git-commit-review

A short Git workflow for reviewing one logical set of staged changes before committing it. Git is a system for recording code changes, and a staged change is one selected for the next commit.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it when a completed change is ready to commit. It checks the staged files, runs direct validations, performs a targeted review, and creates an approved commit.
Why use it?
It catches problems in the exact snapshot about to be saved. It also keeps commits focused and avoids committing unresolved serious findings.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

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 skills/nickpolyder/np.copilot.config/git-commit-review
Any agent
npx skills add NickPolyder/NP.CoPilot.Config --skill git-commit-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/NickPolyder/NP.CoPilot.Config

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 39 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,057 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 $0.00039 $0.02057
Opus 5 $0.00019 $0.01028
Sonnet 5 $0.00008 $0.00411
Haiku 4.5 $0.00004 $0.00206

Measured yesterday against content hash edaf4731b4e8, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

git-commit-review 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 yesterday.

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.

skills/git-commit-review/SKILL.md · 218 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 218 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Purpose

Intent (anchor): Review one staged, logical diff quickly and create one safe, approved, atomic Git commit. Always: validate an index-only snapshot before reviewers; use direct validation before reviewer speculation; require manual user verification and an approved commit message; write one concise final report. Never: invoke full-code-review automatically; commit unresolved Critical or High findings; run more than two review cycles without explicit user approval.

Shared policy: Follow instructions/coordination.instructions.md for precedence, invocation, delegation, and handoffs; instructions/workflow.instructions.md for proportional verification; and instructions/git-conventions.instructions.md for delivery and commit safety.

This is the default pre-commit workflow. It is intentionally bounded to approximately ten minutes of reviewer time.

Use full-code-review only when the user explicitly requests exhaustive analysis.

When to use this skill

Use this skill when a logical change is ready to commit.

Do not use it for:

  • A user-requested full review, release candidate, major architectural change, security audit, or schema redesign; recommend full-code-review.
  • A trivial change when the user explicitly chooses to skip review.
  • An empty index.

1. Split atomic candidates and stage one

Inspect the worktree and divide it into logical, atomic commit candidates before adding reviewers.

  • Keep one feature, fix, refactor, configuration change, or documentation concern in each candidate.
  • Keep tests with the behavior they cover.
  • Do not compensate for a large mixed diff by adding reviewers.
  • Stage exactly one candidate with partial staging where necessary.
  • Confirm the index contains no unrelated files or hunks.

If a candidate is not self-contained, split it before continuing. Do not review unstaged changes or a mixture of candidates.

2. Materialize the clean index snapshot

Review the index, not the mutable worktree.

Read the full file on GitHub · 218 lines

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. yesterday First seen · 218 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A edaf4731b4e8

Subscribe to this mod's changes

git-commit-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository NickPolyder/NP.CoPilot.Config (2 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 2,057 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

systematic-debugging

Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.

obra/superpowers · 21 tokens

next-cache-components-adoption

Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…

vercel/next.js · 95 tokens

babysit-pr

Babysit a GitHub pull request after creation by continuously polling review comments, CI checks/workflow runs, and mergeability state until the PR is merged/closed or user help is required. Diagnose failures, retry likely flaky failures up to 3 times, auto-fix/push branch-related issues when appropriate, and keep…

openai/codex · 114 tokens

imagegen

Generate or edit raster images when the task benefits from AI-created bitmap visuals such as photos, illustrations, textures, sprites, mockups, or transparent-background cutouts. Use when Codex should create a brand-new image, transform an existing image, or derive visual variants from references, and the output…

openai/codex · 113 tokens

cpu-profile-analysis

Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…

microsoft/vscode · 71 tokens

next-cache-components-optimizer

Drive a Next.js route to instant navigation by setting up an agentic loop, under Cache Components / PPR, on initial load (hard navigation) and client-side navigation (soft navigation). Encode the goal as a failing @next/playwright instant() e2e and work it to green, one verified route at a time; the shipped test then…

vercel/next.js · 170 tokens