Git Commit Best Practices

Purpose: This skill teaches AI agents to create high-quality commits with clear messages, proper granularity, and effective use of the staging area.

Core Principles

•Atomic Commits - One logical change per commit
•Clear Messages - Follow Conventional Commits format
•Meaningful History - Each commit tells a story
•Smart Staging - Stage only what belongs together

Commit Message Format

Conventional Commits Structure

code

<type>(<scope>): <subject>

<body>

<footer>

Type Categories

bash

# ✓ CORRECT: Use these standard types
feat:     # New feature for the user
fix:      # Bug fix
docs:     # Documentation changes
style:    # Formatting, missing semicolons, etc. (no code change)
refactor: # Code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature
perf:     # Performance improvement
test:     # Adding or updating tests
chore:    # Maintenance tasks, dependencies, config

# Examples:
feat(auth): add password reset functionality
fix(api): handle null response in user endpoint
docs(readme): update installation instructions
refactor(parser): simplify token extraction logic

Subject Line Guidelines

bash

# ✓ GOOD: Clear, concise, imperative mood
feat(auth): add OAuth2 login support
fix(cart): prevent duplicate items
docs(api): document rate limiting

# ✗ BAD: Vague, past tense, too long
feat(auth): added some authentication stuff
fix(cart): fixed a bug
docs(api): updated the documentation to include information about rate limiting

Rules:

•Use imperative mood ("add" not "added" or "adds")
•No period at the end
•Keep under 50 characters
•Capitalize first letter after type
•Be specific about what changed

Body Guidelines

bash

# ✓ GOOD: Explains WHY and context
feat(cache): add Redis caching layer

Improves API response time by 80% for frequently accessed data.
Uses Redis with 1-hour TTL for user profile and product catalog
endpoints. Falls back to database if Redis is unavailable.

Related to performance optimization initiative.

# ✗ BAD: Just repeats the subject
feat(cache): add Redis caching layer

Added Redis caching.

When to include body:

•Why the change was needed
•How it solves the problem
•Any important implementation decisions
•Side effects or limitations
•Related issues or context

When to skip body:

•Self-explanatory changes (e.g., "fix(typo): correct variable name")

Footer Guidelines

bash

# Breaking changes
feat(api): change user endpoint response format

BREAKING CHANGE: User API now returns camelCase instead of snake_case.
Migration guide: https://docs.example.com/migration/v2

# Issue references
fix(auth): prevent token expiration race condition

Closes #123
Refs #456

# Co-authors
feat(search): implement full-text search

Co-authored-by: Jane Doe <jane@example.com>

Atomic Commits

What is an Atomic Commit?

Definition: One commit = one logical change

bash

# ✓ GOOD: Atomic commits
git commit -m "feat(auth): add login endpoint"
git commit -m "feat(auth): add logout endpoint"
git commit -m "test(auth): add login tests"

# ✗ BAD: Non-atomic commit
git commit -m "feat(auth): add login, logout, password reset, and tests"

Benefits

•Easy to review - Reviewer focuses on one change
•Easy to revert - Undo specific change without affecting others
•Easy to cherry-pick - Apply specific change to another branch
•Clear history - Each commit has clear purpose

How to Create Atomic Commits

bash

# ✓ CORRECT: Stage related changes only
# You made changes to auth.js, api.js, and tests.js

# Commit 1: Feature implementation
git add src/auth.js src/api.js
git commit -m "feat(auth): add token refresh mechanism"

# Commit 2: Tests
git add tests/auth.test.js
git commit -m "test(auth): add token refresh tests"

# ✗ WRONG: Stage everything together
git add .
git commit -m "feat(auth): add token refresh and tests"

Decision Tree: Should This Be One Commit?

code

Does this change have a single, clear purpose?
├─ YES → Can it be described in one sentence?
│  ├─ YES → One commit ✓
│  └─ NO  → Multiple commits
│
└─ NO → Multiple commits

Examples:
├─ "Add login validation" → One commit ✓
├─ "Add login and signup" → Two commits
└─ "Add login, fix bug, update docs" → Three commits

Staging Strategies

Strategy 1: Partial File Staging

bash

# You changed multiple things in one file
# Only stage the lines related to current commit

git add -p src/app.js

# Interactive prompts:
# y - stage this hunk
# n - don't stage this hunk
# s - split into smaller hunks
# e - manually edit the hunk

# Then commit only staged changes
git commit -m "feat(app): add error handling"

# Stage and commit remaining changes separately
git add -p src/app.js
git commit -m "refactor(app): extract validation logic"

