Best for
- Code writing or review (use php-coder or code-review skill)
- CI/CD pipeline changes (use github-ci skill)
event4u-app/agent-config/src/skills/git-workflow/SKILL.md
Use when working with Git — branch naming, commit messages, PR creation, rebasing, or the code review process — even when the user says 'push this' or 'merge the branch' without naming Git.
Decision brief
Use when working with Git — branch naming, commit messages, PR creation, rebasing, or the code review process — even when the user says 'push this' or 'merge the branch' without naming Git.
Compatibility matrix
| Platform | Status | Evidence | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codex | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Claude Code | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Cursor | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Gemini CLI | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
Installation
The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.
npx skills add https://github.com/event4u-app/agent-config --skill "src/skills/git-workflow"Inspect the Agent Skill "git-workflow" from https://github.com/event4u-app/agent-config/blob/3f4508a9b152eb0b563cca4be55b52fd39b7a9b5/src/skills/git-workflow/SKILL.md at commit 3f4508a9b152eb0b563cca4be55b52fd39b7a9b5. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.
Workflow
1. Quality pipeline + tests — only when quality.localautorun: true (see quality-tools § Execution policy): type-checker → auto-fixer → linter → type-checker, then the project's test command (detect from manifest: php artisan test / vendor/bin/phpunit (PHP), npm test / pnpm test…
When implementation is complete and all tests pass:
Use ONLY when the user explicitly authorized a squash on a branch that is already on origin. The whole sequence runs in one turn — never end the session between rewrite and push.
Fires when git rev-list --left-right --count HEAD...@{u} shows both sides non-zero on the current branch.
If a PR is open on this branch: bash gh pr view --json reviews,comments
Permission review
The documentation includes network, browsing, or remote request actions.
ABOUT THEIR STATE — QUERY THE LIVE REMOTE. NEVER FROM MEMORY ORThe documentation asks the agent to run terminal commands or scripts.
git fetch origin --quietThe documentation asks the agent to run terminal commands or scripts.
git checkout mainEvidence record
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 92/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 8 | Source | Repository attention, not individual Skill quality |
| Compatibility | 0 platforms | Source | Declared in the catalog source record |
| Usage guide | automated source guide | Editorial | Generated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level |
Pinned source
Use when preparing PRs, finishing branches, or following the team's Git workflow.
Do NOT use when:
php-coder or code-review skill)github-ci skill)BEFORE ANY MERGE / PUSH / PR / BRANCH ACTION — OR ANY CLAIM OR QUESTION
ABOUT THEIR STATE — QUERY THE LIVE REMOTE. NEVER FROM MEMORY OR
CONVERSATION HISTORY. A PR MAY ALREADY BE MERGED OR CLOSED REMOTELY.
ASKING WHAT `gh pr view` ANSWERS IS A CHEAP QUESTION — CHECK, DON'T ASK.
The local branch view and the conversation's memory both go stale the moment anyone else — a maintainer, a parallel agent, an auto-merge rule — acts on the remote. Acting or asking on stale state is the recurring failure this section kills (canonical: asking "shall I merge these 4 PRs?" when all four were already merged remotely). Run first, every time:
git fetch origin --quiet
gh pr view <number> --json number,state,mergeStateStatus,mergedAt,baseRefName
# state: OPEN | MERGED | CLOSED — act only on the live value
gh pr view /
git fetch answers it. Asking is a cheap question (per no-cheap-questions).MERGED / CLOSED → there is nothing to merge or push; report the live
state and stop — do not attempt the action.state + mergeStateStatus in the
same turn; never merge on a status seen earlier in the conversation.npx tsx node_modules/@event4u/agent-config/src/scripts/check_branch_freshness.ts;
exit 1 ⇒ the branch is behind and is not current — merge the base in,
regenerate the derived files, then open the PR (see
/create-pr § 1b). Exit 0 means only that
the gate did not refuse: read the line. branch is current is the pass;
NOT VERIFIED means the base could not be reached and freshness is
unknown — the gate exits 0 there on purpose so an offline push is not
blocked, which makes reporting it as "current" the one misread it cannot
catch. Exit 0 also covers the paths with nothing to check — a no-op in CI, a
detached HEAD, standing on the base itself — and under --quiet a genuine
pass prints nothing, so run it without the flag when you need a verdict to
read.
Prefer it over git rev-list --count HEAD..origin/main, which is wrong twice
over: it pins main as the base for a branch whose PR may target something
else, and it reads the local tracking ref — a fetch from earlier in the
session, which is memory rather than a check. The gate asks the remote and
resolves the base from the open PR.→ See guideline docs/guidelines/php/git.md for branch naming, commit messages, PR conventions.
→ See commit-conventions rule for commit format, types, and scope rules.
