marked complete after this commit? (numbers, comma-separated, or "none") Record the user's answers. Flag the chosen ones for Phase 4. Do not narrate "skipping the unselected ones". If the user picks a spec whose diff looks partial (e.g., the spec proposes changes to five files and the diff only touches two), warn briefly with a yes/no: > The spec lists 5 files but the diff only touches 2. Mark complete anyway? > 1. Yes, mark complete > 2. No, wait for the rest If no candidates score, do not say "no related specs found". Move on silently. --- ## Phase 2 — Classify the Commit ### 2.1 Ask the release-notes question Ask the user the binary question with the drafted message attached so they can answer once and confirm in the same turn. Internal heuristic for the recommendation: **yes** if a Rock customer reading the changelog would benefit from knowing about the change; **no** if it is internal cleanup, test infrastructure, comment-only edits, or a rebase artifact. Include a one-line rationale for your recommendation so the user can override it cleanly. Format the prompt like this (terse, two drafts side by side, both rendered exactly as they would commit): > Release-note commit? > > 1. Yes, release-note (`+` prefix) > 2. No, minor commit (`-` prefix) > > My recommendation: **[1 or 2]**. [One-sentence rationale.] > > If 1, the message will be: > > ``` > + (Domain) Verb description. (Fixes #XXXX) > ``` > > If 2, the message will be: > > ``` > - description > ``` > > Confirm or tell me what to change. If the user provided an explicit signal in `$ARGUMENTS` (e.g., "minor", "release-note", "+", "-"), skip the binary question. Show only the one drafted message and ask for confirmation: > Drafting as a [release-note | minor] commit: > > ``` > [exact drafted message] > ``` > > Confirm or tell me what to change. ### 2.2 Draft the message The full message format is documented in `CLAUDE.md` under "Commit Messages". The canonical domain list and path-to-domain mapping live in `.claude/rules/rock-domains.md`. **Do not duplicate either here. Read those files when in doubt.** #### If yes (release-note commit) Format: ``` + (Domain) Verb description. (Fixes #XXXX) ``` - **Prefix:** `+`. Always. - **Domain:** one of the release-note domains in `.claude/rules/rock-domains.md`. Pick by inspecting the changed file paths against the path-to-domain mapping in that file. If the change spans two domains, pick the one closest to the user-visible feature, not the supporting infrastructure. If the change is genuinely cross-cutting and no single domain fits, use `Other`. - **Verb:** `Fixed` for bugs, `Added` for new features, `Improved` for enhancements, `Updated` for changes that don't fit "Fixed" or "Improved" cleanly. The verb decides classification in release notes; pick it deliberately. - **Description:** complete, readable as a release-note. The reader should understand what changed without seeing the code. Past tense. - **Issue number:** append `(Fixes #XXXX)` if the user provided one or it is in `$ARGUMENTS`. Skip the parenthetical entirely if there is no issue. #### If no (minor commit) Format: ``` - description ``` - **Prefix:** `-`. Always. - **No domain, no verb classification, no period required.** Minor commits are not parsed for release notes. - **Description:** short and direct. Imperative or past tense, either is fine. #### Examples ``` + (Core) Fixed the friendly schedule text display for single-date schedules. (Fixes #6694) + (Finance) Added support for ACH refunds on the NMI gateway. + (CRM) Improved the duplicate detection merge process to preserve giving records. + (Group) Updated the Group Scheduler to allow Warning-state members to be scheduled. - Fixed typo in variable name - Removed unused using statement - Reformatted long lines in GroupMemberService ``` ### 2.3 Confirmation The drafted message is already shown in 2.1. Wait for the user's response. Acceptable responses: - A bare number (`1` or `2`) to pick a draft option. - "Yes" / "go" / "ship it" / "lgtm" — accept the recommended draft. - A correction ("change domain to Group", "drop the issue number", "say 'Improved' instead of 'Updated'") — apply the change and re-show only the updated message in a fenced block, then ask once more for confirmation. Do NOT re-explain the format or list adjustment options unprompted. The user knows what they want. --- ## Phase 3 — Commit Hand off to the system prompt's "Committing changes with git" workflow with the confirmed message. The system prompt handles: - Parallel `git status` / `git diff` / `git log` for context (already done in Phase 1, but the system prompt may re-do). - Staging via specific file names (avoid `git add -A` per the system prompt's safety rules). - HEREDOC-formatted commit message. - The `Co-Authored-By: Claude ...` trailer. - All commit safety rules (no `--no-verify`, no force push without explicit user instruction, no amending pushed commits, etc.). **Do not bypass these rules.