Commit Message (Conventional Commits v1.0.0)
Trigger phrases: "commit message", "make a commit", "conventional commit", "write a commit", "git commit"
Format: type(scope): summary + (optional blank line + body) + (optional footer).
Type (required)
feat — new feature · fix — bug fix
docs — docs only · refactor — restructure with no behavior change
perf — performance · test — add/fix tests
build — build/dependency · ci — CI configuration
chore — maintenance/automated · revert — revert a previous commit
style — formatting (no logic)
Which type? (deciding when ambiguous)
- A new capability for the user? →
feat. Fixing an existing wrong behavior? → fix.
- Behavior the same, only the structure changed? →
refactor (if behavior changed it's feat/fix, not refactor).
- Touched only tests/docs/formatting? →
test/docs/style (don't touch code logic).
Scope (optional, preferred)
The affected area/module: auth, api, backend, db, frontend, session, agent, etc.
One word, consistent with the project's module name.
Summary line
- In the project's established language (English by default for open source), imperative/summary mood, start lowercase, NO period at the end, ≤ ~72 characters.
- Say what it does, not how; avoid vague words ("fix", "update", "wip").
✅
feat(auth): one-time code TTL + brute-force limit
❌ fix: bug · ❌ update · ❌ changes
Body (optional — recommended for meaningful changes)
After a blank line: the WHY (motivation) + notable consequences/tradeoffs. Wrap at ~72 characters.
Leave context for the future reader who opens git-blame — the diff already shows the "what"; you write the "why".
Footer (optional)
BREAKING CHANGE: <description> — a backward-incompatible breaking change (triggers SemVer MAJOR, release skill).
Refs: #<issue> / Closes #<issue>.
Atomic commit — splitting a mixed diff
If a diff contains several logical changes, split it; don't cram it into one commit:
git add -p # pick hunk by hunk; stage related changes separately
git add <specific/file>
Each commit focused on a single topic; "feat + fix + refactor" doesn't belong in one commit.
Good / bad
Worked good-vs-bad commit examples: references/examples.md.
Rules
- Atomic: one logical change = one commit.
- No commit without DoD: don't propose a message until
/simplify + tests green + (if SonarQube is used) sonarqube-check 0/0/0/0 pass.
- If there is no staged diff, warn; ask the user about the
git add scope with explicit options.
- Don't run
git commit silently; propose the message, wait for approval.
Prohibitions (absolute — see CLAUDE.md §4)
- No AI trace: no co-author trailer, auto-generation footer, or robot emoji in the subject/body;
words naming an AI assistant, model, or coding tool, and the
.claude name, do not appear in the message.
- No vendor name: the third-party template/skeleton name and any "vendor copy / cleanup" disclosure are not written in the message (§4.2).
- Human, natural language: the message is natural, technical, and in the project's established language (English by default for open source).
- Approval: commit only when the user says "commit"; "done" is not approval (§4.4).
- Destructive: amend / reset / force /
--no-verify only on an explicit request; the hook is not skipped (§4.5).
1---2name: commit-message3description: Conventional Commits: reads the staged diff and proposes `type(scope): summary`, with body/footer when needed. One logical change = one commit. commit-agent-csk applies it.4---56# Commit Message (Conventional Commits v1.0.0)78<!-- routing-eval reads this line; it lives in the BODY so the always-on skill LISTING stays inside9 Claude Code's budget (1% of the context window) — an overflowing listing gets descriptions10 truncated or dropped, which strips the very keywords a match depends on. -->11Trigger phrases: "commit message", "make a commit", "conventional commit", "write a commit", "git commit"1213Format: `type(scope): summary` + (optional blank line + body) + (optional footer).1415## Type (required)16- `feat` — new feature · `fix` — bug fix17- `docs` — docs only · `refactor` — restructure with no behavior change18- `perf` — performance · `test` — add/fix tests19- `build` — build/dependency · `ci` — CI configuration20- `chore` — maintenance/automated · `revert` — revert a previous commit21- `style` — formatting (no logic)2223### Which type? (deciding when ambiguous)24- A new capability for the user? → `feat`. Fixing an existing wrong behavior? → `fix`.25- Behavior the same, only the structure changed? → `refactor` (if behavior changed it's `feat`/`fix`, not refactor).26- Touched only tests/docs/formatting? → `test`/`docs`/`style` (don't touch code logic).2728## Scope (optional, preferred)29The affected area/module: `auth`, `api`, `backend`, `db`, `frontend`, `session`, `agent`, etc.30One word, consistent with the project's module name.3132## Summary line33- **In the project's established language** (English by default for open source), imperative/summary mood, start lowercase, NO period at the end, ≤ ~72 characters.34- Say **what it does**, not how; avoid vague words ("fix", "update", "wip").35 ✅ `feat(auth): one-time code TTL + brute-force limit`36 ❌ `fix: bug` · ❌ `update` · ❌ `changes`3738## Body (optional — recommended for meaningful changes)39After a blank line: the **WHY** (motivation) + notable consequences/tradeoffs. Wrap at ~72 characters.40Leave context for the future reader who opens git-blame — the diff already shows the "what"; you write the "why".4142## Footer (optional)43- `BREAKING CHANGE: <description>` — a backward-incompatible breaking change (triggers SemVer MAJOR, `release` skill).44- `Refs: #<issue>` / `Closes #<issue>`.4546## Atomic commit — splitting a mixed diff47If a diff contains several logical changes, **split it**; don't cram it into one commit:48```bash49git add -p # pick hunk by hunk; stage related changes separately50git add <specific/file>51```52Each commit focused on a single topic; "feat + fix + refactor" doesn't belong in one commit.5354## Good / bad5556Worked good-vs-bad commit examples: **`references/examples.md`**.5758## Rules59- **Atomic:** one logical change = one commit.60- **No commit without DoD:** don't propose a message until `/simplify` + tests green + (if SonarQube is used) `sonarqube-check` 0/0/0/0 pass.61- If there is no staged diff, warn; ask the user about the `git add` scope with explicit options.62- Don't run `git commit` silently; propose the message, **wait for approval**.6364## Prohibitions (absolute — see CLAUDE.md §4)65- **No AI trace:** no co-author trailer, auto-generation footer, or robot emoji in the subject/body;66 words naming an AI assistant, model, or coding tool, and the `.claude` name, do not appear in the message.67- **No vendor name:** the third-party template/skeleton name and any "vendor copy / cleanup" disclosure are not written in the message (§4.2).68- **Human, natural language:** the message is natural, technical, and in the project's established language (English by default for open source).69- **Approval:** commit only when the user says "commit"; "done" is not approval (§4.4).70- **Destructive:** amend / reset / force / `--no-verify` only on an explicit request; the hook is not skipped (§4.5).