Strategy 2: Multiple Commits from Unstaged Work

bash

# ✓ WORKFLOW: Create multiple atomic commits from current changes

# Check what changed
git status
git diff

# Commit 1: Feature A
git add src/feature-a.js src/utils.js
git commit -m "feat(feature-a): implement feature A"

# Commit 2: Feature B
git add src/feature-b.js
git commit -m "feat(feature-b): implement feature B"

# Commit 3: Tests
git add tests/
git commit -m "test: add tests for features A and B"

Strategy 3: Amend Last Commit

bash

# Use case: You forgot to include a file in the last commit

# ✓ CORRECT: Amend if commit is NOT pushed yet
git add forgotten-file.js
git commit --amend --no-edit

# OR update the commit message too
git commit --amend -m "feat(auth): add login endpoint and middleware"

# ✗ WRONG: Amend if commit is already pushed
# This rewrites history and causes problems for collaborators

# If already pushed, create new commit instead:
git add forgotten-file.js
git commit -m "feat(auth): add missing middleware file"

Common Workflows

Workflow 1: Making a Feature Commit

bash

# 1. Check current state
git status
git diff

# 2. Stage related changes only
git add src/feature.js src/api.js

# 3. Review what will be committed
git diff --staged

# 4. Commit with conventional format
git commit -m "feat(feature): add user profile customization

Allows users to customize avatar, bio, and theme preferences.
Settings are persisted to user preferences API endpoint.

Closes #234"

# 5. Verify commit
git log -1 --stat

Workflow 2: Making Multiple Atomic Commits

bash

# You worked on multiple things, now need to commit separately

# 1. Check all changes
git status

# 2. First commit: Core feature
git add src/core.js
git commit -m "feat(core): add data validation layer"

# 3. Second commit: API integration
git add src/api.js
git commit -m "feat(api): integrate validation with endpoints"

# 4. Third commit: Tests
git add tests/
git commit -m "test(validation): add comprehensive validation tests"

# 5. Fourth commit: Documentation
git add docs/
git commit -m "docs(validation): document validation rules"

Workflow 3: Fixing a Bug

bash

# ✓ GOOD: Clear bug fix commit

git add src/buggy-file.js
git commit -m "fix(cart): prevent duplicate items on double-click

Added debounce to 'Add to Cart' button and server-side duplicate
check. Prevents race condition when users click rapidly.

Fixes #567"

# Include:
# - What the bug was
# - How you fixed it
# - Issue reference

Workflow 4: Amending vs New Commit Decision

code

Did I already push this commit?
├─ NO → Safe to amend
│  └─> git commit --amend
│
└─ YES → Create new commit instead
   └─> git commit -m "fix: ..."

Is this a fixup for recent commit?
└─> Consider git commit --fixup=<sha>
    Then use git rebase -i --autosquash before pushing

Workflow 5: Refactoring Commits

bash

# ✓ GOOD: Separate refactoring from behavior changes

# Commit 1: Pure refactor (no behavior change)
git add src/parser.js
git commit -m "refactor(parser): extract token validation to separate function

No behavior change. Makes code more testable and readable."

# Commit 2: Behavior change
git add src/parser.js
git commit -m "feat(parser): add support for nested tokens

Now supports tokens in format {{parent.child.value}}"

# Why separate?
# - Easy to verify refactor doesn't change behavior
# - Easy to revert feature without losing refactor
# - Clear history

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Mistake 1: Vague Commit Messages

bash

# ✗ BAD: No context
git commit -m "update"
git commit -m "fix bug"
git commit -m "changes"
git commit -m "wip"

# ✓ GOOD: Clear and specific
git commit -m "feat(auth): add JWT token expiration check"
git commit -m "fix(api): handle null values in user profile endpoint"
git commit -m "refactor(parser): simplify regex patterns"
git commit -m "docs(readme): add Docker setup instructions"

Mistake 2: Mixing Unrelated Changes

bash

# ✗ BAD: Multiple unrelated changes in one commit
git add .
git commit -m "feat: add login, fix cart bug, update docs"

# ✓ GOOD: Separate commits
git add src/auth.js
git commit -m "feat(auth): add OAuth login support"

git add src/cart.js
git commit -m "fix(cart): prevent negative quantities"

git add docs/
git commit -m "docs(api): update authentication endpoints"

Mistake 3: Committing Debug Code

bash

# ✗ BAD: Leaving console.log, debugger statements
git add src/app.js  # Contains console.log debugging
git commit -m "feat(app): add feature"

