Git Commit, Push, and PR

Go from working tree changes to an open pull request in a single workflow. The key differentiator of this skill is PR descriptions that communicate value and intent proportional to the complexity of the change.

Workflow

Step 1: Gather context

Run these commands. Use

command git

to bypass aliases and RTK proxies.

bash

command git status
command git diff HEAD
command git branch --show-current
command git log --oneline -10
command git rev-parse --abbrev-ref origin/HEAD

The last command returns the remote default branch (e.g.,

origin/main

). Strip the

origin/

prefix to get the branch name. If the command fails or returns a bare

HEAD

, try:

bash

command gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef --jq '.defaultBranchRef.name'

If both fail, fall back to

main

If there are no changes, report that and stop.

Step 2: Determine conventions

Follow this priority order for commit messages and PR titles:

Repo conventions already in context -- If project instructions (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, or similar) are loaded and specify conventions, follow those. Do not re-read these files; they are loaded at session start.
Recent commit history -- If no explicit convention exists, match the pattern visible in the last 10 commits.
Default: conventional commits --
```
type(scope): description
```
as the fallback.

Step 3: Check for existing PR

Before committing, check whether a PR already exists for the current branch:

bash

command gh pr view --json url,title,state

Interpret the result:

If it returns PR data with
state: OPEN
, note the URL and continue to Step 4 (commit) and Step 5 (push). Then skip to Step 7 (existing PR flow) instead of creating a new PR.
If it returns PR data with a non-OPEN state (CLOSED, MERGED), treat this the same as "no PR exists" -- the previous PR is done and a new one is needed.
If it errors with "no pull requests found", no PR exists. Continue to Step 4 through Step 8 as normal.
If it errors for another reason (auth, network, repo config), report the error to the user and stop.

Step 4: Branch, stage, and commit

If on
```
main
```
,
```
master
```
, or the resolved default branch from Step 1, create a descriptive feature branch first (
```
command git checkout -b <branch-name>
```
). Derive the branch name from the change content.
Before staging everything together, scan the changed files for naturally distinct concerns. If modified files clearly group into separate logical changes (e.g., a refactor in one set of files and a new feature in another), create separate commits for each group. Keep this lightweight -- group at the file level only (no
```
git add -p
```
), split only when obvious, and aim for two or three logical commits at most. If it's ambiguous, one commit is fine.
Stage relevant files by name. Avoid
```
git add -A
```
or
```
git add .
```
to prevent accidentally including sensitive files.
Commit following the conventions from Step 2. Use a heredoc for the message.

Step 5: Push

bash

command git push -u origin HEAD

Step 6: Write the PR description

Before writing, determine the base branch and gather the full branch scope. The working-tree diff from Step 1 only shows uncommitted changes at invocation time -- the PR description must cover all commits that will appear in the PR.

Detect the base branch and remote

Resolve the base branch and the remote that hosts it. In fork-based PRs the base repository may correspond to a remote other than

origin

(commonly

upstream

Use this fallback chain. Stop at the first that succeeds:

PR metadata (if an existing PR was found in Step 3):
bash
```
command gh pr view --json baseRefName,url
```
Extract
```
baseRefName
```
as the base branch name. The PR URL contains the base repository (
```
https://github.com/<owner>/<repo>/pull/...
```
). Determine which local remote corresponds to that repository:
bash
```
command git remote -v
```
Match the
```
owner/repo
```
from the PR URL against the fetch URLs. Use the matching remote as the base remote. If no remote matches, fall back to
```
origin
```
.

origin/HEAD
symbolic ref:

bash

command git symbolic-ref --quiet --short refs/remotes/origin/HEAD

Strip the

origin/

prefix from the result. Use

origin

as the base remote.

GitHub default branch metadata:

bash

command gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef --jq '.defaultBranchRef.name'

Use

origin

as the base remote.

