Projectious Work Aibox Git Workflow

Git Workflow

Intro

Use typed branch names, Conventional Commits, and PR descriptions that explain the why. Squash-merge feature branches for a clean history. Keep commits atomic and never force-push to shared branches.

Overview

Branch naming

Format: <type>/<issue>-<short-description>

Types: feat/, fix/, refactor/, docs/, chore/

Examples:

• feat/42-add-user-auth
• fix/17-null-pointer-crash
• refactor/89-extract-payment-service

Commit messages

Follow Conventional Commits:

• Format: <type>: <description> — lowercase, imperative mood, no trailing period
• Types: feat, fix, refactor, docs, test, chore, ci
• Body: explain WHY, not WHAT (the diff shows what)
• Footer: fixes #N or refs #N for issue links

PR descriptions

• Title: same format as commit messages, under 70 characters
• Body: Summary (what and why), test plan, breaking changes
• Link related issues

Merge strategy

• Squash merge for feature branches — keeps mainline history clean
• Merge commit for long-lived branches — preserves context across the merge
• Rebase to keep a feature branch up to date before opening the PR

Gotchas

Agent-specific failure modes — provider-neutral pause-and-self-check items:

• Mega-commits ("various fixes", 40 files changed). A commit that mixes unrelated changes is impossible to review, impossible to revert selectively, and tells a lie in its message. Each commit should represent one logical change that can stand alone.
• Force-pushing to shared branches. Force-pushing to main or any branch others have checked out rewrites history they depend on, causing diverged local states that are painful to recover. Never force-push to a shared branch.
• Branches that live for months. Long-lived branches diverge from main, accumulate merge conflicts, and eventually require heroic merge efforts. Rebase weekly or split long-running work into shorter-lived feature branches.
• PRs with no description. "See commits" is not a description. The PR description is for the reviewer — it explains what changed, why it changed, and how to verify it. Write it before requesting review.
• Conventional Commit type misuse. Using fix: for features or feat: for refactors corrupts any automation that generates changelogs or determines version bumps from commit types. Match the type to the nature of the change.
• Squash-merging a long-lived integration branch. Squash-merge is for feature branches with noisy "wip" commits. A long-lived branch with meaningful commit history should be merge-committed so the history is preserved for future investigation.
• Committing unrelated changes in the same PR to "save time". Reviewers are slower on unrelated changes combined in one PR; rollback becomes more expensive if one change needs reverting. Split unrelated changes into separate PRs.

Full reference

General rules

• Commit early and often on feature branches; squash at merge time.
• Never force-push to shared branches (main, develop, release branches).
• Keep commits atomic — one logical change per commit. A commit that touches three unrelated concerns is three commits.
• A commit message body wraps at 72 columns; the subject line at 50 if you can.

Worked example

User: "What should I name this branch for adding search?"

Suggest feat/30-add-search-functionality if there's an issue #30; otherwise feat/add-search-functionality. Match the existing repo's convention if it differs.

Anti-patterns

• Mega-commits — "various fixes" with 40 files changed. Impossible to review or revert.
• Force-push to main — destroys other contributors' work.
• Commit messages like "wip", "fix", "stuff" — every commit should be reviewable on its own.
• PRs with no description — the PR description is for the reviewer, not the author. "See commits" is not a description.
• Branches that live for months — long-lived branches diverge from main and become merge nightmares. Rebase weekly or split the work.

When to break the rules

Solo-on-a-private-branch force-pushes are fine. Trivial typo fixes don't need a long body. Use judgment, but the defaults above are right for almost every team setting.

Source: projectious-work/aibox — distributed by TomeVault.