Structures git workflow practices. Use when making any code change. Use when committing, branching, resolving conflicts, or when you need to organize work across multiple parallel streams.
Download SKILL.md or inspect the source before installing.
Step 1
Copy the install command
Copy the command or download SKILL.md, then add it to your AI coding environment.
Step 2
Check source and behavior
Open the source repo and confirm the skill behavior, scope, and fit for the task.
Step 3
Overview
# Git Workflow and Versioning
Overview
Git is your safety net. Treat commits as save points, branches as sandboxes, and history as documentation. With AI agents generating code at high speed, disciplined version control is the mechanism that keeps changes manageable, reviewable, and reversible.
When to Use
Always. Every code change flows through git.
Core Principles
Trunk-Based Development (Recommended)
Keep `main` always deployable. Work in short-lived feature branches that merge back within 1-3 days. Long-lived development branches are hidden costs — they diverge, create merge conflicts, and delay integration. DORA research consistently shows trunk-based development correlates with high-performing engineering teams.
```
main ──●──●──●──●──●──●──●──●──●── (always deployable)
This is the recommended default. Teams using gitflow or long-lived branches can adapt the principles (atomic commits, small changes, descriptive messages) to their branching model — the commit discipline matters more than the specific branching strategy.
**Dev branches are costs.** Every day a branch lives, it accumulates merge risk.
**Release branches are acceptable.** When you need to stabilize a release while main moves forward.
**Feature flags > long branches.** Prefer deploying incomplete work behind flags rather than keeping it on a branch for weeks.
1. Commit Early, Commit Often
Validate with a real task
Run one small real task before keeping it in your long-term workflow.
Each successful increment gets its own commit. Don't accumulate large uncommitted changes.
```
Work pattern:
Implement slice → Test → Verify → Commit → Next slice
Not this:
Implement everything → Hope it works → Giant commit
```
Commits are save points. If the next change breaks something, you can revert to the last known-good state instantly.
2. Atomic Commits
Each commit does one logical thing:
```
# Good: Each commit is self-contained
git log --oneline
a1b2c3d Add task creation endpoint with validation
Commit messages explain the *why*, not just the *what*:
```
# Good: Explains intent
feat: add email validation to registration endpoint
Prevents invalid email formats from reaching the database.
Uses Zod schema validation at the route handler level,
consistent with existing validation patterns in auth.ts.
# Bad: Describes what's obvious from the diff
update auth.ts
```
**Format:**
```
<type>: <short description>
<optional body explaining why, not what>
```
**Types:**
`feat` — New feature
`fix` — Bug fix
`refactor` — Code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature
`test` — Adding or updating tests
`docs` — Documentation only
`chore` — Tooling, dependencies, config
4. Keep Concerns Separate
Don't combine formatting changes with behavior changes. Don't combine refactors with features. Each type of change should be a separate commit — and ideally a separate PR:
```
# Good: Separate concerns
git commit -m "refactor: extract validation logic to shared utility"
git commit -m "feat: add phone number validation to registration"
# Bad: Mixed concerns
git commit -m "refactor validation and add phone number field"
```
**Separate refactoring from feature work.** A refactoring change and a feature change are two different changes — submit them separately. This makes each change easier to review, revert, and understand in history. Small cleanups (renaming a variable) can be included in a feature commit at reviewer discretion.
5. Size Your Changes
Target ~100 lines per commit/PR. Changes over ~1000 lines should be split. See the splitting strategies in `code-review-and-quality` for how to break down large changes.
