Defame1297
ae791781c2
git-workflow calls itself a router but named two of the six domains it routes to; the other four appeared nowhere in the file. All six are now named, with a routing table in the always-loaded body. git-submodules lost the foreach shell-variable semantics -- only the bare names survived, though $sm_path and $displaypath differ solely by which directory you are in. The table is back. Its relocated commands had also dropped the rtk git prefix its own SKILL.md mandates; 24 of them are re-prefixed. The wider rtk inconsistency across the plugin stays with #113. Also restores git-commits' body and footers output fields, git-branches' tag/ branch detection commands, git-worktrees' git config --worktree, pc-run's ambiguity fallback, git-remotes' git-history boundary, and git-history's pickaxe triggers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EJJrm5YmacbwMdzZpXcoti
4.0 KiB
4.0 KiB
name, description, metadata
| name | description | metadata | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| git-workflow | Use when a human's local git request is general or ambiguous — it routes to the owning domain skill: `git-commits`, `git-branches`, `git-history`, `git-remotes`, `git-submodules` or `git-worktrees`. An unambiguous request goes straight to its domain skill instead. Not an agent caller -> `git-orchestrate`. Not Gitea -> `gitea-workflow`. |
|
Gotchas
- Session context built during one multi-step request — branch names, the chosen base, the commit strategy — persists for that request and then clears. Do not re-ask the user for a decision they already gave you earlier in the same workflow.
- Run parent-repo commands through
rtk git <command>, never baregit <command>. This is a mandated org wrapper, not a style preference. Submodule-specific commands run from inside the submodule's own directory instead.
Domains
Every request resolves to exactly one of these six. An unambiguous one should have gone straight to the domain skill; this skill exists for the ones that did not.
| The request is about | Domain |
|---|---|
| Writing, amending, squashing, or cherry-picking a commit, and its message | git-commits |
| Creating, switching, deleting, renaming, tracking, or merging a local branch | git-branches |
| When a change landed, which commit broke something, what to revert or backport | git-history |
| Anything touching a remote — remote config, fetch, push, pull — even unnamed | git-remotes |
| A nested repository pinned inside this one by a recorded commit | git-submodules |
| Several branches checked out at once, in separate directories, without stashing | git-worktrees |
git-orchestrate executes whatever this resolves to (step 5); the table only decides which domain
owns the request.
Workflow
- Parse intent — extract the operation and, from the table above, the domain that owns it, plus any options the user named.
- Check the hard rules — if the request creates, amends, or rewrites a commit, pushes, or
touches hooks, config, or credentials, read
references/hard-rules.md. Raise the relevant rule before acting, not after. - Read the repo — current branch, working-tree state, and which branching model the repo
follows (the orchestrator reads
branching_patternfrom plugin config; infer from branch names if absent); the last of those decides which tips are worth offering. - Gate destructive operations — before force-push, branch deletion, rebase, or
force-checkout, show what will happen and ask "Proceed?". Cancel gracefully if the user
declines. Never supply the confirmation on the user's behalf. Some operations are refusals, not
confirmations: never offer "Proceed?" for a force-push of
mainormaster. - Invoke the
git-orchestrateagent withoperation,parameters(user-provided or inferred),context(step 3 plus the session context), andconfirm: trueonly for a destructive op the user approved in step 4. - Clarify when the orchestrator asks for more — put its question to the user in plain language ("Which branch should this be based on?") and loop back to step 5 with the answer.
- Report the outcome — on success, the result and what changed, in plain language; on failure, the error reason and a recovery action.
Interaction style
The caller is a human, so the interaction is the point. Explain each step and why it happens ("I'm squashing your last 3 commits into one clean commit" beats "Squashing commits"), show progress as you go, and prefer natural language to raw command lines.
Match tips to the repo's branching model rather than offering generic advice: on a Gitflow repo,
feature branches come off develop and main tracks only released code; on a trunk-based or
GitHub Flow repo, short-lived branches off main keep merges small and reviewable.