skills/git-commit/SKILL.md
Use when inspecting local git changes, drafting or validating Conventional Commit messages, checking type or scope choices, explaining breaking changes, or creating a focused commit from the actual diff.
npx skillsauth add narumiruna/agent-skills git-commitInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Inspect the actual diff before writing the message. Prefer one coherent commit per intent, then map that intent to a Conventional Commits title and only add extra sections when they carry concrete information.
Read references/conventional-commits.md when the type is ambiguous, when you need trailers or breaking-change wording, or when the user asks for exact format details.
git status --short. If the user asks for a commit, inspect git diff --cached first; inspect git diff too when unstaged changes might affect the commit boundary.<type>[optional scope][!]: <description>. Keep the description short, specific, and grounded in the diff.BREAKING CHANGE:.feat for a new capability and fix for incorrect behavior or regressions.refactor when behavior should stay the same, and docs when only documentation changes.Co-authored-by, Generated-by, Created-by, Coding-Agent, model names, tool names, or agent attribution footers.references/conventional-commits.md: exact format, common types, footer rules, breaking-change wording, and examples.development
Score or compare one or more agent skills across trigger clarity, workflow actionability, safety boundaries, verification rigor, incremental knowledge value, and leanness. Use only when the user explicitly asks for ratings, numerical quality scores, rubric-based scorecards, or scored comparisons; use creating-agent-skills for unscored reviews or revisions.
development
Assess or improve an existing codebase's architecture when the user asks about module boundaries, coupling, scattered ownership, testability, change locality, deep modules, seams, or behavior-preserving structural refactoring. Use for cross-module design rather than ordinary diff review or a confirmed edge-case bug fix.
development
Perform read-only security audits, vulnerability assessments, or threat-focused reviews of diffs, pull requests, code paths, or explicitly scoped repositories when security is the primary objective or acceptance criterion. Use reviewing-code for ordinary review with baseline security coverage and hardening-code-paths for fixing confirmed findings.
development
Run iterative multi-reviewer panels over a code diff, verify their findings, apply explicitly authorized fixes, and re-review the updated change until it passes or reaches a stopping condition. Use when the user asks for a panel loop, multi-model code-review consensus, or a review-fix-re-review cycle.