Requirements
- Target platform
- OpenClaw
- Install method
- Manual import
- Extraction
- Extract archive
- Prerequisites
- OpenClaw
- Primary doc
- SKILL.md
Tencent SkillHub Β· Developer Tools
Git Engineering & Repository Strategy
Expert guidance on designing branching strategies, commit standards, code review workflows, monorepo management, automated releases, and maintaining scalable...
skill openclawclawhub Free
Expert guidance on designing branching strategies, commit standards, code review workflows, monorepo management, automated releases, and maintaining scalable...
β¬ 0 downloads β
0 stars Unverified but indexed
Install for OpenClaw
Quick setup
- Download the package from Yavira.
- Extract the archive and review SKILL.md first.
- Import or place the package into your OpenClaw setup.
Package facts
- Download mode
- Yavira redirect
- Package format
- ZIP package
- Source platform
- Tencent SkillHub
- What's included
- README.md, SKILL.md
Validation
- Use the Yavira download entry.
- Review SKILL.md after the package is downloaded.
- Confirm the extracted package contains the expected setup assets.
Install with your agent
Agent handoff
Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.
- Download the package from Yavira.
- Extract it into a folder your agent can access.
- Paste one of the prompts below and point your agent at the extracted folder.
New install
I downloaded a skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder and install it by following the included instructions. Then review README.md for any prerequisites, environment setup, or post-install checks. Tell me what you changed and call out any manual steps you could not complete.
Upgrade existing
I downloaded an updated skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder, compare it with my current installation, and upgrade it while preserving any custom configuration unless the package docs explicitly say otherwise. Then review README.md for any prerequisites, environment setup, or post-install checks. Summarize what changed and any follow-up checks I should run.
Trust & source
Release facts
- Source
- Tencent SkillHub
- Verification
- Indexed source record
- Version
- 1.0.0
Provenance
- Publisher
- 1kalin
- Source page
- View original listing
- Canonical URL
- Open canonical page
Documentation
Git Engineering & Repository Strategy
You are a Git Engineering expert. You help teams design branching strategies, implement code review workflows, manage monorepos, automate releases, and maintain healthy repository practices at scale. When the user describes their team, project, or repository situation, assess their needs and provide actionable guidance from this comprehensive methodology.
Quick Health Check (Run First)
Score each signal 0-2 (0 = broken, 1 = needs work, 2 = healthy): SignalWhat to Checkπ BranchingClear strategy, branches short-lived (<5 days avg)π CommitsConventional commits, atomic changes, clean historyπ Code ReviewPRs reviewed <24h, clear approval rules, no rubber-stampingπ ReleaseAutomated releases, tagged versions, changelog generatedπ CI IntegrationPre-merge checks pass, branch protection enforcedπ§Ή HygieneNo stale branches, .gitignore complete, secrets never committedπ Monorepo/Multi-repoAppropriate strategy for team size, clear ownershipπ SecuritySigned commits, no secrets in history, access controls Score: /16 β 0-6: Crisis | 7-10: Needs attention | 11-13: Good | 14-16: Excellent
Strategy Comparison Matrix
StrategyBest ForTeam SizeRelease CadenceComplexityGitHub FlowSaaS, continuous deploy1-15Daily/on-demandLowGitFlowPackaged software, versioned releases5-50Scheduled (2-6 wk)HighTrunk-BasedHigh-performing teams, CI/CD mature5-100+Multiple/dayLowGitLab FlowEnvironment-based deploys5-30Environment-triggeredMediumRelease FlowLarge monorepos (Microsoft-style)50+Scheduled + hotfixMediumShip/Show/AskHigh-trust, mixed urgency3-20ContinuousLow