** The skill is an orchestrator on top of the system prompt's commit flow, not a replacement for it. If a pre-commit hook fails, **stop and surface the error**. Fix the underlying issue and create a NEW commit. Do not amend; the failed commit did not happen. --- ## Phase 4 — Complete Flagged Specs Run only if Phase 1 flagged one or more specs for completion AND Phase 3's commit succeeded. ### 4.1 Capture the commit hash ```bash git rev-parse HEAD ``` ### 4.2 Hand off to the spec skill For each flagged spec, invoke the `spec` skill in completion mode (it auto-detects completion intent from the trigger phrasing). Pass: - The spec path (e.g., `specs/260428-foo.md`). - The commit hash captured in 4.1. The spec skill will: - Move the file to `specs/completed/{domain}/`. - Update `specs/completed/INDEX.md` with the spec row, including the commit hash. - Optionally prompt about updating related docs (handled by the spec skill's own completion flow). ### 4.3 Confirm After all flagged specs are completed, summarize: - The commit hash and one-line message. - The list of specs that were moved into `specs/completed/{domain}/`. - Any docs that were updated as a side effect. Stop. Do not paste the commit diff or the spec contents back into chat. --- ## Safety Rules - **Never skip hooks** (`--no-verify`, `--no-gpg-sign`) unless the user has explicitly asked. If a hook fails, fix the underlying issue and create a new commit. - **Never auto-amend.** A failed commit is not a commit; amending the previous one risks losing prior work. - **Never force-push.** Especially never force-push to `main` or `master`. If the user asks for a force push, warn first and confirm. - **Stage specific files.** Prefer adding files by name. `git add -A` and `git add .` can include `.env`, credentials, or large binaries the user did not intend. - **Never share secrets.** If the diff contains anything that looks like a credential, API key, or `.env` value, stop and warn before staging. - **Do not auto-run `/check`.** Offer it before commit if the user has not run it; do not impose it. Some commits are intentionally WIP or doc-only. --- ## Edge Cases **The diff is empty.** Tell the user there is nothing to commit. Do not invent changes. **The user wants to skip the spec check.** If the user says "skip the spec check" or similar in `$ARGUMENTS`, skip Phase 1 entirely. **The user wants to skip the release-notes prompt.** If `$ARGUMENTS` contains "minor", "release-note", "+", or "-", use that as the answer and skip Phase 2's question. **The diff spans multiple domains.** Pick the domain closest to the user-visible feature per `.claude/rules/rock-domains.md`. If genuinely cross-cutting, use `Other` and explain in the description. **The branch name suggests a spec but the diff does not touch any of its files.** Ask the user. The branch may be misnamed, or the diff may be the first of several commits intended to close the spec. Do not auto-flag. **Multiple specs match the same diff.** Ask about each separately. The user may be closing several at once, or may want to close some and not others. **A pre-commit hook fails after Phase 2.** Phase 3 stops. Do not run Phase 4. Do not amend. Fix the issue and start over. --- ## Examples These show the **user-facing turns** the skill produces. Internal phase reasoning is silent. ### Example 1 — Bug fix that closes a spec User: *"Commit this fix for the Lava entity ToString regression. Fixes #7012."* Skill (one turn): > Found one spec that may be related: **Lava entity ToString regression** (`specs/260428-lava-entity-select-tostring-regression.md`). > > Mark it complete after this commit? > 1. Yes > 2. No User: *"1"* Skill (next turn): > Release-note commit? > > 1. Yes, release-note (`+` prefix) > 2. No, minor commit (`-` prefix) > > My recommendation: **1**. Customer-visible bug fix in `Rock/Lava/`. > > If 1, the message will be: > > ``` > + (Lava) Fixed the Lava entity command select clause to allow .ToString() on properties whose name matches a CLR predefined type. (Fixes #7012) > ``` > > If 2, the message will be: > > ``` > - Fixed Lava entity ToString regression > ``` > > Confirm or tell me what to change. User: *"go"* Skill: stages files, creates commit, captures hash, hands off to spec skill in completion mode for the flagged spec, then summarizes (commit hash + one-line message + spec moved to `specs/completed/lava/`). Done. ### Example 2 — Minor cleanup User: *"Commit this. Just removing some dead code."* Skill (one turn — no related specs, so no Phase 1 prompt): > Release-note commit? > > 1. Yes, release-note (`+` prefix) > 2. No, minor commit (`-` prefix) > > My recommendation: **2**. Internal cleanup, no customer-visible behavior change. > > If 1, the message will be: > > ``` > + (Other) Updated GroupMemberService to remove unused private helpers. > ``` > > If 2, the message will be: > > ``` > - Removed unused private helpers in GroupMemberService > ``` > > Confirm or tell me what to change. User: *"2"* Skill: stages files, creates commit, summarizes. Done. ### Example 3 — Argument signals minor, single confirmation User: *"commit minor: dropped the redundant null check in GroupCache"* Skill (one turn — `minor` is in `$ARGUMENTS`, no related specs): > Drafting as a minor commit: > > ``` > - Removed redundant null check in GroupCache > ``` > > Confirm or tell me what to change. User: *"go"* Skill: commit. Done. ### Example 4 — Partial spec match User: *"Commit. This is part of the group requirement caching work."* Skill (one turn): > Found one spec that may be related: **Group requirement caching** (`specs/260315-group-requirement-caching.md`). > > The spec lists 5 files but the diff only touches 2. Mark complete anyway? > 1. Yes, mark complete > 2. No, wait for the rest User: *"2"* Skill: continues to release-notes prompt as normal, no spec flagged for completion.