```
~100 lines → Easy to review, easy to revert
~300 lines → Acceptable for a single logical change
~1000 lines → Split into smaller changes
```
Branching Strategy
Feature Branches
```
main (always deployable)
│
├── feature/task-creation ← One feature per branch
├── feature/user-settings ← Parallel work
└── fix/duplicate-tasks ← Bug fixes
```
Branch from `main` (or the team's default branch)
Keep branches short-lived (merge within 1-3 days) — long-lived branches are hidden costs
Delete branches after merge
Prefer feature flags over long-lived branches for incomplete features
# Each worktree is a separate directory with its own branch
# Agents can work in parallel without interfering
ls ../
project/ ← main branch
project-feature-a/ ← task-creation branch
project-feature-b/ ← user-settings branch
# When done, merge and clean up
git worktree remove ../project-feature-a
```
Benefits:
Multiple agents can work on different features simultaneously
No branch switching needed (each directory has its own branch)
If one experiment fails, delete the worktree — nothing is lost
Changes are isolated until explicitly merged
The Save Point Pattern
```
Agent starts work
│
├── Makes a change
│ ├── Test passes? → Commit → Continue
│ └── Test fails? → Revert to last commit → Investigate
│
├── Makes another change
│ ├── Test passes? → Commit → Continue
│ └── Test fails? → Revert to last commit → Investigate
│
└── Feature complete → All commits form a clean history
```
This pattern means you never lose more than one increment of work. If an agent goes off the rails, `git reset --hard HEAD` takes you back to the last successful state.
Change Summaries
After any modification, provide a structured summary. This makes review easier, documents scope discipline, and surfaces unintended changes:
```
CHANGES MADE:
src/routes/tasks.ts: Added validation middleware to POST endpoint
src/lib/validation.ts: Added TaskCreateSchema using Zod
THINGS I DIDN'T TOUCH (intentionally):
src/routes/auth.ts: Has similar validation gap but out of scope
src/middleware/error.ts: Error format could be improved (separate task)
POTENTIAL CONCERNS:
The Zod schema is strict — rejects extra fields. Confirm this is desired.
Added zod as a dependency (72KB gzipped) — already in package.json
```
This pattern catches wrong assumptions early and gives reviewers a clear map of the change. The "DIDN'T TOUCH" section is especially important — it shows you exercised scope discipline and didn't go on an unsolicited renovation.
**Commit generated files** only if the project expects them (e.g., `package-lock.json`, Prisma migrations)
**Don't commit** build output (`dist/`, `.next/`), environment files (`.env`), or IDE config (`.vscode/settings.json` unless shared)
**Have a `.gitignore`** that covers: `node_modules/`, `dist/`, `.env`, `.env.local`, `*.pem`
Using Git for Debugging
```bash
# Find which commit introduced a bug
git bisect start
git bisect bad HEAD
git bisect good <known-good-commit>
# Git checkouts midpoints; run your test at each to narrow down
# View what changed recently
git log --oneline -20
git diff HEAD~5..HEAD -- src/
# Find who last changed a specific line
git blame src/services/task.ts
# Search commit messages for a keyword
git log --grep="validation" --oneline
```
Common Rationalizations
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "I'll commit when the feature is done" | One giant commit is impossible to review, debug, or revert. Commit each slice. |
| "The message doesn't matter" | Messages are documentation. Future you (and future agents) will need to understand what changed and why. |
| "I'll squash it all later" | Squashing destroys the development narrative. Prefer clean incremental commits from the start. |
| "Branches add overhead" | Short-lived branches are free and prevent conflicting work from colliding. Long-lived branches are the problem — merge within 1-3 days. |
| "I'll split this change later" | Large changes are harder to review, riskier to deploy, and harder to revert. Split before submitting, not after. |
| "I don't need a .gitignore" | Until `.env` with production secrets gets committed. Set it up immediately. |
Red Flags
Large uncommitted changes accumulating
Commit messages like "fix", "update", "misc"
Formatting changes mixed with behavior changes
No `.gitignore` in the project
Committing `node_modules/`, `.env`, or build artifacts
Long-lived branches that diverge significantly from main
Force-pushing to shared branches
Verification
For every commit:
[ ] Commit does one logical thing
[ ] Message explains the why, follows type conventions
[ ] Tests pass before committing
[ ] No secrets in the diff
[ ] No formatting-only changes mixed with behavior changes
