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 rootbr/rooted --skill committing-changesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rootbr/rootedWrote 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/rootbr/rooted/committing-changes)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rootbr/rooted/committing-changes"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rootbr/rooted/committing-changes/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/rootbr/rooted/committing-changes"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rootbr/rooted/committing-changes.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>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 | $0.00068 | $0.00629 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00252 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
committing-changes 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 — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Commit Changes
Spec: https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/
Review staged and modified files. Split into atomic commits.
Workflow
git statusandgit diff --cached- Group related changes into logical units
- One commit per logical change
Format
<type>(<scope>): <subject>
<body>
<footer>
Types
| Type | Purpose |
|---|---|
| feat | New feature |
| fix | Bug fix |
| docs | Documentation only |
| style | Formatting, whitespace |
| refactor | Neither fix nor feature |
| perf | Performance improvement |
| test | Tests |
| build | Build system, dependencies |
| ci | CI configuration |
| chore | Other |
Version bumps: feat→MINOR, fix→PATCH, ! or BREAKING CHANGE: footer→MAJOR.
Rules
- MUST: each commit atomic and functional (builds, tests pass) (Git project, SubmittingPatches: "make separate commits for logically separate changes"; "after any code change, make sure that the entire test suite passes")
- MUST: imperative mood, no trailing period (Beams, How to Write a Git Commit Message, cbea.ms/git-commit — rules 5 and 4); lowercase subject (Conventional Commits / Angular commit convention)
- SHOULD: subject ≤50 chars, body wrap at 72 (Beams, rules 2 and 6)
- Body explains WHAT and WHY, not HOW (Beams, rule 7)
- Footer references issues:
Fixes #123,Refs #456
Grouping
- Group: same bug, one feature, one module refactor
- Split: unrelated features, fix+feature mixed, different layers
Examples
docs(readme): update installation instructions
fix(api): handle null user response
Add null check before accessing user.email to prevent NPE.
Fixes #456
feat(api)!: remove deprecated v1 endpoints
BREAKING CHANGE: All /api/v1/* endpoints removed.
Migrate to /api/v2/* which provides enhanced functionality.
Gotchas
- Pre-commit hook failure means the commit did NOT happen — fix and create a NEW commit, never
--amend - AVOID
git add -A/git add .— can leak.env, credentials, large binaries. Stage by name (house convention, hands-on) - Merge commits are exempt from format
- Never
--no-verifyunless user explicitly asks
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 · 85 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A 5634c7006cc7
committing-changes is a skill published in the GitHub repository rootbr/rooted (21 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 629 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
github-pr-workflow
Prepare a GitHub pull request from a feature branch — branch hygiene, commit shape, title/body, verification notes, screenshots for UI work, and replies to review comments.
review-delta
Review only changes since last commit using impact analysis. Token-efficient delta review with automatic blast-radius detection.
work-unit-commits
Plan commits as reviewable work units. Trigger: implementation, commit splitting, chained PRs, or keeping tests and docs with code.
github-contributor
A step-by-step guide for contributing code, tests, documentation, or build changes to open-source projects you do not maintain. It explains how to prepare a pull request that follows the project’s rules and is easier for maintainers to review.
git-pr-workflows-git-workflow
Guide changes through code checks, testing, commits, and pull request preparation. Use when coordinating a complete Git workflow and verifying readiness for collaboration.