evaluate-local-commits-via-cherry-pick-dry-run

name	evaluate-local-commits-via-cherry-pick-dry-run
description	Technique to identify which ahead commits contain real changes vs. already-merged or ephemeral content
version	1.0.0
source	auto-extracted
extracted	"2026-04-10T00:00:00.000Z"
metadata	{"tags":["git","workflow","commit-analysis"]}

Evaluate Local-Only Commits via Cherry-Pick Dry-Run

When you have ahead commits on a local branch relative to origin, use git cherry-pick --dry-run against each commit to classify them: exit 0 with no changes = already in origin; exit 0 with staged changes = real delta; conflicts = real delta needing sequencing. This lets you quickly filter ephemeral commits (like daily regenerations or auto-syncs) from substantive changes worth preserving or upstreaming.

Follow-on triage when upstream already landed similar work

If the dry-run or a real cherry-pick attempt shows the work is already effectively upstream:

1. Do not assume the local branch is worthless or safe to cherry-pick wholesale.
2. Preserve the branch as forensic/reference evidence until compared.
3. Compare only the high-signal files against origin/main, for example:
   • regression tests
   • canonical skill files touched by the work
   • any review artifacts explaining what changed
4. Separate the local-only delta into:
   • clean, reusable learnings worth salvaging
   • unrelated drift / contamination from the duplicate execution context
5. If the branch contains mixed signal + noise, prefer creating a focused follow-up GitHub issue describing the salvage candidates instead of cherry-picking the whole branch.
6. In that issue, explicitly capture:
   • what landed upstream already
   • what extra local-only checks/content appear useful
   • why direct cherry-pick is unsafe
   • the narrow acceptance criteria for selective salvage

Example reusable pattern

This was useful when a duplicate implementation branch for an already-landed skills dedup issue contained:

• a stronger regression test with broader dangling-reference surface checks
• a much larger alternate skill draft with possible overlap/noise

The right move was:

• keep upstream as authoritative
• preserve the duplicate branch for reference
• inspect targeted file deltas only
• create a narrow follow-up issue for selective salvage rather than replaying the branch

Pitfall

A preserved duplicate branch often contains unrelated edits from the worktree/session. Treat it as a source of candidate learnings, not as a merge-ready patch set.