resolve-conflicts

name	resolve-conflicts
description	Resolve merge conflicts.
user-invocable	true
allowed-tools	["Bash","Read","Edit","Write"]

resolve-conflicts — consolidate the best of both branches

A merge conflict means both branches edited the same region — and each side changed it for a reason. The right resolution almost always keeps the intent of both sides. The default failure mode is to grab one side wholesale (--ours / --theirs) and silently throw the other branch's work on the floor. Don't. Consolidate, don't choose.

When this fires

• Any git operation stops on a conflict: git merge, git rebase, git cherry-pick, git stash pop, git pull (merge or rebase), git revert. The tell is CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in … and Unmerged paths: in git status.
• "resolve the conflicts", "fix the merge conflicts", "I have a merge conflict", "consolidate the best of both branches", "help me merge these branches", "the branch won't merge cleanly".
• Delegated from another skill: sync-pr-branch step 5 ("resolve any conflicts fully"), clean-branches' rebase-onto-main step, or a stacked gii MR. When one of those stops on a conflict, run this.

Verify before you act — don't trust mergeable alone

Before claiming and fixing a PR flagged by a cascade conflict scan (post-merge step 1.5, ardi's opportunistic sweeps, wrap-up step 1), get ground truth locally instead of acting on the API field directly:

git fetch origin main <branch> -q   # FETCH
git merge-tree --write-tree origin/main origin/<branch>   # git >=2.38; no worktree/checkout needed
echo "exit: $?"   # 0 = clean merge (no action needed); 1 = real conflict exists

Two failure modes this catches:

• mergeable == "UNKNOWN" is not "no conflict." GitHub returns UNKNOWN right after a push or a sibling PR's merge, while it's still computing — sometimes for minutes. A cascade scan that filters only mergeable == "CONFLICTING" silently skips a PR stuck in UNKNOWN even when it's genuinely conflicting. Treat UNKNOWN the same as CONFLICTING: a candidate to verify, not a PR to skip.
• mergeable == "CONFLICTING" (or a dirty mergeable_state) can itself be stale. GitHub computes it against whatever main snapshot it last saw — if a sibling PR merged since, the flag may still say conflicting even though a fresh merge against current main is clean. Acting on a stale flag risks wasted resolution effort. (Seen on ai-config#372: flagged dirty, but git merge-tree against current main came back clean — no manual resolution was needed, just a git merge + push.)

If git merge-tree exits clean, there's nothing to resolve — skip the PR (or, if you want the branch to reflect the now-current main, do a plain git merge origin/main && git push, no conflict markers involved). Only proceed to the consolidation procedure below when it reports a real conflict.

Check git --version before trusting the exit code — on git <2.38 this command fails a different way that a naive check misreads. --write-tree mode doesn't exist before 2.38; on an older install the command errors with fatal: unknown rev --write-tree (a non-zero exit, same as a real conflict) or, if scripted with a text-based check instead of the exit code, an error message that a naive grep -qi conflict fails to match — silently misclassifying every single PR in a batch scan as clean (a false negative that defeats the whole scan; hit across a 5-PR cascade scan on ai-config, 2026-07-03). Confirm git --version is 2.38+ before relying on this command's exit code at all. On an older git, use the legacy 3-arg form instead (same read-only guarantee, no worktree/checkout):

base=$(git merge-base origin/main origin/<branch>)
git merge-tree "$base" origin/main origin/<branch>   # git <2.38 (any version)
# conflict markers ("<<<<<<<") in the output = real conflict; empty/clean = no conflict

Core principle: consolidate the best of both branches

Each conflict hunk has three inputs — the common base, our side, and their side. Picking a winner is right only when one side's change is genuinely the same edit, or strictly subsumes the other. Otherwise the merge should contain a synthesis that honors both:

• Two different features touching neighbouring lines → keep both edits.
• A refactor on one side + a bugfix on the other → apply the bugfix to the refactored code.
• A rename on one side + an edit to the old name on the other → carry the edit onto the new name.
• CONFLICT (add/add) on the same newly-added file (common with sibling PRs) → compare :2: vs :3: first; keep the side that carries the newer baseline (often main after a sibling PR merged), then manually re-apply any newer deltas from the other side (review fixes, wording corrections, version pins) before staging.

