SkillVaultskills Browse all 1,000+ skills

Productivity · Version 1.3.0 · Reviewed 2026-08-02

Commit Message Curator

Turn engineering context into a reliable artifact for commit scope identification and intent-focused subject writing with evidence, explicit trade-offs, and a verification plan.

4 method steps 4 documented failure modes 4 diagnostic checks 7 quality gates

Creates repository-conformant commit messages from staged changes by expressing intent, scope, compatibility impact, and issue linkage instead of restating filenames.

₹199 one-time

Get this skill archive

Install in your AI coding tool

SkillVault packages this skill in the open Agent Skills format for five leading coding tools.

What this skill helps you do

  • Commit scope identification
  • Intent-focused subject writing
  • Breaking-change annotation

How Commit Message Curator works

You provide

Repository access, entry points, and the target change

It inspects

Real execution path for commit scope identification, not naming

It decides

A intent-focused subject writing explanation with safe change seams

You verify

Claims confirmed against code paths or a test

What it checks first

Commit Message Curator creates repository-conformant commit messages from staged changes by expressing intent, scope, compatibility impact, and issue linkage instead of restating filenames. Use it when the work involves Commit scope identification, Intent-focused subject writing, Breaking-change annotation.

  1. The entry points and the data flow between them, which is the fastest way to build an accurate mental model.
  2. Where behavior is actually decided, rather than where it appears to be configured.
  3. Which parts change frequently, since those carry the most current knowledge and the most risk.
  4. The seams where a change can be made safely without a wide blast radius.

Failure modes it recognizes

  • A mental model built from naming conventions that no longer match behavior.
  • Hidden coupling through global state, events, or reflection that static reading misses.
  • Dead code that appears authoritative and misleads the reader.
  • Documentation that describes an intended design the code no longer implements.

Answers it will reject

  • Explaining what code does line by line rather than what it is responsible for and why.
  • Trusting comments and documentation over the executing code path.
  • Recommending a refactor before the current behavior is understood and covered by tests.

Decision rules it applies

  • Trace one real request end to end before generalizing about the architecture.
  • Verify a claim about behavior against the code path or a test, and label unverified claims.
  • Identify the smallest safe change point rather than the theoretically correct structure.

Evidence it asks for

  • Follow a concrete input through the system and name each file and function it reaches.
  • Use call hierarchies and references rather than text search alone to establish coupling.
  • Confirm behavior with an executable test before changing it.

The method inside

  1. Establish what is actually true about commit scope identification from the supplied evidence, and mark what is missing.
  2. Identify the mechanism behind intent-focused subject writing rather than restating the symptom.
  3. Choose the smallest defensible change for breaking-change annotation, weighing impact, confidence, effort, and reversibility.
  4. Check every claim against the source

Deliverables

  • Commit scope identification assessment
  • Intent-focused subject writing decision and action plan
  • Breaking-change annotation verification checklist

Evidence requirements

  • Source code, discussion, notes, or existing artifact
  • Audience, decision, and acceptance criteria
  • Repository conventions and constraints

Quality gates

  • Every material claim traces to supplied evidence or is labeled as a hypothesis.
  • The response follows the declared deliverable contract.
  • No execution, access, measurement, or verification is invented.
  • Secrets and personal data are redacted rather than repeated.
  • The user receives a concrete independent verification step.
  • The relevant failure modes in this domain were considered rather than only the reported symptom.
  • No listed anti-pattern was recommended as a solution.

Example task

Input

Write the commit message for my staged changes using this repository convention and flag any staged files that do not belong in the same commit.

Expected output

Inspect the staged diff and history convention first. The subject names the behavior changed in imperative form, the body explains why and any migration consequence, and unrelated generated or configuration changes are called out for separation before a message is finalized...

Boundaries and compatibility

Ideal for

  • Commit scope identification: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Intent-focused subject writing: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Breaking-change annotation: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.

Out of scope

  • Inventing repository behavior or decisions
  • Replacing review by the accountable owner

Agent compatibility

  • GitHub Copilot Agent Skills
  • Cursor Agent Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • OpenAI Codex Skills
  • JetBrains Junie Skills

Tool policy: Advisory by default. No tools are assumed. If the host provides tools, use read-only evidence gathering unless the user explicitly approves a scoped write or execution action.