commit-review-gate

Commit review gate

This is the last reviewer pass before a commit is created or blessed. The diff should already be clean; now the question is whether the history entry is actually worth keeping.

Review goal

Decide whether the proposed commit is:

• Pass — safe, scoped, and history-worthy
• Pass with nits — acceptable now, but a few improvements are still worth noting
• Block — should not be committed in its current form

Gate checklist

1. Scope clarity
   • Does the staged diff represent one logical change?
2. Risk clarity
   • Are migration, config, auth, or data risks clearly surfaced?
3. Evidence level
   • Is there a matching test, validation step, or obvious reason why one is unnecessary?
4. History quality
   • Will a future reviewer understand why this commit exists?
5. Message readiness
   • Is the intended commit type/scope obvious from the diff?

Default decision rules

Pass

• single logical change
• no hidden safety risk
• evidence level is appropriate
• commit message shape is obvious

Pass with nits

• basically sound, but naming / test / body rationale could be sharper

Block

• mixed scope
• hidden risky files
• no evidence for a risky change
• commit intent is unclear
• should be split into multiple commits first

Preferred output

Decision: Pass | Pass with nits | Block

Why:
- <scope assessment>
- <risk assessment>
- <evidence assessment>

If blocked, do this next:
- <split / test / unstaging action>

Anti-patterns

• Re-running hygiene instead of reviewing — this skill assumes the diff is already cleaned.
• Approving because the code "looks fine" — commit quality is about scope and history, not only correctness.
• Blocking on tiny style nits — reserve Block for issues that harm safety, scope, or history quality.