Cmd Pr Conflict Resolver

Resolve Merge Conflicts

Your job is to resolve merge conflicts in the current branch using a structured, context-aware approach. You resolve what you can confidently, explain your reasoning for non-trivial resolutions, and escalate when the correct behavior is ambiguous.

• 1. Verify State
• 2. Map All Conflicts
• 3. Build Context Per Conflict
  • 3a. Read the full file
  • 3b. Trace commit history on both sides
  • 3c. Examine surrounding code
  • 3d. Check cascading implications
  • 3e. Assess business logic impact
• 4. Classify Each Conflict (3-Tier System)
• 5. Resolve by Tier
  • Tier 1: Auto-resolve
  • Tier 2: Resolve with type-specific guidance
  • Tier 3: Escalate
  • New code escalation
• 6. Verify and Stage
• 7. Reflection and Handoff

1. Verify State

Assume I already ran git merge and there are unresolved conflicts.

• Run git status to confirm conflicts exist
• Identify the merge target via git rev-parse MERGE_HEAD (or REBASE_HEAD / CHERRY_PICK_HEAD as applicable)
• Run a baseline diff between both sides, excluding lock/generated files:

git diff MERGE_HEAD...HEAD -- ":(exclude)*.lock" ":(exclude)package-lock.json" ":(exclude)pnpm-lock.yaml"

This gives you the big picture before touching individual conflicts.

2. Map All Conflicts

Inventory every conflict before resolving any of them.

git diff --name-only --diff-filter=U

rg "<<<<<<< " --line-number

• Create a task list with one entry per conflict chunk, grouped by file
• Note patterns across the conflict set:
  • Same subsystem? Paired changes? Generated files?
  • How many conflicts total? Are they concentrated or spread across the codebase?

3. Build Context Per Conflict

For each conflict, before classifying or resolving:

3a. Read the full file

Not just the markers. Understand the function/block's role in the file.

3b. Trace commit history on both sides

git log --oneline MERGE_HEAD -- <file>
git log --oneline HEAD -- <file>

Read commit messages and diffs to understand intent on each side.

3c. Examine surrounding code

Read 20-40 lines around the conflict. Identify invariants:

• Ordering conventions (alphabetical imports, specificity-ordered routes)
• Uniqueness constraints (no duplicate keys, no duplicate enum variants)
• Completeness requirements (exhaustive match arms, full registry lists)
• Check for related test files that may clarify expected behavior

3d. Check cascading implications

If the conflict is in a signature, type, constant, or export:

rg "<symbol_name>" --type-add 'src:*.{ts,py,go,rs,java}' -t src

Find all usages to identify downstream impact.

3e. Assess business logic impact

Answer three questions for each conflict:

1. Scope: Mechanical (formatting/imports/whitespace) or runtime behavior change?
2. Risk: If resolved wrong, what breaks? (nothing / tests / production / data integrity)
3. Novelty: Both sides added new behavior? Or one cleanly supersedes the other?

4. Classify Each Conflict (3-Tier System)

Tier 2 rationale format:

Resolved file:line. [How]. Rationale: [why]. Flag if wrong.

Key balance: Tier 1 keeps you decisive. Tier 3 keeps you consultative when it matters. Tier 2 handles the middle ground -- resolve but make reasoning visible.

5. Resolve by Tier

Tier 1: Auto-resolve

• Edit the file to the desired final state
• Remove all conflict markers (<<<<<<<, =======, >>>>>>>)
• Verify the result is syntactically clean

Tier 2: Resolve with type-specific guidance

Apply the right merge strategy based on the construct type:

Lists/registries (imports, exports, routes, enum variants):

• Union both sides, deduplicate
• Maintain the file's existing ordering convention (alphabetical, grouped, etc.)

Function bodies (both added branches/conditions):

• Include all additions
• Respect ordering by specificity (more specific before more general)

Config/struct (both added keys):

• Merge all keys
• If the same key has different values, escalate to Tier 3

Parallel new code (both added new functions/classes):

• Include both
• Order consistently with the file's existing conventions

After combining: Re-read the result as a human would. Check for:

• Duplicated side effects
• Broken invariants (ordering, uniqueness, completeness)
• Mismatched types or signatures

Tier 3: Escalate

• Show me the conflicting chunks with surrounding context
• Explain what each side intended (based on commit history from step 3b)
• State the specific ambiguity ("Both sides modify the retry logic but with different strategies")
• Offer 2-3 resolution options with trade-offs
• Wait for my direction before editing

After receiving direction:

• Restate your plan in one sentence before editing
• Re-evaluate remaining Tier 2 conflicts if new context was revealed

New code escalation

When neither side's code is complete and the right answer is a third implementation (not just combining both):

• Flag it explicitly with a 3-5 bullet plan describing the proposed implementation
• Wait for approval before writing

6. Verify and Stage

After all conflicts are resolved:

rg "<<<<<<< "

Confirm zero remaining conflict markers.

• Run lint/type-check if fast (skip slow integration tests)
• Stage resolved files individually: git add <specific_files> -- not git add .
• Do not commit -- leave that to me

7. Reflection and Handoff

Provide a summary table with a Status emoji column so risky items are impossible to overlook:

Status emoji meanings (use exactly these):

Rules:

• Every row MUST have a status emoji -- no blank status cells
• Any resolution that drops code (even dead code) must be 🟡 or higher
• Any Tier 2 resolution where your confidence is below ~80% must be 🟡
• Tier 3 is always 🔴

Flags section

After the table, list flags grouped by severity. Each flag MUST start with its emoji:

• 🔴 Tier 3 escalations (blocking -- need direction before proceeding)
• 🟡 Tier 2 lower-confidence resolutions (non-blocking but review recommended)
• ⚠️ Cascading implications found during step 3d
• ⚠️ Architectural divergence detected between the two sides
• ⚠️ Files that weren't in the conflict set but may be affected by the merge

Cascading Impact section

Always close with a 🔴 Cascading Impact section (even if empty). If there are files outside the conflict set that may be broken or need review, present them as a table — not prose:

If no cascading impact was found, write: 🟢 No cascading impact detected outside the conflict set.

Never bury cascading risk in a prose paragraph — it must be a labeled section with a table or explicit green all-clear.