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 natsukium/dotfiles --skill git-commitgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/natsukium/dotfilesWrote 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/natsukium/dotfiles/git-commit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/natsukium/dotfiles/git-commit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/natsukium/dotfiles/git-commit/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/natsukium/dotfiles/git-commit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/natsukium/dotfiles/git-commit.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00088 | $0.01080 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.00432 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00216 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00108 |
Grade A, and why
git-commit 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 — 76 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Writing Commit Messages
Git history outlives the session. Whoever reads the message later — a human running
git log, git blame, or another agent — has only the repository. The conversation,
the plan, the task list, and the review thread that produced the commit are all gone.
Write every message so it stands on its own in that world.
What to write
- WHY, not WHAT. The diff already shows what changed. The message must carry the part the diff cannot: the motivation, the constraint being worked around, or the alternative that was rejected and why.
- Follow the repository's existing style. Check
git log --oneline -10before writing: conventional-commit prefixes, scope names, tense, and line length should match what is already there. - Name the goal, not the plan position. If the commit is one step of a larger effort, describe the effort and what this step contributes — the effort's name and goal are durable, its decomposition into phases is not.
What NOT to write
- Plan- or session-relative references. "Phase 2", "Task 3", "Step 1 of the
refactor", "as planned", "per review feedback", "addresses comments" — these point
at a structure that exists only in the conversation that created the commit. In
git loga year later they carry zero information. - How the approach evolved during the session. Changing direction mid-work is normal, but the commit records the result, not the journey. Never write "initially implemented with X, then switched to Y", "reworked after the first attempt failed", or "changed approach as discussed" — the reader never saw the first attempt, so the chronology is noise. Describe the final design as if it had been the intent from the start. If the abandoned approach carries a durable lesson, state it as a rejected alternative ("X was rejected because ..."), not as a narrative of what you did first.
- Diff enumeration. "Update foo.ts, add bar.ts, remove baz.ts" restates what
git show --statalready prints. - Process narration. "Ran formatter", "fix tests" — say why the tests were wrong or what the formatting rule is, or say nothing.
- Links and issue references that GitHub turns into backlinks. A pasted
https://github.com/...URL, a bare#123, or anowner/repo#123reference posts a cross-reference comment on the linked issue or PR once the commit is pushed, adding noise to a thread that has nothing to do with this repository's history. Carry the content the link would have carried instead: name the upstream project and the problem in prose. If the exact identifier is genuinely needed, write it in a form GitHub does not linkify, such asNixOS/nixpkgs issue 12345.
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 Changed · +11 lines 6db2a4540008
- 1mo ago First seen · 65 lines · 88 tokens per session scan A c4c0270adb10
git-commit is a skill published in the GitHub repository natsukium/dotfiles (106 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed CC0-1.0. It adds 88 tokens to every session and 1,080 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
global-commit
Create a git commit following Conventional Commits specification.
git-commit
This skill should be used BEFORE running any git commit command. Triggers when about to run git commit. Ensures commit messages follow Conventional Commits specification.
smart-commit
Analyzes all uncommitted changes (staged and unstaged), groups them into atomic commits by logical purpose, and generates clear conventional commit messages with practical, context-rich bodies. Use when the user asks to "smart commit", "group my commits", "split into atomic commits", "organize my changes into…
git-commit
Create a new git commit for staged changes. Use when the user asks to commit staged changes with an auto-generated Conventional Commits message, or when Claude Code itself wants to run git commit.
coding-standards
Repository coding standards, linters, formatters, CLI design rules, HTTP caching guidelines, and git commit message conventions (Conventional Commits). Includes scripts for formatting Python, shell, Markdown, Kotlin, JSON, and XML. Use when writing, reviewing, formatting, or linting code, verifying CLI ergonomics…
scan-commit
Automatically scan the repository for unstaged/untracked changes, group them into logical commits using hunk-level analysis, stage and commit them following Conventional Commits.