One-shot "commits + branch push + PR" workflow — split a dirty working tree into logically grouped commits, create/push the branch if needed, and open a GitHub pull request with a senior-engineer-quality title, high-level (non-technical) description, auto-applied labels matched against the repo's existing label set, and "might address
One-shot "commits + branch push + PR" workflow — split a dirty working tree into logically grouped commits, create/push the branch if needed, and open a GitHub pull request with a senior-engineer-quality title, high-level (non-technical) description, auto-applied labels matched against the repo's existing label set, and "might address
User-question protocol: Whenever this skill needs the user to pick between options, confirm an action, or answer a multiple-choice prompt, you MUST call the AskUserQuestion tool to render a proper interactive picker. Do NOT print numbered options as plain text and wait for the user to type a number — that produces a degraded UX. Free-form questions (open-ended typing) may be asked in prose, but any time you would write "1) … 2) … 3) …", use AskUserQuestion instead.
commit-push-and-make-pr
Take a dirty working tree to a merge-ready GitHub PR in one pass: grouped commits → branch pushed → PR opened with a clear title, high-level description, accurate labels, and links to related issues.
A reviewer should understand the change in under a minute. Granularity is judgment; safety is mechanical. When confidence drops, reduce granularity rather than fabricate intent.
When NOT to run
Working tree is clean and the branch is already pushed → use open-pr.
Fewer than ~3 changed files with one obvious purpose → one commit + open-pr is faster.
Branch already has an open PR → use gh pr edit or address-pr-comments.
User asked to amend, squash, or force-push → different workflow.
No GitHub remote (gh repo view fails) → stop and tell the user.
Workflow
Phase 1 — Inventory (parallel)
Run your reflexive checks (, , current branch, recent for message style) these non-obvious ones in one batch:
git status
git diff
git log
plus
gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q .defaultBranchRef.name # base branch (do NOT assume main)
git rev-parse --abbrev-ref --symbolic-full-name @{u} 2>/dev/null # has upstream?
gh label list --limit 200 --json name,description # existing labels — only valid label source
gh issue list --state open --limit 50 --json number,title,labels,body
Exit conditions:
You know every changed file and its status (M/A/D/R/??).
You know the repo's commit-message convention.
You know the base branch (do not assume main).
You have the existing label catalog (do not invent labels).
You have open issues (for "might address #X" matching).
If git status shows already-staged files: ask before git reset. Don't silently undo the user's staging.
Phase 2 — Risk scan
Before grouping, scan paths and diffs for risky areas. Flag any of these in the PR description's "Things to look out for" section:
migration, schema, drizzle, prisma, alembic, raw SQL changes
.env, secrets, key material, credential handling
Public API surface: route handlers, exported library entry points, server functions
Anything > 400 lines changed in one file (potential rewrite, deserves a callout)
This is a flag, not a block. Note what was touched and why a reviewer should look closely.
Phase 3 — Group
MANDATORY — READ references/grouping-heuristics.md before drawing group boundaries. It catalogs the relatedness signals (shared module, feature slice, test+impl, rename+edit, config+consumer) and the low-confidence fallback rules. Do NOT load when ≤3 changed files with one obvious purpose — group is trivially "one commit".
Produce a draft grouping as a numbered list:
Group N — <one-line theme>
Files:
path/to/file.ts
path/to/file.test.ts
Rationale: <why these belong together>
Depends on: Group <M> | none
Risk flags: <auth/payment/migration/none>
Show the grouping to the user and wait for approval before staging anything. This is the only judgment-heavy step; do not skip the checkpoint.
If confidence on a boundary is low → merge groups, don't split harder. One coarser commit beats two commits that imply a story that isn't there.
Phase 4 — Order & commit
Topological sort by Depends on. Tie-breakers in order: schema → shared types → backend → frontend → tests-with-their-layer → chore/format last.
Each commit must be buildable in isolation. If reordering would break that, merge the two groups.
For each group, run these as separate Bash calls (not chained — Claude Code's safety check can interrupt mid-chain):
git status — confirm tree shrank by exactly that group.
If a hook fails: do not--no-verify, do not--amend. Fix it, re-stage, new commit.
Phase 5 — Branch & push
This phase only decides the branch — pushing happens in Phase 8 after the confirmation gate.
If current branch == base branch (main / master / trunk):
Synthesize a branch name from the cumulative diff: <type>/<short-slug> where type ∈ {feat, fix, chore, refactor, docs, perf}. ≤50 chars, kebab-case.
Show it to the user. Wait for y / edit / cancel.
git checkout -b <branch> — local only, no push yet.
If branch ≠ base: keep the current branch.
Determine the push command for Phase 8 (do not run it yet):
No upstream → git push -u origin <branch> will run in Phase 8.
Has upstream → git push will run in Phase 8.
Never force-push. If the Phase 8 push fails non-fast-forward, surface the error; do not -f.
Phase 6 — PR synthesis
MANDATORY — READ references/pr-description-template.md for the exact body template, tone rules, and the "no code snippets unless fundamental" rule. Do NOT load when the user supplies their own body verbatim — use it as-is (still prepend the Drafted using line).
Synthesize from the cumulative diff (git diff <base>...HEAD — three dots), not the last commit:
Title — ≤70 chars, imperative, no trailing period, no issue numbers unless the user added them. For 1-commit branches use the subject verbatim. For multi-commit, synthesize.