→ Use conventional-commits-writing skill for generating/reviewing commit messages.
quality.local_auto_run: true (see quality-tools § Execution policy): type-checker → auto-fixer → linter → type-checker, then the project's test command (detect from manifest: php artisan test / vendor/bin/phpunit (PHP), npm test / pnpm test / vitest / jest (JS-TS), pytest (Python), cargo test (Rust), go test ./... (Go)). Under the default (false / missing) skip both — remote CI on the PR is the gate; say so instead of claiming they passed.main.When implementation is complete and all tests pass:
Work complete. What would you like to do?
1. Push and create a Pull Request
2. Keep the branch as-is (I'll handle it later)
3. Discard this work
quality.local_auto_run: true; default false → skip, remote CI is the gate).git push -u origin <branch>.gh pr create using PR template.Report: "Branch <name> preserved locally." — do nothing.
Confirm first — list branch name and commit count. Wait for explicit confirmation. Then:
git checkout main
git branch -D <feature-branch>
The project uses .github/pull_request_template.md:
main is default/production branch.Use ONLY when the user explicitly authorized a squash on a branch that is already on origin. The whole sequence runs in one turn — never end the session between rewrite and push.
Trigger context: git-history-discipline rule routed here.
BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current)
DATE=$(date +%F)
git fetch origin
git tag "safe-squash-pre/${BRANCH}/${DATE}" HEAD
git tag "safe-squash-origin/${BRANCH}/${DATE}" "@{u}"
Two tags = two recoveries (local tip + origin tip). Do not skip the
tags — git reflog is TTL-bounded and unreliable across sessions.
git rev-list --left-right --count HEAD...@{u}
0 0 → aligned, proceed.N 0 (local ahead) → unpushed work, proceed.0 N (origin ahead) → git pull --ff-only first, then re-check.M N (both non-zero) → divergent. Abandon the squash and run
§ Divergent-State Recovery below.Default — soft-reset path (single token-cheap rewrite):
git reset --soft "$(git merge-base HEAD <base>)"
git commit -m "<conventional commit message>"
Interactive rebase only when the user wants per-commit control — it
replays derived files (dist/agent-src/, router projections)
per commit and conflicts on every replay.
FETCHED_SHA=$(git rev-parse "@{u}")
git push --force-with-lease="${BRANCH}:${FETCHED_SHA}" origin "${BRANCH}"
git fetch origin
[ "$(git rev-parse HEAD)" = "$(git rev-parse @{u})" ] \
&& echo "OK: origin matches HEAD" \
|| echo "MISMATCH — do not end session"
If the push fails (pre-push hook, network, token budget):
HEAD == @{u}.Report exactly:
Fires when git rev-list --left-right --count HEAD...@{u} shows
both sides non-zero on the current branch.
A blind git pull --rebase here replays remote commits on top of a
local history that may already represent the same work in a different
shape — guaranteed conflict storm in derived files, possible
double-application of the same change. This is the documented failure
mode behind git-history-discipline.
TS=$(date +%FT%H%M)
git tag "diverged-local/${TS}" HEAD
git tag "diverged-origin/${TS}" "@{u}"
git log --oneline @{u}..HEAD # local-only commits
git log --oneline HEAD..@{u} # origin-only commits
git diff @{u}..HEAD --stat # shape of local-ahead work
Decision matrix:
| Pattern | Future | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Local has the same logical work as origin, just reshaped (squash/rebase) | Local | After PR-review check (step 4), git push --force-with-lease=<branch>:<origin-sha> |
| Origin has commits local does not reflect (another contributor pushed) | Origin | Tag any local-ahead work for cherry-pick, then git reset --hard @{u} |
| Both sides have genuine independent work | ask user | Never decide silently — surface the two commit lists and let the user pick |
If a PR is open on this branch:
gh pr view --json reviews,comments
# or via GitHub API: /repos/<owner>/<repo>/pulls/<num>/{reviews,comments}
If review comments are anchored to commits that the force-push will erase → STOP, ask the user how to preserve them. A force-push that destroys live review feedback is unrecoverable from the agent side.
Use the tags from step 2 to restore either side if step 4 surfaces a
problem. After resolution, verify HEAD == @{u} and report both
SHAs plus the tags created.
git pull --rebase after detecting divergent state.git push --force without --force-with-lease=<branch>:<sha>.Depth for the git-history-discipline
Iron Law on inherited & shared-branch commits (migrated here per P4 of
road-to-kernel-and-router.md).
The user often works in parallel with the agent, and multiple agents may
share one PR branch. A commit that looks "unrelated" or "stray" may be
deliberate in-flight work the user expects to keep. Reseating a branch onto a
different base, git reset --hard-ing away inherited commits, force-pushing
over a branch you did not create, or branching from a base with unexpected
commits and then "cleaning" them out all silently discard work — the exact
failure that law prevents.