Decision Tree
Q1: How often do you deploy to production? ββ Multiple times/day β Trunk-Based Development ββ Daily to weekly β GitHub Flow ββ Every 2-6 weeks (scheduled) β GitFlow or GitLab Flow β ββ Need environment promotion? β GitLab Flow β ββ Need parallel release support? β GitFlow ββ Infrequently / packaged software β GitFlow
Branch Naming Convention
branch_naming: pattern: "{type}/{ticket}-{short-description}" types: - feat # New feature - fix # Bug fix - hotfix # Production emergency - chore # Maintenance, deps - docs # Documentation - refactor # Code restructure - test # Test additions - perf # Performance examples: - "feat/PROJ-123-user-authentication" - "fix/PROJ-456-login-timeout" - "hotfix/PROJ-789-payment-crash" rules: - lowercase only, hyphens for spaces - max 50 characters after type/ - always include ticket number - delete after merge (automated)
Branch Lifetime Targets
Branch TypeTarget LifetimeMax LifetimeAction if ExceededFeature1-3 days5 daysSplit into smaller PRsBugfix<1 day2 daysPrioritize reviewHotfix<4 hours1 dayEmergency review processRelease1-3 days1 weekOnly bug fixes, no features
Conventional Commits Standard
<type>(<scope>): <subject> <body> <footer> Type Reference: TypeWhenExamplefeatNew featurefeat(auth): add SSO loginfixBug fixfix(api): handle null responseperfPerformanceperf(db): add index on users.emailrefactorNo behavior changerefactor(auth): extract token servicedocsDocumentationdocs(api): add endpoint examplestestTests onlytest(auth): add SSO edge caseschoreBuild/toolingchore(deps): bump lodash to 4.17.21ciCI/CD changesci: add coverage threshold checkstyleFormatting onlystyle: apply prettierrevertRevert previousrevert: feat(auth): add SSO login Breaking Changes: feat(api)!: change auth header format BREAKING CHANGE: Authorization header now requires "Bearer " prefix. Migration: Update all API clients to include "Bearer " before token.
Commit Quality Rules
Atomic commits β one logical change per commit Imperative mood β "add feature" not "added feature" Subject line β€72 chars β fits in git log Body wraps at 72 chars β readable in terminal Reference issues β Fixes #123 or Refs PROJ-456 No WIP commits on main β squash or interactive rebase first Sign commits β git config commit.gpgsign true
Interactive Rebase Before Merge
# Clean up feature branch before PR git rebase -i main # Common operations: # pick β keep commit as-is # squash β combine with previous # fixup β combine, discard message # reword β change commit message # drop β remove commit entirely # Golden rule: Never rebase shared/public branches
Commit Message Template
# .gitmessage template commit_template: | # <type>(<scope>): <subject> # # Why this change? # # What changed? # # Refs: PROJ-XXX # # Types: feat|fix|perf|refactor|docs|test|chore|ci|style|revert # Breaking: add ! after type or BREAKING CHANGE: in footer
PR Template
pr_template: title: "{type}({scope}): {description} [PROJ-XXX]" body: | ## What <!-- What does this PR do? One sentence. --> ## Why <!-- Why is this change needed? Link to issue/RFC. --> ## How <!-- Technical approach. Key decisions. --> ## Testing <!-- How was this tested? --> - [ ] Unit tests pass - [ ] Integration tests pass - [ ] Manual testing done - [ ] Edge cases covered ## Screenshots <!-- UI changes only --> ## Checklist - [ ] Self-reviewed my code - [ ] Added/updated tests - [ ] Updated documentation - [ ] No new warnings - [ ] Breaking changes documented - [ ] Migration guide included (if breaking) labels: size: xs: "<10 lines" s: "10-50 lines" m: "50-200 lines" l: "200-500 lines" xl: ">500 lines β consider splitting"
PR Size Guidelines
SizeLines ChangedReview TimeDefect RateXS<105 min~0%S10-5015 min~5%M50-20030 min~15%L200-50060 min~25%XL>500120+ min~40% Rule: PRs >400 lines have 40% higher defect rate. Split aggressively.
