Conventional commits
Format git commit messages following Conventional Commits 1.0.0 specification. Use when the user asks to commit changes, create a git commit, or mentions committing code. Ensures consistent, semantic commit messages that support automated changelog generation and semantic versioning.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add yliapis/dotfiles --skill conventional-commitsAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its file declares
Copied from the file, not written here
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
4.4 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Conventional Commits
Format all git commit messages according to the Conventional Commits 1.0.0 specification.
Commit Message Format
<type>[optional scope]: <description>
[optional body]
[optional footer(s)]
Type Reference
| Type | When to Use | SemVer |
|---|---|---|
feat | New feature | MINOR |
fix | Bug fix | PATCH |
docs | Documentation only | - |
style | Formatting, whitespace (no code change) | - |
refactor | Code restructuring (no feature/fix) | - |
perf | Performance improvement | - |
test | Adding/fixing tests | - |
build | Build system, dependencies | - |
ci | CI/CD configuration | - |
chore | Maintenance, tooling | - |
revert | Reverting previous commit | - |
Decision Framework
When determining commit type, ask:
- Does it add new functionality? →
feat - Does it fix broken functionality? →
fix - Does it only affect documentation? →
docs - Does it improve performance? →
perf - Does it restructure code without changing behavior? →
refactor - Does it only change code style/formatting? →
style - Does it add/modify tests? →
test - Does it change build system or dependencies? →
build - Does it change CI/CD configuration? →
ci - Is it maintenance or tooling? →
chore
Message Best Practices
Description (first line)
- Keep under 50 characters
- Use imperative mood ("add" not "added")
- Don't capitalize first letter
- No period at end
Scope
- Use clear, consistent names:
feat(auth):,fix(api):,docs(readme):
Body
- Include when change requires explanation
- Explain why the change was made
- Describe what problem it solves
- Wrap at 72 characters per line
Footers
Fixes #123- Reference issuesCo-authored-by: Name <email>- Credit contributorsBREAKING CHANGE: description- Breaking changesRefs: #456, #789- Related issues
Breaking Changes
Indicate breaking changes using either method:
feat!: remove deprecated API endpoint
feat(api)!: change authentication flow
fix: update validation logic
BREAKING CHANGE: validation now rejects empty strings
Command Execution
Critical: Use single quotes to avoid shell escaping issues with !:
# Correct - single quotes
git commit -m 'feat!: add new authentication flow'
# Incorrect - backslash escaping (DO NOT USE)
git commit -m "feat\!: add new authentication flow"
For multi-line messages, use HEREDOC:
git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
feat(auth): add OAuth2 support
Implement OAuth2 authentication flow with support for
Google and GitHub providers.
BREAKING CHANGE: removes legacy session-based auth
EOF
)"
Workflow
- Check for staged changes:
git diff --cached --stat - If nothing staged: stage with
git addfirst - Review changes:
git diff --cached - Check recent style:
git log --oneline -5 - Determine type using decision framework
- Write message following best practices
- Execute commit with single quotes
- Verify:
git log -1
Quality Checks
Before committing, verify:
- Message accurately describes the changes
- Type correctly categorizes the change
- Scope (if used) is meaningful and consistent
- Breaking changes are properly marked with
!or footer - Description is clear and under 50 characters
- Body wraps at 72 characters (if present)
Examples
Simple fix:
fix: prevent null pointer in user lookup
Feature with scope:
feat(api): add rate limiting to endpoints
With body:
refactor: extract validation into separate module
Move validation logic from controllers to dedicated
validator classes for better testability and reuse.
Breaking change:
feat!: upgrade to v2 API format
BREAKING CHANGE: response structure changed from
{data: [...]} to {items: [...], meta: {...}}
With issue reference:
fix(auth): resolve token refresh race condition
Fixes #234
Full Specification
For the complete Conventional Commits 1.0.0 specification, see conventionalcommits.org.