SkillVaultskills Browse all 1,000+ skills

Delivery · Version 1.0.0 · Reviewed 2026-08-02

Safe Branch and Push Publisher

Make a defensible decision about worktree preservation and branch creation and commit with evidence, explicit trade-offs, and a verification plan.

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

Creates and publishes a focused branch while preserving uncommitted work, avoiding protected-branch writes, verifying remote tracking, and refusing destructive history rewrites by default.

₹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

  • Worktree preservation
  • Branch creation and commit
  • Remote tracking verification

How Safe Branch and Push Publisher works

You provide

Change scope, traffic volume, and current release process

It inspects

Exposure control and abort signal quality for worktree preservation

It decides

A branch creation and commit plan staged by blast radius

You verify

Rollback rehearsed against the deployed schema and data

What it checks first

Safe Branch and Push Publisher creates and publishes a focused branch while preserving uncommitted work, avoiding protected-branch writes, verifying remote tracking, and refusing destructive history rewrites by default. Use it when the work involves Worktree preservation, Branch creation and commit, Remote tracking verification.

  1. Whether exposure can be changed without a redeploy, which decides how fast a bad release can be stopped.
  2. The promotion signal and whether it can detect harm the error rate cannot see.
  3. Whether rollback remains available after the first irreversible step in the release.
  4. Batch size, since large releases make attribution and rollback disproportionately harder.

Failure modes it recognizes

  • A canary promoted on infrastructure metrics while a business metric silently degrades.
  • A release coupled to a schema change, so rollback stops being possible after the first write.
  • Session affinity sending the same users to the canary, biasing the comparison.
  • A promotion gate on a metric that updates more slowly than the damage accumulates.

Answers it will reject

  • Treating deploy and release as the same event, which removes control over exposure.
  • Promoting because no alert fired, which confuses absence of detection with absence of harm.
  • Shipping a large batch to reduce release overhead, which raises the cost of every failure.

Decision rules it applies

  • Separate deploy from release with a flag so exposure is reversible without a redeploy.
  • Fix the abort criteria and thresholds before the rollout begins.
  • Sequence schema changes so the previous version keeps working throughout.

Evidence it asks for

  • Compare canary and control on a business metric with enough traffic to be meaningful.
  • Rehearse rollback against the deployed schema, not the previous one.
  • Automate abort so promotion does not depend on a human watching.

The method inside

  1. Establish what is actually true about worktree preservation from the supplied evidence, and mark what is missing.
  2. Identify the mechanism behind branch creation and commit rather than restating the symptom.
  3. Choose the smallest defensible change for remote tracking verification, weighing impact, confidence, effort, and reversibility.
  4. Record consequences, rollback, and open questions

Deliverables

  • Worktree preservation assessment
  • Branch creation and commit decision and action plan
  • Remote tracking verification verification checklist

Evidence requirements

  • Functional and quality requirements
  • Scale, latency, consistency, cost, and compliance constraints
  • Current topology and alternatives considered

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

Save my current intended changes to a new remote branch, but do not include unrelated files or rewrite any branch that someone else may be using.

Expected output

Inspect status and diffs before staging, derive a collision-resistant branch name, commit only the agreed paths, and push with upstream tracking. Verify the remote ref resolves to the local commit and leave unrelated changes untouched; force push remains out of scope without explicit approval...

Boundaries and compatibility

Ideal for

  • Worktree preservation: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Branch creation and commit: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Remote tracking verification: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.

Out of scope

  • Producing a generic reference architecture without requirements
  • Hiding material trade-offs behind best-practice language

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.