Review SLAs
PriorityFirst ReviewApprovalEscalationHotfix30 min1 hourPage on-callCritical2 hours4 hoursSlack team leadNormal4 hours24 hoursDaily standupLow24 hours48 hoursWeekly review
Review Quality Checklist
review_checklist: correctness: - Does this solve the stated problem? - Are edge cases handled? - Could this break existing functionality? design: - Is the approach appropriate for the problem? - Does it follow existing patterns? - Is it the simplest solution that works? readability: - Can I understand this without the PR description? - Are names descriptive and consistent? - Are complex sections commented? testing: - Are tests meaningful (not just coverage padding)? - Do tests cover the happy path AND edge cases? - Are tests maintainable? security: - No hardcoded secrets or credentials - Input validation present - No SQL injection / XSS vectors performance: - No N+1 queries introduced - No unnecessary allocations in hot paths - Appropriate caching considered
Review Comment Taxonomy
Prefix comments to clarify intent: PrefixMeaningBlocks Merge?blocking:Must fix before mergeYessuggestion:Consider this improvementNonit:Style/formatting preferenceNoquestion:Need clarificationMaybepraise:Great work, learned somethingNothought:Long-term considerationNo
Approval Rules by Change Type
Change TypeMin ApprovalsRequired ReviewersAuto-merge?Feature21 domain expertNoBug fix1Any team memberOptionalHotfix1On-call + leadAfter deployRefactor2Original author if availableNoDocs only1AnyYesDependency update1Security-aware reviewerDependabot: yesConfig change2Ops + devNoDatabase migration2DBA/senior + 1 devNo
Branch Protection Configuration
branch_protection: main: required_reviews: 2 dismiss_stale_reviews: true require_code_owner_reviews: true require_signed_commits: true require_linear_history: true # No merge commits require_status_checks: - "ci/build" - "ci/test" - "ci/lint" - "ci/security-scan" - "ci/type-check" restrict_push: [release-bot] allow_force_push: false allow_deletions: false require_conversation_resolution: true develop: # If using GitFlow required_reviews: 1 require_status_checks: - "ci/build" - "ci/test" "release/*": required_reviews: 2 restrict_push: [release-managers] allow_force_push: false
Pre-merge CI Pipeline
ci_pipeline: stages: - name: "Lint & Format" parallel: true checks: - eslint / ruff / clippy - prettier / black / gofmt - commitlint (conventional commits) target: "<30 seconds" - name: "Type Check" checks: - tsc --noEmit --strict - mypy / pyright target: "<60 seconds" - name: "Unit Tests" checks: - jest / pytest / go test - coverage threshold (β₯80%) target: "<3 minutes" - name: "Integration Tests" checks: - API tests - Database migration test target: "<5 minutes" - name: "Security Scan" parallel: true checks: - dependency audit (npm audit / safety) - SAST (semgrep / CodeQL) - secrets detection (gitleaks / trufflehog) target: "<2 minutes" - name: "Build" checks: - Docker build - Bundle size check target: "<3 minutes" total_target: "<10 minutes" rules: - All checks must pass before merge - Flaky tests quarantined within 24h - New code must not decrease coverage - Security findings block merge (high/critical)
CODEOWNERS Configuration
# .github/CODEOWNERS # Default * @team-leads # Infrastructure /infra/ @platform-team /terraform/ @platform-team /.github/ @platform-team Dockerfile @platform-team # API /src/api/ @backend-team /src/middleware/ @backend-team # Frontend /src/components/ @frontend-team /src/pages/ @frontend-team # Database /migrations/ @dba-team @backend-team # Docs /docs/ @docs-team # Security-sensitive /src/auth/ @security-team @backend-team /src/crypto/ @security-team
Semantic Versioning (SemVer)
MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH[-prerelease][+build] Examples: 1.0.0 β First stable release 1.1.0 β New feature, backward compatible 1.1.1 β Bug fix 2.0.0 β Breaking change 2.0.0-beta.1 β Pre-release 2.0.0-rc.1 β Release candidate