Before ANY of these, STOP and ask (one numbered-options prompt per
user-interaction):
git rebase --onto, git reset --hard <other-base>)
in a way that drops commits already on the branch;push <local>:<remote>-replacing) a branch that carries
commits you did not author;Preserve-first is necessary but not sufficient. Even when you keep the commits reachable (a save-branch / tag), you still ask before the branch the user sees loses them — "I preserved them locally" is not a substitute for the question, because the user may be mid-edit on the shared branch and a force-push would clobber their in-flight work regardless of your local backup.
Pre-rewrite stop. Before any squash / amend / rebase on a branch that is on origin: git fetch && git rev-list --left-right --count HEAD...@{u}. If either side is non-zero — STOP and run § Divergent-State Recovery. A blind git pull --rebase in this state is the documented failure mode. (§ Safe squash-after-push steps 1–2 implement this stop.)
Post-rewrite stop. After the rewrite, push in the same turn with --force-with-lease=<branch>:<fetched-sha> and verify git rev-parse origin/<branch> equals git rev-parse HEAD. If the push fails (hook, network, token budget) — fix the cause and re-push before ending the session, committing new work, or handing off. (§ Safe squash-after-push step 4 implements this stop.)
If either stop fires and resolution is not immediate → tag the state (git tag local-rewritten-tip-<ISO-date>) and hand control back to the user. Do not let a new session inherit a dirty divergence.
git rebase -i (interactive)git rebase --autosquashgit commit --fixup / --squash (helpers that feed autosquash)git commit --amend on already-pushed commitsgit push --force / --force-with-lease (unless paired with the protocol)git reset --hard past unpushed work the user might want--amend on the current local commit before the first push is the narrow exception (treated as continuing to compose the commit, not rewriting history).
When a pre-commit hook fails, the commit did NOT happen — no new commit
object was created. A reflexive git commit --amend at that point does not
"retry the commit"; it rewrites the previous, already-good commit,
destroying that work. This is the one place the narrow --amend exception
above turns into data loss.
Recovery — never amend after a hook failure:
git add).git commit, not --amend) — the prior commit was
never overwritten and must stay intact.(Migrated here from git-history-discipline — recovery now lives next to the
mechanism it protects.)
Interactive rebase + fixup loops generate disproportionate token cost on every iteration: re-running CI per replayed commit, resolving the same content conflict in two derived files (dist/router.json, .windsurfrules), losing the working tree to a stash that silently re-introduces older state. A single conflict can burn the budget of an entire feature.
A previous session squashed a pushed branch, the push hook failed at the token boundary, the session ended — and the next session saw local and origin pointing at different SHAs for the same logical work. A blind git pull --rebase cascaded into conflicts across every derived file. Recovery required forensic SHA-archaeology. The pre/post-rewrite stops make that sequence structurally impossible.
chore: regenerate commits, ugly." → don't. They are honest checkpoints.fix(scope): … on top.origin/main so my PR is clean." → don't, ask first. They may be the user's parallel work or another agent's. Preserve them and ask which base the user wants.git stash can lose work — prefer WIP commits.main.Frequently asked questions
Use when working with Git — branch naming, commit messages, PR creation, rebasing, or the code review process — even when the user says 'push this' or 'merge the branch' without naming Git.
The source record exposes this install command: npx skills add https://github.com/event4u-app/agent-config --skill "src/skills/git-workflow". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.
Static rules flagged network, exec-script in the source; the page lists the matching lines and excerpts.
Alternatives
Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar
This skill should be used when the user asks to "create git commit", "manage branches", "follow git workflow", "use Conventional Commits", "handle merge conflicts", or asks about git branching strategies, version control best practices, pull request workflows. Provides comprehensive Git workflow guidance for team collaboration.
dancingteeth/unified-code-review
Risk-first code review for PRs and branch audits: blast-radius triage, agent-authored discipline (tests first, intent evidence), call-graph pincer for integration defects between modules, then structural code-judo bar. Use when reviewing PRs, auditing agent-written diffs, catching rubber-stamp green CI, or wiring bugs single-file review misses. Prefer over structure-only thermo-nuclear review alone. Do not use for unrelated coding tasks or as an always-on rule.
magnus919/agent-skills
Use this skill to reverse-engineer an existing software system, map its architecture, data flow, privacy posture, coupling, quality characteristics, and feature surface, then produce an evidence-grounded clean-room design document, PRD, or migration plan under new constraints. Use for codebase archaeology, implicit contract extraction, architecture health assessment, or decomposition-readiness analysis. Do not use for greenfield architecture design, direct code review, bug hunting, security audi
alirezarezvani/claude-skills
Adversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the reviewer.