commit-work

Overview of commit-work skill

The commit-work skill is a focused workflow for turning a messy working tree into reviewable Git commits. It is best for developers who want help with the part that usually gets rushed: checking what changed, splitting unrelated edits, staging only the right hunks, and writing a clear Conventional Commit message that explains both what changed and why.

What commit-work is designed to do

commit-work is not a general Git tutorial. Its real job is to help an agent produce safer, cleaner commits for everyday development work. The skill centers on four outcomes:

• include only intended changes
• split unrelated work into separate commits
• review the exact staged diff before committing
• write a useful Conventional Commit message

That makes it especially relevant when your branch contains mixed edits, partial-file changes, formatting noise, test updates, or a commit message you do not trust yet.

Who should install commit-work skill

The best fit for the commit-work skill is someone who already uses Git but wants more consistency in commit quality. It is particularly useful for:

• developers working in large or fast-moving repos
• teams that require Conventional Commits
• anyone who often makes “one big commit” and wants better commit boundaries
• AI-assisted coding workflows where code is generated quickly and needs careful commit review

If you mainly want branch strategy, merge conflict resolution, or release automation, this skill is too narrow.

Why commit-work is better than a generic “write a commit” prompt

A generic prompt often jumps straight to a message. commit-work adds the missing middle: inspect, decide boundaries, patch-stage, review the staged diff, then write the message. That matters because the biggest commit mistakes are usually staging mistakes, not wording mistakes.

The differentiator is workflow discipline, not fancy automation.

What matters most before adopting commit-work

For most users, the adoption question is simple: will this actually reduce bad commits? The answer is yes if your pain points are:

• unrelated changes getting bundled together
• accidental debug code or secrets slipping in
• vague commit messages
• uncertainty about when to split work into multiple commits

The skill is less valuable if your repo changes are always tiny and already cleanly isolated.

How to Use commit-work skill

Install context for commit-work

If your AI client supports GitHub-hosted skills, install commit-work from softaworks/agent-toolkit. A common install pattern is:

npx skills add softaworks/agent-toolkit --skill commit-work

If your environment does not support direct skill installation, read the source files and mirror the workflow manually from:

• skills/commit-work/SKILL.md
• skills/commit-work/README.md
• skills/commit-work/references/commit-message-template.md

Read these files first before using commit-work skill

For fast evaluation, read in this order:

1. SKILL.md — the actual operating checklist
2. references/commit-message-template.md — the expected message shape
3. README.md — broader framing and trigger examples

This path gives you the real usage model faster than skimming the whole repository.

What input commit-work needs from you

The commit-work usage is strongest when you provide a few decisions up front:

• whether you want one commit or multiple commits
• whether Conventional Commits are required
• any team rules such as max subject length or required scopes
• whether the agent may stage and commit, or should only propose commands/messages

If you do not specify split strategy, the skill defaults sensibly toward multiple smaller commits when changes are unrelated.

The practical workflow commit-work follows

The skill’s workflow is simple and strong:

1. inspect the working tree with git status and git diff
2. decide commit boundaries
3. stage only the next logical commit, ideally with git add -p
4. review staged changes with git diff --cached
5. summarize what changed and why
6. write a Conventional Commit message
7. run relevant checks
8. repeat until the tree is clean

This is why commit-work for Git Workflows is useful: it improves both commit content and commit hygiene.

How to turn a rough goal into a strong commit-work prompt

Weak prompt:

• “Commit my changes.”

Strong prompt:

• “Use commit-work. Inspect the current diff, split unrelated changes into separate commits, use Conventional Commits with scope api, and show me the proposed commit boundaries before committing.”

Even stronger prompt:

• “Use commit-work on the current branch. I expect at least two commits if tests and production code changed separately. Use Conventional Commits, keep subjects under 72 chars, and flag any debug code, secrets, or formatting-only churn before staging.”

The difference is that the second version gives the skill decision criteria, not just a final action.

When to ask for one commit versus multiple commits

Ask for one commit when the diff serves a single purpose and reviewers should understand it as one change. Ask for multiple commits when you see any of these patterns:

• refactor mixed with behavior change
• tests mixed with production edits
• dependency bumps mixed with code changes
• formatting churn mixed with logic edits
• frontend and backend changes that can be reviewed independently

This is one of the highest-value parts of the commit-work guide.