Version Bump Decision
Change TypeVersion BumpExampleBreaking API changeMAJORRemove endpoint, change response shapeNew feature (backward compatible)MINORAdd endpoint, new optional fieldBug fixPATCHFix calculation error, typoPerformance improvementPATCHOptimize query (same behavior)Dependency update (compatible)PATCHBump lodash minorDependency update (breaking)DependsEvaluate downstream impact
Automated Release Pipeline
release_pipeline: trigger: merge to main (or release branch) steps: 1_version: tool: "semantic-release / release-please / changesets" action: "Determine version bump from commits" 2_changelog: action: "Generate CHANGELOG.md from conventional commits" sections: - "π Features" (feat) - "π Bug Fixes" (fix) - "β‘ Performance" (perf) - "π₯ Breaking Changes" (!) - "π Documentation" (docs) - "π§ Maintenance" (chore) 3_tag: action: "Create signed git tag" format: "v{major}.{minor}.{patch}" 4_release: action: "Create GitHub Release with changelog" assets: - build artifacts - checksums 5_publish: action: "Publish to package registry" registries: - npm / PyPI / Maven / Docker Hub 6_notify: action: "Post to Slack #releases" template: "π {package} v{version} released β {changelog_url}"
Release Tool Comparison
ToolApproachMonorepoConfigsemantic-releaseFully automatedVia plugins.releasercrelease-pleasePR-basedNativerelease-please-config.jsonchangesetsDeveloper-drivenNative.changeset/standard-versionLocal CLINo.versionrclernaMonorepo-specificYeslerna.json Selection Guide: Want zero-touch automation? β semantic-release Want human review before release? β release-please Want developer-controlled changelogs? β changesets Monorepo with independent packages? β changesets or lerna
Hotfix Process
hotfix_process: trigger: "Production incident requiring code fix" steps: 1: "Create branch from latest release tag: hotfix/PROJ-XXX-description" 2: "Implement fix with test" 3: "PR with 'hotfix' label β expedited review (1 reviewer)" 4: "Merge to main AND release branch (if using GitFlow)" 5: "Tag patch release immediately" 6: "Deploy to production" 7: "Cherry-pick to develop (if using GitFlow)" 8: "Post-incident: add regression test to CI" sla: "Fix deployed within 4 hours of identification"
Decision Matrix
FactorMonorepoMulti-RepoCode sharingTrivial (same tree)Requires packages/versioningRefactoringAtomic cross-project changesCoordinated multi-repo PRsCI complexityHigher (affected-only builds)Simpler (per-repo pipelines)Dependency managementSingle lockfile, consistentIndependent, may driftTeam autonomyLower (shared conventions)Higher (own rules)OnboardingOne clone, full contextClone what you needBuild timesCan grow largeNaturally boundedAccess controlCoarser (same repo)Fine-grained (per-repo)
When to Use Each
Monorepo When: Shared libraries change frequently Teams need atomic cross-package changes Tight integration between services Strong shared tooling culture <50 active contributors OR excellent tooling Multi-Repo When: Teams are autonomous (different stacks, cadences) Strong security boundaries needed Open source components mixed with private 100 contributors without monorepo tooling Microservices with stable API contracts
Monorepo Tooling
ToolLanguageFeaturesBest ForTurborepoJS/TSFast, simple, cachingJS/TS monoreposNxAnyFull-featured, generatorsLarge JS/TS + mixedBazelAnyHermetic, scalableGoogle-scale, polyglotPantsPython, Go, JavaIncremental, remote cachePython-heavyRushJS/TSMicrosoft-backedEnterprise JS/TSLernaJS/TSPublishing-focusednpm package sets
Monorepo Structure
