Skip to main content
Generalhashgraph-online

commit

CC 1.0.0 commit generator. Trigger: commit/save. Stages relevant files, infers type(scope): desc, never --no-verify.

Stars
336
Source
hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins
Updated
2026-05-27
Slug
hashgraph-online--awesome-codex-plugins--commit
View on GitHubRaw SKILL.md

// install — copy + paste into any project

mkdir -p .claude/skills && curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins/HEAD/plugins/epicsagas/epic-harness/registry/skills/commit/SKILL.md -o .claude/skills/commit.md

Drops the SKILL.md into .claude/skills/commit.md. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any agent that loads SKILL.md files from .claude/skills/.

Commit — Conventional Commits Generator

When to Trigger

  • User wants to commit, save, or check in changes
  • User asks to commit after completing a task
  • Code changes are ready and user signals completion

Process

  1. Gather context — run in parallel:

    • git status — see what changed
    • git diff HEAD — see the actual diff
    • git log --oneline -5 — match existing commit style
  2. Determine type:

    Type When
    feat New feature or capability
    fix Bug fix
    refactor Code change, no behavior change
    docs Documentation only
    test Adding or correcting tests
    build Build system or dependencies
    chore Maintenance task
    ci CI/CD configuration
    style Formatting, whitespace
    perf Performance improvement
  3. Generate message: type(scope): description

    • Lowercase type, optional scope
    • Imperative mood, no period, under 72 chars
    • Breaking changes: append ! before :
    • Body only when diff needs extra context (max 3 bullet points)
  4. Stage and commit:

    • git add <specific files> — prefer explicit files over git add -A
    • git commit -m "type(scope): description"
    • Execute automatically — no confirmation needed

Anti-Rationalization

Excuse Rebuttal What to do instead
"I'll just use a generic message" Generic messages make git history useless. Spend 5 seconds analyzing the diff — the type and scope are obvious from the changes.
"The user didn't specify a format" Conventional Commits is the project standard — guard will block non-CC messages anyway. Always generate CC format.
"I'll commit everything together" Unrelated changes in one commit make bisect and revert impossible. If changes span multiple concerns, suggest splitting first.

Evidence Required

  • git status checked before staging
  • Only relevant files staged (not git add -A blindly)
  • Message follows type(scope): description format
  • Type accurately reflects the change (feat ≠ fix ≠ refactor)

Red Flags

  • Vague messages: "update code", "fix stuff", "changes"
  • Wrong type: using feat for a bug fix, fix for a new feature
  • Staging unrelated files
  • Using --no-verify to bypass hooks