Why patch staging is central to commit-work usage

The skill strongly favors patch staging because mixed files are common. git add -p lets the agent or user stage only the hunks that belong in the next commit. That is more important than message polish. A perfect message on a badly scoped commit is still a bad commit.

Related recovery commands the skill references are also useful:

• git restore --staged -p
• git restore --staged <path>

How commit-work handles commit messages

The repository includes a simple message template:

• header in Conventional Commits form
• short body for what changed
• short body for why it changed

A good result looks like this structurally:

<type>(<scope>): <summary>

Then a body that explains behavior and intent, not implementation trivia. The skill also notes breaking-change handling with ! or a BREAKING CHANGE: footer.

Checks to run before finalizing a commit

Before the actual commit, review the staged diff and sanity-check for:

• secrets or tokens
• accidental debug logging
• unrelated formatting churn
• missing tests or failed checks relevant to the change

This is a key adoption point: commit-work install only pays off if you let it slow down the last mile enough to catch mistakes.

Best workflow for using commit-work with an agent

A practical pattern is:

1. ask the agent to inspect and propose boundaries
2. approve or adjust the split plan
3. ask it to draft commit messages per commit
4. review git diff --cached for each staged commit
5. let it commit, or copy the final commands yourself

That human-in-the-loop approach keeps output quality high while still saving time.

commit-work skill FAQ

Is commit-work skill good for beginners?

Yes, if you already know basic Git concepts like staging and commits. The commit-work skill gives a repeatable checklist and good command choices, but it does not try to teach all of Git from scratch.

Does commit-work require Conventional Commits?

The source treats Conventional Commits as required by default. If your team uses a different standard, you should say so explicitly when invoking the skill. Otherwise, expect outputs in Conventional Commit format.

Can commit-work actually split my work into multiple commits?

Yes, that is one of its main reasons to exist. The skill is explicitly built to decide boundaries, use selective staging, and repeat the process until the working tree is clean.

When should I not use commit-work?

Skip commit-work when:

• you need help with branching or rebasing rather than committing
• the change is trivial and already isolated
• your environment does not let the agent inspect diffs or stage selectively
• your team’s commit process is heavily customized beyond the skill’s scope

In those cases, a direct Git command sequence may be faster.

How is commit-work different from just asking for a commit message?

A commit-message-only prompt assumes the staged content is already correct. commit-work usage starts earlier: it checks the working tree, decides boundaries, and reviews the staged diff before the message is written.

Is commit-work useful in teams with strict review standards?

Yes. It is especially helpful where reviewers care about small logical commits, readable history, and messages that explain intent. That is where the workflow discipline produces the most value.

How to Improve commit-work skill

Give commit-work better constraints up front

The fastest way to improve commit-work results is to provide constraints early:

• preferred commit scopes
• subject length limit
• whether tests should be separate
• whether formatting-only edits must be isolated
• whether the agent may commit or only propose

Without these, the skill still works, but boundary decisions may not match your team’s norms.

Ask for a commit boundary proposal before staging

A strong prompt pattern is:

• “Use commit-work to inspect the diff and propose commit boundaries first. Do not stage yet.”

This catches the biggest quality issue early. Once staging starts, people are less likely to rethink a bad split.

Provide repository context that changes message quality

If the agent knows the feature area or intent, commit bodies improve a lot. Helpful context includes:

• ticket or issue goal
• whether the change fixes a bug, reduces risk, or enables a feature
• user-visible impact
• any breaking behavior

This helps the skill explain why the change exists, not just what files changed.

Watch for the common failure modes

The most common ways commit-work can still go wrong are:

• combining related-looking but independently reviewable changes
• staging formatting noise with logic changes
• writing a correct Conventional Commit header but a weak body
• skipping staged diff review because the message “looks good”

If you see any of these, re-run the workflow from the boundary step.

Improve commit-work output with stronger prompt wording

Instead of:

• “Use commit-work and commit this.”

Use:

• “Use commit-work. Inspect unstaged and staged diffs, isolate formatting-only edits into their own commit if present, use scope ui, and show the final staged diff and message for approval before commit.”

That prompt improves both safety and reviewer friendliness.

Iterate after the first draft instead of accepting it whole

Good follow-up requests include:

• “Split commit 1 into refactor and behavior change.”
• “Rewrite the subject to be more specific about the user-visible effect.”
• “Remove implementation details from the body and focus on intent.”
• “Check whether test updates should be committed separately.”

That is the highest-leverage way to improve commit-work for Git Workflows: treat the first output as a proposal, not the final answer.