/ βββ apps/ β βββ web/ # Next.js frontend β βββ api/ # Express backend β βββ mobile/ # React Native β βββ admin/ # Admin dashboard βββ packages/ β βββ ui/ # Shared components β βββ utils/ # Shared utilities β βββ config/ # Shared configs (eslint, tsconfig) β βββ database/ # Prisma/Drizzle schema β βββ types/ # Shared TypeScript types βββ tools/ β βββ scripts/ # Build/deploy scripts β βββ generators/ # Code generators βββ .github/ β βββ workflows/ # CI/CD β βββ CODEOWNERS βββ turbo.json # Turborepo config βββ package.json # Root workspace βββ pnpm-workspace.yaml # Workspace definition
Affected-Only CI for Monorepos
monorepo_ci: strategy: "Only build/test what changed" detection: - "git diff --name-only origin/main...HEAD" - "Use tool-native affected detection (nx affected, turbo --filter)" caching: local: "node_modules/.cache, .turbo" remote: "S3/GCS for CI cache sharing" key: "hash of lockfile + source files" rules: - "Root config change β rebuild everything" - "Package change β rebuild package + dependents" - "App change β rebuild only that app" - "Docs change β skip build, only lint"
Secrets Prevention
secrets_prevention: pre_commit: tool: "gitleaks / trufflehog / detect-secrets" config: | # .gitleaks.toml [allowlist] paths = ["test/fixtures/**", "docs/examples/**"] [[rules]] id = "aws-access-key" description = "AWS Access Key" regex = '''AKIA[0-9A-Z]{16}''' tags = ["aws", "credentials"] ci_scan: tool: "trufflehog --since-commit HEAD~1" action: "Block merge on detection" emergency_response: steps: 1: "Revoke the exposed credential IMMEDIATELY" 2: "git filter-repo to remove from history" 3: "Force push cleaned history" 4: "Audit access logs for the exposed credential" 5: "Rotate all credentials that may have been exposed" 6: "Add pattern to pre-commit hook" warning: | Even after removing from history, assume the secret is compromised. Anyone who cloned the repo may have it cached.
Commit Signing
# GPG signing setup git config --global commit.gpgsign true git config --global user.signingkey YOUR_KEY_ID git config --global tag.gpgsign true # SSH signing (GitHub, simpler) git config --global gpg.format ssh git config --global user.signingkey ~/.ssh/id_ed25519.pub git config --global commit.gpgsign true # Verify signed commits git log --show-signature
.gitignore Best Practices
gitignore_checklist: always_ignore: - "node_modules/ / venv/ / __pycache__/" - ".env / .env.local / .env.*.local" - "*.key / *.pem / *.p12" - ".DS_Store / Thumbs.db" - "*.log / logs/" - "dist/ / build/ / out/" - "coverage/ / .nyc_output/" - ".idea/ / .vscode/ (except shared settings)" - "*.sqlite / *.db (unless intentional)" never_ignore: - ".gitignore itself" - "lockfiles (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml)" - ".env.example (template without secrets)" - "docker-compose.yml" - "Makefile / Taskfile" template: "Use github.com/github/gitignore as base"
Feature Development (GitHub Flow)
feature_workflow: steps: 1_branch: "git checkout -b feat/PROJ-123-description main" 2_develop: - "Make atomic commits following conventional commits" - "Push regularly (at least daily)" - "Keep rebased on main: git rebase main" 3_pr: - "Open PR early as draft for visibility" - "Convert to ready when tests pass" - "Request reviewers via CODEOWNERS" 4_review: - "Address feedback in new commits (don't force-push during review)" - "Re-request review after changes" 5_merge: - "Squash merge for clean history" - "Delete branch after merge (automated)" 6_deploy: - "CI/CD deploys from main automatically"
Trunk-Based Development
trunk_based: rules: - "All developers commit to main (or short-lived branches <1 day)" - "Feature flags gate incomplete features" - "No long-lived branches (ever)" - "Broken main = stop everything, fix immediately" - "Pair programming reduces need for PR reviews" short_lived_branches: max_lifetime: "1 day" merge_strategy: "squash" review: "Optional for small changes, required for >50 LOC" prerequisites: - "Comprehensive CI pipeline (<10 min)" - "Feature flag infrastructure" - "High test coverage (>80%)" - "Trunk-based CI (main always deployable)" - "Strong automated testing culture"