# ✓ GOOD: Review before committing
git diff --staged  # Check for debug code
# Remove debug statements
git add src/app.js
git commit -m "feat(app): add feature"

Mistake 4: Too Large or Too Small Commits

bash

# ✗ TOO LARGE: Entire feature in one commit
git commit -m "feat(auth): complete authentication system"
# 50 files changed, 2000+ lines

# ✗ TOO SMALL: Meaningless micro-commits
git commit -m "add semicolon"
git commit -m "fix typo"
git commit -m "add newline"

# ✓ GOOD: Right-sized atomic commits
git commit -m "feat(auth): add login endpoint"
git commit -m "feat(auth): add logout endpoint"
git commit -m "feat(auth): add token refresh mechanism"
git commit -m "test(auth): add authentication tests"

Mistake 5: Amending Pushed Commits

bash

# ✗ DANGEROUS: Amending after push
git push origin feature-branch
# Oh, forgot a file!
git add forgotten.js
git commit --amend --no-edit
git push --force origin feature-branch  # ← Causes problems!

# ✓ SAFE: New commit instead
git push origin feature-branch
# Oh, forgot a file!
git add forgotten.js
git commit -m "feat(auth): add missing validation helper"
git push origin feature-branch

Commit Message Templates

Template for Features

bash

feat(<scope>): <what you added>

<why this feature is needed>
<how it works (if not obvious)>
<any limitations or considerations>

Closes #<issue-number>

Template for Bug Fixes

bash

fix(<scope>): <what you fixed>

<what was wrong>
<how you fixed it>
<why this approach>

Fixes #<issue-number>

Template for Refactoring

bash

refactor(<scope>): <what you refactored>

No behavior change. <why refactor was needed>
<what improved (readability, performance, maintainability)>

Integration with AI Code Generation

When AI agents generate code that needs committing:

1. Analyze Changes Before Committing

bash

# ✓ CORRECT: Check what changed
git status
git diff

# Determine:
# - Is this one logical change or multiple?
# - What type of change? (feat, fix, refactor, etc.)
# - What scope? (auth, api, ui, etc.)

2. Create Appropriate Commit Message

bash

# ✓ GOOD: AI-generated message with context
git commit -m "feat(api): add rate limiting middleware

Implements token bucket algorithm with 100 requests/minute limit.
Returns 429 status with Retry-After header when limit exceeded.

Addresses security requirement from issue #789"

# ✗ BAD: Generic AI message
git commit -m "add rate limiting"

3. Split Large Changes

bash

# If AI generated multiple files for different purposes:

# ✓ CORRECT: Separate commits
git add src/rate-limiter.js
git commit -m "feat(api): add rate limiting middleware"

git add tests/rate-limiter.test.js
git commit -m "test(api): add rate limiter tests"

git add docs/api.md
git commit -m "docs(api): document rate limiting"

# ✗ WRONG: One large commit
git add .
git commit -m "add rate limiting with tests and docs"

Quick Reference Checklist

Before every commit, ask:

• Is this one logical change?
• Did I stage only related files?
• Is my commit message in Conventional Commits format?
• Does the subject line clearly describe what changed?
• Did I explain why (not just what) in the body?
• Did I remove debug code and comments?
• Is this commit NOT already pushed? (if planning to amend)
• Would this be easy to review?
• Would this be easy to revert if needed?

Advanced: Commit Message Psychology

Good commit messages answer:

•What changed? (Subject line)
•Why was it needed? (Body - business reason)
•How does it work? (Body - technical approach)
•What are the side effects? (Body - impacts)

bash

# ✓ EXCELLENT: Answers all questions
feat(search): implement fuzzy search algorithm

Users frequently make typos in search queries, resulting in zero
results and poor experience. Implemented Levenshtein distance-based
fuzzy matching with tolerance of 2 characters.

Performance impact: ~50ms additional latency for searches, acceptable
given improved user experience. Results are cached for 5 minutes.

Closes #456

Summary

Key Principles:

•One commit = one logical change (atomic commits)
•Use Conventional Commits format (type, scope, clear subject)
•Explain why, not just what (meaningful commit messages)
•Stage strategically (use git add -p for partial staging)
•Never amend pushed commits (creates new commit instead)

Quick Command Reference:

bash

git add <file>                    # Stage specific file
git add -p <file>                 # Stage parts of file interactively
git diff --staged                 # Review what will be committed
git commit -m "type(scope): msg"  # Commit with message
git commit --amend --no-edit      # Amend last commit (if not pushed)
git log -1 --stat                 # Verify last commit

Remember: Commits are documentation of your project's history. Write them for humans who will read them 6 months from now.