If you can't see why a side changed the hunk, you're not ready to resolve it — go read the history first (step 2).

Procedure

1. Survey the battlefield. Know which operation you're in (the semantics of "ours"/"theirs" depend on it — see the warning below) and list the conflicted files:

   git status                                   # header names the operation
   git diff --name-only --diff-filter=U         # just the unmerged paths
   

2. Understand BOTH sides before editing a single hunk. For each conflicted file, look at the three-way picture and why each side diverged:

   git log --merge --oneline -- <file>   # commits from both sides (during a MERGE)
   git show :1:<file>                    # BASE (common ancestor)
   git show :2:<file>                    # OURS  (HEAD / current side)
   git show :3:<file>                    # THEIRS (incoming side)
   

   The :1:/:2:/:3: index stages work in any conflicted operation. git log --merge is merge-only; for the others, inspect the incoming side directly via the operation's ref — git show MERGE_HEAD (merge), REBASE_HEAD (rebase), CHERRY_PICK_HEAD (cherry-pick), REVERT_HEAD (revert), or the kept stash@{0} entry for a stash pop (git stash show -p stash@{0}). Ask: what problem was each side solving? Different features? One refactor + one fix? A move/rename vs an in-place edit? The answer dictates the merge.

3. Consolidate. Edit the working file into a version that keeps the valuable change from both sides, then delete every conflict marker (<<<<<<<, =======, >>>>>>>). Take one side wholesale only when you've confirmed the other side has nothing worth keeping — and note that you did.

   Also check whether the merged result duplicates content that already exists elsewhere in the file — a separate problem from the textual conflict itself. This can arise two ways: a single incoming PR may internally copy a sentence into a new section (the merge is clean, but the result now says the same thing twice), or both branches may independently add equivalent sentences in different sections (a cross-branch variant with the same symptom). In both cases git merge/ reports zero conflicts even though the result contains duplication — sometimes with a pronoun or reference that only made sense in its original location. Grep the merged file for the distinctive phrase from each side's addition before finishing; if it already appears elsewhere, keep one copy (usually the version with the clearer standalone referent) and drop the redundant one. (ai-config#446: the merge itself was clean, but the incoming PR's own diff had separately duplicated a CLAUDE.md sentence verbatim into a different section, where "this policy" lost its antecedent — the intra-PR variant, caught by the review bot as a distinct finding from the conflict resolution.)

⚠️ "ours" and "theirs" flip between merge and rebase

• In a merge (git merge X on branch B): ours/:2: = B (where you are), theirs/:3: = X (being merged in).
• In a rebase (git rebase X on branch B): rebase replays your commits onto X, so ours/:2: = X, the branch you're landing on, and theirs/:3: = your own commit being replayed. The opposite of a merge.

Confirm which physical branch is "ours" before you reach for --ours / --theirs — getting this backwards silently keeps the wrong side. (This is why the skill defaults to consolidating both rather than picking a side.)

Relationship to other skills

• sync-pr-branch (aliases sync / merge-main / resync-branch) — its step 5 says "resolve any conflicts fully"; this is that step's how-to. Run it when that sync stops on a conflict, then return to finish the sync.
• clean-branches — when rebasing a stale branch onto main hits a non-trivial conflict, resolve it here instead of skipping the branch.
• gii / split-concerns — stacked or parallel MRs are the usual source of conflicts; this is how you clear them once they collide.
• check-history — run before implementing to avoid creating avoidable conflicts/regressions in the first place; this skill cleans up the ones that still happen.
• deconflict-sessions / session-lock — not this skill. Those are about two AI sessions clobbering one local checkout (a locking concern), not git content conflicts. Different sense of "conflict."

Anti-patterns

• ❌ Blind git checkout --ours/--theirs <file> (or git merge -X ours/theirs) without confirming the dropped side had nothing worth keeping — the classic silent-data-loss move.
• ❌ Resolving a hunk before understanding why each side changed it.
• ❌ Mixing up "ours"/"theirs" in a rebase (they're reversed vs a merge).
• ❌ Committing with conflict markers still in a file — always git diff --check.
• ❌ Committing the resolution without running the repo's build/lint/test checks.
• ❌ git rebase --skip / git merge --abort to dodge a conflict you were asked to resolve.
• ❌ Force-pushing a half-resolved merge/rebase.