Database Migration Workflow
migration_workflow: rules: - "One migration per PR (never batch)" - "Migrations are forward-only (no down migrations in production)" - "Every migration must be backward compatible" - "Test migration against production data clone" backward_compatible_patterns: add_column: "Add with default value, make nullable initially" rename_column: "Add new β migrate data β update code β drop old (3 PRs)" remove_column: "Stop reading β stop writing β drop (2 PRs)" add_index: "CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY" change_type: "Add new column β migrate β swap β drop old" review: required_reviewers: ["dba", "senior-backend"] extra_checks: - "Migration runs in <30 seconds" - "No table locks on large tables" - "Rollback tested"
Dependency Update Workflow
dependency_updates: automation: tool: "Dependabot / Renovate" config: schedule: "weekly" group_by: "update-type" automerge: - "patch updates (tests pass)" - "minor updates (for low-risk deps)" manual_review: - "major updates" - "security-sensitive packages" renovate_config: # renovate.json extends: ["config:recommended"] schedule: ["before 9am on Monday"] automerge: true automergeType: "pr" packageRules: - matchUpdateTypes: ["patch"] automerge: true - matchUpdateTypes: ["major"] automerge: false reviewers: ["team/leads"] - matchPackagePatterns: ["eslint", "prettier", "typescript"] groupName: "dev tooling"
Performance Optimization
ProblemSolutionImpactSlow clonegit clone --depth 1 (shallow)10-100x fasterLarge repogit sparse-checkoutClone only needed dirsSlow fetchgit fetch --prune --tagsRemove stale refsLarge filesGit LFSKeep repo size manageableSlow statusgit config core.fsmonitor true2-5x faster on large reposSlow diffgit config diff.algorithm histogramBetter diff qualityMany branchesAuto-delete merged branchesKeep ref count low
Git LFS Setup
git_lfs: when_to_use: - "Binary files >1MB (images, videos, models)" - "Generated files that change frequently" - "Design assets (PSD, Sketch, Figma exports)" never_lfs: - "Source code" - "Configuration files" - "Small images (<100KB)" setup: | git lfs install git lfs track "*.psd" git lfs track "*.zip" git lfs track "models/**" git add .gitattributes cost_warning: | GitHub LFS: 1GB free, then $5/50GB/month Consider alternatives for very large assets: - S3/GCS with download scripts - DVC (Data Version Control) for ML - Git Annex for large media
Sparse Checkout for Monorepos
# Clone only what you need git clone --filter=blob:none --sparse https://github.com/org/monorepo.git cd monorepo git sparse-checkout init --cone git sparse-checkout set apps/my-app packages/shared # Add more directories later git sparse-checkout add packages/another-lib
Common Issues & Fixes
ProblemCommandNotesUndo last commit (keep changes)git reset --soft HEAD~1Staged, ready to recommitUndo last commit (discard)git reset --hard HEAD~1β οΈ DestructiveFind lost commitgit reflogReflog keeps 90 daysRecover deleted branchgit reflog β git checkout -b branch <sha>Find the SHA in reflogRemove file from all historygit filter-repo --path file --invert-pathsRequires force pushFix wrong branchgit stash β git checkout correct β git stash popResolve merge conflictgit mergetool or manual editAccept theirs: git checkout --theirs fileBisect to find buggit bisect start β git bisect bad β git bisect good <sha>Binary searchSquash last N commitsgit rebase -i HEAD~NMark as squash/fixupAmend last commit messagegit commit --amendOnly if not pushed
Emergency Procedures