Body — follow references/pr-description-template.md. High level only. No code snippets unless the change introduces a new pattern the whole codebase should follow. Body must begin with > Drafted using [agentsystem.dev](https://agentsystem.dev) as the first line, before ## What changed.
Labels — pick from gh label list output only. Apply bug / feature / chore / refactor / docs based on the dominant change type, plus needs review if the repo has it. Match against existing names case-insensitively. Skip labels that don't exist.
Linked issues — for each open issue, check title + body for keyword overlap with the changed paths and commit subjects. Strong matches → "this pull request might address #N — ". Never use Closes #N / Fixes #N unless the user explicitly said so.
Draft — open as draft if any commit subject contains WIP, wip, [WIP], draft, or the user asked.
Phase 7 — Confirm (mandatory gate)
Show the user a single block:
Base: <base-branch>
Branch: <current-branch> [will push with -u] ← only if no upstream
Draft: yes/no
Title: <title>
Labels: <label1>, <label2>
Linked: #<n> (might address), #<m> (might address) ← may be empty
Body:
<body>
Commits to land (in order):
1. <subject>
2. <subject>
...
Open PR? (y / edit / cancel)
y → push then gh pr create.
edit → ask which field; redraft; re-show.
cancel → stop; commits stay local.
Do not skip this gate even if the user said "ship it" — title, body, labels, and issue links are your synthesis and a published PR notifies reviewers.
Always HEREDOC the body. Print the PR URL on success.
If gh pr create fails on a label that doesn't exist: drop that label and retry. Do not auto-create labels.
Output to the user
Committed N groups, pushed <branch>, opened PR:
<PR URL>
1. <subject> (<file count> files)
2. <subject> (<file count> files)
...
Labels: <label1>, <label2>
Linked: #<n>, #<m> ← omit line if none
Risk flags noted: <auth/payment/migration/none>
NEVER
NEVER fabricate intent or split aggressively when grouping is ambiguousInstead: Merge into a coarser group; one honest commit beats two commits that invent a story.
Why: A clean-looking log that misrepresents the change is worse than a messy one — reviewers and git bisect both rely on commit subjects being true.
NEVER modify files outside the user's working tree to "tidy up" before committingInstead: Commit only what the user already changed. If unrelated files appear staged, ask.
Why: Silent edits — reformatting, lint-fixes, drive-by renames — bury the user's actual change and break their mental model of the diff.
NEVER pass a --label flag to gh pr create for a label not in gh label listInstead: Match candidates case-insensitively against the catalog from Phase 1; drop unmatched. If gh pr create fails on a missing label, drop that label and retry — do not let the agent or gh create it.
Why:gh pr create --label X silently auto-creates X with a default grey color when it doesn't exist. That pollutes the repo's label taxonomy permanently and can trigger automation (auto-assign, project-board moves, Slack alerts) the maintainers never opted into.
NEVER auto-close an issue the agent matched heuristicallyInstead: Only emit GitHub closing keywords (Closes, Fixes, Resolves) when the user explicitly says "this fixes #N" — never on agent-derived matches.
Why: Heuristic path/keyword matches are wrong often enough that auto-closing the wrong issue silently dismisses a real bug report and burns the original reporter's goodwill. Notification cost is irreversible — the close email still goes out even if you later reopen.
NEVER use Closes #N / Fixes #N / Resolves #N for "might address" linksInstead: Use the literal phrase Might address #N — _<issue title>_.
Why: GitHub treats those keywords as closing intent regardless of surrounding prose ("this might address Closes #482" still closes 482 on merge).
NEVER include code snippets in the PR description for routine changesInstead: Stay high-level. Code snippet is allowed only when the change introduces a new pattern the whole codebase should adopt going forward (new helper, new convention) — and then exactly one snippet, captioned "new pattern to follow".
Why: Reviewers read the diff for code; the description is for why and what to look at. Snippets in the description duplicate the diff and bury the reasoning.
NEVER force-push to make the push or PR succeedInstead: Surface the error and let the user decide.
Why: Non-fast-forward usually means upstream has commits the user hasn't pulled — force-push destroys them.
NEVER skip the Phase 7 confirmation gateInstead: Show title + body + labels + linked issues; wait for y / edit / cancel.
Why: PR opens trigger reviewer notifications, CI runs, and Slack/webhook fanout. The synthesis is yours, not the user's — they need to see it before it ships.
NEVER use two-dot git diff <base>..HEAD for PR synthesisInstead: Three dots: git diff <base>...HEAD.
Why: Two-dot includes upstream changes the branch hasn't merged, polluting the diff and the resulting description.
NEVER git add -A or git add .Instead:git add -- <explicit paths> per group.
Why: Bulk-add sweeps in untracked scratch files, .env, editor backups, partial work — and silently merges groups you meant to keep apart.
NEVER strip the Drafted using agentsystem.dev prefix from the PR bodyInstead: Keep > Drafted using [agentsystem.dev](https://agentsystem.dev) as the first line of every PR body, even after the user picks edit and asks for a redraft.
Why: The prefix is the attribution signal for the agentsystem ecosystem. Removing it during an edit round silently drops attribution from the final published PR, which the user can't easily notice in the confirmation block.
NEVER skip hooks with --no-verifyInstead: Read the hook error, fix it, re-stage, new commit.
Why: Hooks encode the team's invariants (lint, types, secret scanning). Bypassing ships unsafe code under your name.