Common branch names -- check
```
main
```
,
```
master
```
,
```
develop
```
,
```
trunk
```
in order. Use the first that exists on the remote:
bash
```
command git rev-parse --verify origin/<candidate>
```
Use
```
origin
```
as the base remote.

If none resolve, ask the user to specify the target branch. Use the platform's blocking question tool (

AskUserQuestion

in Claude Code,

request_user_input

in Codex,

ask_user

in Gemini). If no question tool is available, present the options and wait for the user's reply.

Gather the branch scope

Once the base branch and remote are known:

Verify the remote-tracking ref exists locally and fetch if needed:

bash

command git rev-parse --verify <base-remote>/<base-branch>

If this fails (ref missing or stale), fetch it:

bash

command git fetch --no-tags <base-remote> <base-branch>

Find the merge base:

bash

command git merge-base <base-remote>/<base-branch> HEAD

List all commits unique to this branch:

bash

command git log --oneline <merge-base>..HEAD

Get the full diff a reviewer will see:
bash
```
command git diff <merge-base>...HEAD
```

Use the full branch diff and commit list as the basis for the PR description -- not the working-tree diff from Step 1.

This is the most important step. The description must be adaptive -- its depth should match the complexity of the change. A one-line bugfix does not need a table of performance results. A large architectural change should not be a bullet list.

Sizing the change

Assess the PR along two axes before writing, based on the full branch diff:

Size: How many files changed? How large is the diff?
Complexity: Is this a straightforward change (rename, dependency bump, typo fix) or does it involve design decisions, trade-offs, new patterns, or cross-cutting concerns?

Use this to select the right description depth:

Change profile	Description approach
Small + simple (typo, config, dep bump)	1-2 sentences, no headers. Total body under ~300 characters.
Small + non-trivial (targeted bugfix, behavioral change)	Short "Problem / Fix" narrative, ~3-5 sentences. Enough for a reviewer to understand why without reading the diff. No headers needed unless there are two distinct concerns.
Medium feature or refactor	Summary paragraph, then a section explaining what changed and why. Call out design decisions.
Large or architecturally significant	Full narrative: problem context, approach chosen (and why), key decisions, migration notes or rollback considerations if relevant.
Performance improvement	Include before/after measurements if available. A markdown table is effective here.

Brevity matters for small changes. A 3-line bugfix with a 20-line PR description signals the author didn't calibrate. Match the weight of the description to the weight of the change. When in doubt, shorter is better -- reviewers can read the diff.

Writing principles

Lead with value: The first sentence should tell the reviewer why this PR exists, not what files changed. "Fixes timeout errors during batch exports" beats "Updated export_handler.py and config.yaml".
No orphaned opening paragraphs: If the description uses
```
##
```
section headings anywhere, the opening summary must also be under a heading (e.g.,
```
## Summary
```
). An untitled paragraph followed by titled sections looks like a missing heading. For short descriptions with no sections, a bare paragraph is fine.
Describe the net result, not the journey: The PR description is about the end state -- what changed and why. Do not include work-product details like bugs found and fixed during development, intermediate failures, debugging steps, iteration history, or refactoring done along the way. Those are part of getting the work done, not part of the result. If a bug fix happened during development, the fix is already in the diff -- mentioning it in the description implies it's a separate concern the reviewer should evaluate, when really it's just part of the final implementation. Exception: include process details only when they are critical for a reviewer to understand a design choice (e.g., "tried approach X first but it caused Y, so went with Z instead").
Explain the non-obvious: If the diff is self-explanatory, don't narrate it. Spend description space on things the diff doesn't show: why this approach, what was considered and rejected, what the reviewer should pay attention to.
Use structure when it earns its keep: Headers, bullet lists, and tables are tools -- use them when they aid comprehension, not as mandatory template sections. An empty "## Breaking Changes" section adds noise.
Markdown tables for data: When there are before/after comparisons, performance numbers, or option trade-offs, a table communicates density well. Example:
markdown
```
| Metric | Before | After |
|--------|--------|-------|
| p95 latency | 340ms | 120ms |
| Memory (peak) | 2.1GB | 1.4GB |
```
No empty sections: If a section (like "Breaking Changes" or "Migration Guide") doesn't apply, omit it entirely. Do not include it with "N/A" or "None".
Test plan -- only when it adds value: Include a test plan section when the testing approach is non-obvious: edge cases the reviewer might not think of, verification steps for behavior that's hard to see in the diff, or scenarios that require specific setup. Omit it for straightforward changes where the tests are self-explanatory or where "run the tests" is the only useful guidance. A test plan for "verify the typo is fixed" is noise.