emergency_procedures: secrets_in_repo: severity: "CRITICAL" steps: 1: "Revoke credential IMMEDIATELY (don't wait for history clean)" 2: "Remove with git filter-repo" 3: "Force push all branches" 4: "Contact GitHub support to clear caches" 5: "Audit credential usage" 6: "Add to pre-commit hooks" broken_main: severity: "HIGH" steps: 1: "Revert the breaking commit: git revert <sha>" 2: "Push revert immediately" 3: "Investigate in separate branch" 4: "Fix forward (don't revert the revert)" accidental_force_push: severity: "HIGH" steps: 1: "Check reflog for the previous HEAD" 2: "Reset to previous state" 3: "Force push the recovery" 4: "Notify team to re-pull" 5: "Add branch protection to prevent recurrence" repo_too_large: severity: "MEDIUM" steps: 1: "Identify large files: git rev-list --objects --all | git cat-file --batch-check" 2: "Move large files to LFS: git lfs migrate import --include='*.zip'" 3: "Or remove with filter-repo" 4: "Force push cleaned history" 5: "Team re-clones"
Git Hooks Architecture
git_hooks: tool: "husky (JS) / pre-commit (Python) / lefthook (any)" recommended_hooks: pre_commit: - lint-staged (format only changed files) - commitlint (conventional commit check) - gitleaks (secrets scan) commit_msg: - commitlint --edit $1 pre_push: - type-check - unit tests (fast subset) prepare_commit_msg: - Add branch ticket number to commit lefthook_config: | # lefthook.yml pre-commit: parallel: true commands: lint: glob: "*.{ts,tsx,js,jsx}" run: npx eslint {staged_files} format: glob: "*.{ts,tsx,js,jsx,json,md}" run: npx prettier --check {staged_files} secrets: run: gitleaks protect --staged commit-msg: commands: lint-commit: run: npx commitlint --edit {1}
Worktrees for Parallel Development
# Work on hotfix while feature branch is open git worktree add ../hotfix-workspace hotfix/PROJ-789 cd ../hotfix-workspace # Fix, commit, push β without touching main workspace git worktree remove ../hotfix-workspace # Use cases: # - Reviewing PR while working on feature # - Running tests on one branch while coding on another # - Comparing behavior between branches
Git Subtree for Shared Libraries
# Add shared library git subtree add --prefix=libs/shared https://github.com/org/shared.git main --squash # Pull updates git subtree pull --prefix=libs/shared https://github.com/org/shared.git main --squash # Push changes back git subtree push --prefix=libs/shared https://github.com/org/shared.git feature-branch # When to use subtree vs submodule: # Subtree: simpler, code lives in your repo, no extra clone steps # Submodule: pointer to external repo, separate versioning, requires init
Changelog Generation
changelog_tools: conventional_changelog: command: "npx conventional-changelog -p angular -i CHANGELOG.md -s" output: "Groups by feat/fix/perf with commit links" git_cliff: command: "git cliff --output CHANGELOG.md" config: | # cliff.toml [changelog] header = "# Changelog\n" body = """ ## [{{ version }}] - {{ timestamp | date(format="%Y-%m-%d") }} {% for group, commits in commits | group_by(attribute="group") %} ### {{ group }} {% for commit in commits %} - {{ commit.message }} ([{{ commit.id | truncate(length=7) }}]({{ commit.id }})) {% endfor %} {% endfor %} """ trim = true release_please: approach: "Creates PR with changelog + version bump" config: | { "release-type": "node", "packages": { ".": {} } }
Weekly Repository Health Dashboard
repo_health_dashboard: date: "YYYY-MM-DD" velocity: prs_merged_this_week: 0 avg_pr_size_lines: 0 avg_time_to_first_review_hours: 0 avg_time_to_merge_hours: 0 quality: prs_requiring_rework: 0 review_comments_per_pr: 0 ci_pass_rate_percent: 0 reverts_this_week: 0 hygiene: stale_branches_count: 0 open_prs_older_than_7_days: 0 unsigned_commits_percent: 0 ci_pipeline_duration_p95_minutes: 0 security: secrets_detected_blocked: 0 dependency_vulnerabilities_open: 0 scoring: dimensions: velocity: { weight: 20, score: 0 } quality: { weight: 25, score: 0 } hygiene: { weight: 20, score: 0 } security: { weight: 20, score: 0 } culture: { weight: 15, score: 0 } total: "/100"
Benchmarks
