skills/workflow-repository/writing-git-commits/SKILL.md
Inspect local Git changes, draft or validate Conventional Commit messages, choose types/scopes, explain breaking changes, or create a focused commit from the actual selected diff.
npx skillsauth add narumiruna/agent-skills writing-git-commitsInstall 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 selected diff before describing it. Draft, validate, or create a commit only to the extent requested.
git status --short. For a requested commit, inspect git diff --cached first and unstaged changes when they affect the boundary.<type>[optional scope][!]: <description> with a specific diff-grounded description.BREAKING CHANGE: information.Use feat for new capability, fix for incorrect behavior, refactor for behavior-preserving structure, and docs for documentation-only changes. Prefer no scope, body, or footer unless it improves meaning.
Do not describe unstaged work, future plans, or unrelated cleanup. Follow repository-level Git and attribution rules rather than duplicating them here.
Read references/conventional-commits.md when type selection is ambiguous or exact breaking-change/footer syntax matters. Report the selected boundary and final message; if a commit was created, include its ID and remaining local changes.
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.