awegg avatar

review-and-commit

Semi-automated workflow that runs comprehensive pre-commit review, requires a manual verification pa

作者 awegg|オープンソース

Review and Commit

Automated workflow that executes pre-commit review and handles the commit process intelligently based on review results.

Integration with Pre-Commit Review

This skill builds on the pre-commit-review skill:

  • Pre-commit-review: Analysis and reporting only
  • Review-and-commit: Analysis + auto-fix + commit

Both skills share the same quality standards and review criteria.

Workflow

1. Run Pre-Commit Review (MANDATORY - DO NOT SKIP)

This step MUST be executed first before any other actions. Do not proceed to staging/committing without completing this step.

Execute the comprehensive pre-commit-review skill to analyze all changes:

Invoke the pre-commit-review skill

This performs:

  • Automated change analysis
  • Test execution with coverage verification (>50% required)
  • Specification alignment check
  • Architecture review
  • Security and maintainability assessment

Manual code/spec review is REQUIRED: After automated analysis, review changed non-generated files and verify against relevant specs (e.g., specs/001-backup-system/spec.md). For large changesets, prioritize high-risk and behavior-changing files first, then sample lower-risk files; always note any areas not manually inspected. Do not proceed to staging/commit without recording the manual review outcome.

CRITICAL: Block commit if review is not performed. Report findings before proceeding.

2. Process Review Results

Based on review findings, take appropriate action:

❌ If Issues/Errors Found

Automatically fix and retry:

  1. Analyze each issue and determine fix scope
  2. Apply safe fixes using standard tools (formatters: prettier/eslint/dotnet format; linters; targeted code edits for clear null/typing/test setup issues)
  3. Re-run pre-commit review
  4. Repeat until no issues remain or maximum 3 iterations reached
  5. Escalate to user for logic/architectural changes or after 3 failed attempts; do not keep auto-retrying

Common auto-fixes:

  • Code formatting issues
  • Missing dependencies
  • Obvious bugs (null checks, type mismatches)
  • Test failures with clear causes
  • Security issues (exposed secrets, debug code)

⚠️ If Warnings/Suggestions Found

Ask user for guidance:

Present warnings and suggestions clearly, then ask:

  • "Should I address these warnings before committing?"
  • "Do you want me to implement any of these suggestions?"

Wait for user response before proceeding.

✅ If Review Passes (No Issues/Warnings/Suggestions)

Show pending changes and get confirmation before staging:

  1. Run git status --porcelain to show all changes
  2. Run git diff --stat to show change summary
  3. Present the list of files to be committed
  4. Ask user: "Ready for me to stage these changes? (yes/no)"
  5. If yes, stage all changes: git add -A
  6. Ask: "Ready for me to commit the staged changes? (yes/no)"
  7. If yes:
    • Generate proper commit message based on changes
    • Commit with generated message
    • Report commit hash and summary

3. Generate Commit Message

Create conventional commit message following this format:

<type>(<scope>): <subject>

<body>

<footer>

Type: feat, fix, docs, style, refactor, test, chore, perf

Scope: Component/module affected (optional)

Subject: Concise summary (max 72 chars)

Body: Detailed explanation of what and why (optional, use for significant changes)

Footer: Breaking changes, issue references (optional)

Message Generation Strategy

Analyze changed files and determine:

  1. Primary type based on change nature
  2. Scope from affected modules/components
  3. Concise subject summarizing the change
  4. Body if changes are complex or need explanation
  5. Footer for breaking changes or closed issues

Examples:

Simple change:

fix(restic): expand exception filter for repository initialization

Feature addition:

feat(dashboard): add dashboard summary endpoint

- Implement DashboardController with /api/dashboard/summary
- Add DTOs for dashboard data structure
- Integrate storage monitoring and job aggregation
- Calculate health status based on recent backup success

Multiple components:

refactor(tests): improve test infrastructure

- Register IResticClient interface in test factories
- Remove debug logging from ErrorHandlingMiddleware
- Add SchedulingFlowTests for Quartz integration
- Switch E2E factory to real service implementations

Auto-Fix Guidelines

Safe to auto-fix (use tools above, keep behavior unchanged):

  • Formatting/linting errors
  • Missing using statements/imports
  • Obvious null-reference/typing issues
  • Test setup problems with clear intent
  • Debug code removal
  • Exposed secrets/credentials

Decision cues:

  • If linter/formatter flags it → auto-fix.
  • If failing test has a clear fixture/setup fix → auto-fix and re-run.
  • If change alters logic, API, or data contracts → pause and confirm with user.

Require user confirmation:

  • Logic changes that affect behavior
  • Breaking changes to public APIs
  • Database schema modifications
  • Performance optimizations with tradeoffs
  • Architectural refactoring

Error Handling

STRICT WORKFLOW ENFORCEMENT:

  • Review MUST be executed before staging/committing
  • If review is not performed, the workflow is invalid and must restart
  • Do not skip review steps regardless of perceived urgency
  • Block commits until review is complete

Maximum retry attempts for auto-fixes: 3

After 3 failed fix attempts:

  1. Report all issues that couldn't be auto-fixed
  2. Provide analysis of why fixes failed
  3. Suggest manual intervention steps
  4. Do NOT commit

Usage Examples

Simple workflow:

User: "review and commit"
→ Runs review
→ Passes with no issues
→ Commits: "fix(ui): handle future dates in formatDate"

With auto-fix:

User: "review and commit"
→ Runs review
→ Finds debug logging in middleware
→ Removes debug code automatically
→ Re-runs review
→ Passes
→ Commits: "fix(middleware): remove debug logging"

With suggestions:

User: "review and commit"
→ Runs review
→ Finds suggestions for refactoring
→ Asks: "Should I implement these suggestions before committing?"
→ User: "no, commit as is"
→ Commits current changes

Integration with Pre-Commit Review

This skill leverages the pre-commit-review skill but adds automation:

  • Pre-commit-review: Analysis and reporting only
  • Review-and-commit: Analysis + auto-fix + commit

Both skills share the same quality standards and review criteria.

Skill をダウンロード