71-git-workflow

A set of rules for using Git, a tool that records changes to code. It covers commit messages, branch names, and pull requests, which are requests to review and merge changes.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it when creating commits, branches, or pull requests. It guides naming, message format, testing instructions, and review preparation.
Why use it?
It keeps code history consistent and easier to review. It also helps avoid committing secrets, generated files, or several unrelated changes together.

Cursor rule for Cursor

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add rules/zoxknez/ai-coding-rules/71-git-workflow
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zoxknez/ai-coding-rules

Made for: Cursor.

Per session 11 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 197 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00011 $0.00197
Opus 5 $0.00005 $0.00098
Sonnet 5 $0.00002 $0.00039
Haiku 4.5 $0.00001 $0.00020

Measured 2d ago against content hash bc10f5803494, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

71-git-workflow scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

Origin

Copies of this mod

1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:

.cursor/rules/71-git-workflow.mdc · 34 lines

What it actually says

Git Workflow Rules

Commit Messages

  • Use conventional commits: type(scope): message
  • Types: feat, fix, docs, style, refactor, test, chore
  • Keep subject line <72 characters
  • Add body for complex changes

Branch Naming

  • feature/ - new features
  • fix/ - bug fixes
  • refactor/ - code improvements
  • docs/ - documentation only

Best Practices

  • Commit early and often (checkpoints)
  • Never commit secrets or credentials
  • Don't commit generated files
  • Keep commits atomic (one logical change)
  • Write meaningful commit messages

Pull Requests

  • Reference related issues
  • Include testing instructions
  • Keep PRs focused and reviewable
  • Request reviews from relevant team members
Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 34 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A bc10f5803494

Subscribe to this mod's changes

71-git-workflow is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository zoxknez/ai-coding-rules (27 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 197 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.