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.
npx skills add irahardianto/awesome-agv --skill git-commit-integritygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/irahardianto/awesome-agvWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/irahardianto/awesome-agv/git-commit-integrity)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/irahardianto/awesome-agv/git-commit-integrity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/irahardianto/awesome-agv/git-commit-integrity/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/irahardianto/awesome-agv/git-commit-integrity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/irahardianto/awesome-agv/git-commit-integrity.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Tool Misuse · line 178 Tool parameters are crafted to achieve unintended or unsafe behavior. Parameter abuse can bypass intended safety checks (e.g. shell=True, --force, dangerous glob patterns).Fix: Validate all tool parameters against an allowlist. Reject dangerous parameter values (shell=True, --force, -rf /) and use safe defaults.
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.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00136 | $0.02392 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00054 | $0.00957 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00478 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00239 |
Grade A, and why
git-commit-integrity 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 1mo 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 195 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Git Commit Integrity
Purpose
A commit records a tree snapshot. Nothing about git commit — or a hook that
runs during it — guarantees that snapshot builds, lints, or tests cleanly
on its own. The only thing most tooling actually checks is "does the
working directory look okay right now", and those two questions are the same
only in the ordinary one-change-at-a-time workflow. They diverge the moment
more than one commit's worth of work exists in the working tree at once —
which is exactly the situation whenever a large, already-finished diff is
being organized into multiple readable commits after the fact.
This skill exists because that divergence is easy to miss: every gate can report green and the resulting history can still contain commits that don't build if checked out alone.
When to Invoke
- Splitting a large, already-complete diff into multiple logical commits (a refactor, a big feature, an after-the-fact history cleanup).
- Writing or reviewing a pre-commit / pre-push hook, in any language.
- A user or reviewer asks "is this commit series bisectable?" or "does each commit build?"
- Before claiming a multi-commit series is clean, complete, or ready for review — verify it, don't infer it from "the hook passed."
Core Principle: A Commit Is Its Snapshot, Not Your Working Directory
Compilers, linters, and test runners (cargo, go build, pytest, tsc,
eslint, rspec, ...) read the filesystem. None of them know git's
index exists. A tool invoked mid-commit checks whatever is on disk at that
moment — staged changes, unstaged changes, and untracked files, all mixed
together indiscriminately. git status/git diff --cached can tell you what
will be committed; it takes a deliberate extra step to make what a tool
checks match that.
Two consequences follow directly:
- A passing hook is not proof a commit is buildable in isolation unless you know the hook isolates the working tree to the index before running anything filesystem-based. Most hand-written hooks don't, because it isn't obvious the gap exists until you go looking for it.
- Splitting a finished diff into several commits by staging subsets is not, by itself, a safe operation. Each intermediate commit's actual recorded tree may reference symbols, fields, or files that don't exist yet at that point in history, even though the ambient working directory (with later batches still sitting unstaged) compiles fine.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 195 lines · 136 tokens per session scan A 15c5c05003a5
git-commit-integrity is a skill published in the GitHub repository irahardianto/awesome-agv (156 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 136 tokens to every session and 2,392 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5.5. 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
common-git-collaboration
Enforce version control best practices for commits, branching, pull requests, and repository security. Use when writing commits, creating branches, merging, or opening pull requests.
validate-changes
Evaluate staged changes using LLM-as-a-Judge before committing.
commit
Generate a conventional commit message for staged changes.
caveman-commit
Ultra-compressed commit message generator. Cuts noise from commit messages while preserving intent and reasoning. Conventional Commits format. Subject ≤50 chars, body only when "why" isn't obvious. Use when user says "write a commit", "commit message", "generate commit", "/commit", or invokes /caveman-commit.…
git
Git version control best practices: branching, commits, merging, conflict resolution, PR workflows. Use when managing branches, creating commits, merging code, or resolving conflicts.
change-hygiene
Version-control and change-flow discipline — commits, branches, pull requests, code review flow, and history that stays useful. Use when committing, branching, opening or reviewing PRs, resolving merge conflicts, planning how a big change lands, or when the user says "commit", "PR", "pull request", "branch strategy"…