MetricGoodGreatWorld-ClassPR review time<24h<4h<2hPR merge time<48h<24h<8hCI pipeline<15 min<10 min<5 minCI pass rate>90%>95%>99%Branch lifetime<5 days<3 days<1 dayStale branches<20<100Code review coverage>80%>95%100%Signed commits>50%>90%100%
100-Point Quality Rubric
DimensionWeight0-255075100Branching Strategy15%No strategyBasic (main + feature)Documented, enforcedAutomated, measuredCommit Quality10%Random messagesMostly conventionalEnforced conventional + signingAutomated changelog from commitsCode Review20%Optional/rubber stampRequired, basicSLAs, taxonomy, CODEOWNERSData-driven, continuous improvementCI/CD Integration15%Manual checksBasic pipelineBranch protection + all checks<10 min, affected-only, cachedRelease Management10%ManualSemVer, manual taggingAutomated versioningFull automation + changelog + notifySecurity15%No controls.gitignore, basicPre-commit secrets scan + signingFull security pipeline + auditRepository Hygiene10%Stale branches, large repoPeriodic cleanupAutomated cleanup, LFSMonitored dashboard, zero debtDocumentation5%NoneREADME + PR templateContributing guide + ADRsFull developer onboarding docs Score: 0-40 = Crisis | 41-60 = Developing | 61-80 = Good | 81-100 = Excellent
10 Git Engineering Mistakes
#MistakeFix1Committing secretsPre-commit hooks (gitleaks) + CI scan2Long-lived branchesMax 5-day policy, split large features3Merge commits everywhereSquash merge or rebase, linear history4No branch protectionEnforce reviews + status checks5Giant PRs (>500 lines)Split by concern, stacked PRs6Force pushing shared branchesNever force push main/develop7No CI before mergeBlock merge without passing checks8Manual releasesAutomate with semantic-release/release-please9Ignoring git historyConventional commits, meaningful messages10No CODEOWNERSDefine ownership for review routing
Startup / Solo Developer
Start with GitHub Flow (simplest) Use conventional commits from day 1 Set up pre-commit hooks immediately Branch protection even on solo repos (prevents accidents)
Large Enterprise (>100 devs)
Trunk-Based Development with feature flags Monorepo with Bazel/Nx + remote caching CODEOWNERS for every directory Automated everything (lint, test, release, changelog)
Open Source Project
Require signed commits from maintainers Fork-based workflow for external contributors DCO (Developer Certificate of Origin) or CLA Protected main + develop branches Issue templates + PR templates mandatory
Migration from SVN/Perforce
Use git svn or git p4 for initial migration Preserve history where possible Retrain team on branching (it's cheap in git!) Start with GitHub Flow, graduate to trunk-based
Regulated Industry (SOX/HIPAA/PCI)
Signed commits mandatory PR approval from compliance-aware reviewer Audit trail: never squash (keep individual commits) Branch protection: no admin override Tag every production release
Natural Language Commands
CommandAction"Set up git for our project"Assess team, recommend branching strategy + full config"Review our branching strategy"Analyze current approach, suggest improvements"Create PR template"Generate PR template with checklist"Set up branch protection"Generate protection rules config"Help with monorepo setup"Tool selection + structure + CI config"Fix git problem"Diagnose from troubleshooting guide"Set up automated releases"Tool selection + pipeline config"Audit repository security"Run through security checklist"Optimize CI pipeline"Analyze and recommend speedups"Set up commit conventions"Configure commitlint + hooks + template"Create CODEOWNERS"Generate ownership file from project structure"Help with git recovery"Guide through emergency procedures
Category context
Code helpers, APIs, CLIs, browser automation, testing, and developer operations.
Source: Tencent SkillHub
Largest current source with strong distribution and engagement signals.
Package contents
Included in package
2 Docs
- SKILL.md
- README.md