Numbering and references

Never prefix list items with
#
in PR descriptions. GitHub interprets

#1

#2

, etc. as issue/PR references and auto-links them. Instead of:

markdown

## Changes
#1. Updated the parser
#2. Fixed the validation

Write:

markdown

## Changes
1. Updated the parser
2. Fixed the validation

When referencing actual GitHub issues or PRs, use the full format:

org/repo#123

or the full URL. Never use bare

#123

unless you have verified it refers to the correct issue in the current repository.

Compound Engineering badge

Append a badge footer to the PR description, separated by a

---

rule. Do not add one if the description already contains a Compound Engineering badge (e.g., added by another skill like ce-work).

markdown

---

[![Compound Engineering v[VERSION]](https://img.shields.io/badge/Compound_Engineering-v[VERSION]-6366f1)](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin)
🤖 Generated with [MODEL] ([CONTEXT] context, [THINKING]) via [HARNESS](HARNESS_URL)

Fill in at PR creation time:

Placeholder	Value	Example
`[MODEL]`	Model name	Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-5.4
`[CONTEXT]`	Context window (if known)	200K, 1M
`[THINKING]`	Thinking level (if known)	extended thinking
`[HARNESS]`	Tool running you	Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI
`[HARNESS_URL]`	Link to that tool	`https://claude.com/claude-code`
`[VERSION]`	`plugin.json` -> `version`	2.40.0

Step 7: Create or update the PR

New PR (no existing PR from Step 3)

bash

command gh pr create --title "the pr title" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
PR description here

---

[![Compound Engineering v[VERSION]](https://img.shields.io/badge/Compound_Engineering-v[VERSION]-6366f1)](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin)
🤖 Generated with [MODEL] ([CONTEXT] context, [THINKING]) via [HARNESS](HARNESS_URL)
EOF
)"

Keep the PR title under 72 characters. The title follows the same convention as commit messages (Step 2).

Existing PR (found in Step 3)

The new commits are already on the PR from the push in Step 5. Report the PR URL, then ask the user whether they want the PR description updated to reflect the new changes. Use the platform's blocking question tool (

AskUserQuestion

in Claude Code,

request_user_input

in Codex,

ask_user

in Gemini). If no question tool is available, present the option and wait for the user's reply before proceeding.

If yes -- write a new description following the same principles in Step 6 (size the full PR, not just the new commits), including the Compound Engineering badge unless one is already present in the existing description. Apply it:
bash
```
command gh pr edit --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
Updated description here
EOF
)"
```
If no -- done. The push was all that was needed.

Step 8: Report

Output the PR URL so the user can navigate to it directly.

Important: Use

command git

and

command gh

Always invoke git as

command git

and gh as

command gh

in shell commands. This bypasses shell aliases and tools like RTK (Rust Token Killer) that proxy commands.

git-commit-push-pr

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content

Git Commit, Push, and PR

Workflow

Step 1: Gather context

Step 2: Determine conventions

Step 3: Check for existing PR

Step 4: Branch, stage, and commit

Step 5: Push

Step 6: Write the PR description

Detect the base branch and remote

Gather the branch scope

Sizing the change

Writing principles

Numbering and references

Compound Engineering badge

Step 7: Create or update the PR

New PR (no existing PR from Step 3)

Existing PR (found in Step 3)

Step 8: Report

Important: Use
`command git`
and
`command gh`