# Git Commit Workflow for AI Assistants ## Goals - Git history should read as a **story**: small steps, one clear intent per commit. - **Default:** one file per commit (smallest practical unit). - **Exception:** several files in **one** commit only when they share the **same logical entity / same story** (incomplete or misleading if split). This should be **unusual**—always prefer smaller commits when in doubt. ## When to combine files (exception) Combine only when splitting would: - leave the tree broken or the feature half-wired, or - tell an incoherent story (e.g. rename without updating the only call site). **Always** state **why** those paths belong together in one commit when proposing a multi-file commit. ## User initiation ``` ❌ AI: "Should I commit these files?" ❌ AI: "Let me commit this..." ✅ Human: "Commit the changed files" ✅ Human: "Do the commits now" ``` **Rule:** Do not suggest or initiate commits. Only run this workflow after an explicit user command. ## Staging ```bash git add path/to/file.jl # or, only when justified: git add path/a.jl path/b.jl ``` - Avoid `git add .` and `git add -A` unless the user explicitly wants everything (still read the full staged diff after). - Never stage unrelated changes into the same commit. ## Optional git hook (max two staged paths) The repo ships `.githooks/pre-commit`. After `git config core.hooksPath .githooks`, commits with **more than two** staged files are rejected. This supports the common “impl + test” or “snippet + verifier” pair without allowing large batches. Split bigger changes across commits or adjust the hook deliberately. ## Read the full staged diff ```bash git diff --staged ``` **Critical:** - Do not pipe through `head`, `tail`, `less`, or otherwise truncate. - Read every line; the commit message must reflect the actual diff. **Exception:** machine-generated or binary files—review only as far as is practical. ## Approval before `git commit` **Before** running `git commit`, present to the user: 1. **File(s)** to be committed (exact paths). 2. **Full proposed commit message** (subject + body in the format below). 3. If **more than one file:** a **short justification** why one commit is appropriate. **Wait** for explicit approval. Only then: ```bash git commit -F- <<'EOF' EOF ``` (or equivalent multi-line `-m` usage). Do not commit silently. ## Commit message structure **1. Subject line (first line)** — Conventional Commits: `type(scope): specific description from the diff` - Types include `feat`, `fix`, `refactor`, `docs`, `test`, `chore`, etc. - `scope` is optional but recommended when it clarifies the area. - Imperative mood; specific; no vague "update" / "fix things". **2. Blank line** **3. Summary** — one short paragraph, **one to three sentences**: what changed and why, for this commit only. **4. Body detail (scale with the diff)** — after the summary: - **Small / localized change:** optional bullets only when they add real value; often the summary is enough. - **Large file, large diff, or several concerns in one commit:** expand with **substantive bullets**. Prefer **grouped sections** (short headings or bullet groups) that mirror the patch: major types/functions added, behavior changes, wiring/exports, migrations, risks, or follow-ups. A few vague bullets are not sufficient when the diff is hundreds of lines or touches multiple subsystems—the message should let a reviewer reconstruct *why* the patch looks the way it does without re-reading every hunk. Use `-` bullet lists; omit sections that do not apply. ### Example (single file) ``` refactor(basis): Replace per-element lagrange includes with generator entrypoints The basis tree previously listed seven separate lagrange_*.jl includes; they are folded behind lagrange_generator.jl and lagrange_generated.jl so new elements register in one place. - Drop redundant includes from JuliaFEM.jl - Document the 'Basis' suffix convention in the include comment ``` ### Example (multi-file — requires justification to user) When proposing: > **Files:** `src/foo.jl`, `test/foo/test_foo.jl` > **Why one commit:** adds `compute_bar` and the regression test that locks its behavior; splitting would leave the feature untested in history. > **Message:** … ## Cycle per commit 1. Stage the smallest set (usually one file). 2. `git diff --staged` — read all of it. 3. Propose message + paths (+ multi-file justification if needed). 4. Wait for approval. 5. Commit. 6. Repeat for remaining work. ## Common mistakes ### Vague or mismatched messages ```bash # ❌ WRONG git commit -m "Update documentation" # ✅ RIGHT — subject + summary (+ bullets if needed), from the real diff ``` ### Bundling unrelated files ```bash # ❌ WRONG — two different stories git add docs/CONTRIBUTING.md src/unrelated_fix.jl # ✅ RIGHT — two commits, or ask user to split worktrees if mixed in one working tree ``` ### Committing without approval Never run `git commit` until the user has approved the proposed paths and message. ### Truncating the diff Never use `git diff --staged | head` (etc.). Read the full diff. ## Checklist before each commit - [ ] Did the user explicitly ask to commit? - [ ] Is the staged set as **small** as it reasonably can be? - [ ] If multiple files: is there a **clear single story**, and will you **justify** it to the user? - [ ] If `.githooks` is active: are there **at most two** staged paths? - [ ] Did I read the **full** `git diff --staged`? - [ ] Subject line: Conventional Commits, specific, matches diff? - [ ] Body: blank line, then **1–3 sentence** summary, then **bullets scaled to diff size** (rich, grouped bullets for large / multi-concern commits)? - [ ] Did I **propose** the commit and wait for **approval** before `git commit`? ## Why this matters 1. **Story:** History is easy to read and bisect. 2. **Review:** Each commit is reviewable in isolation. 3. **Honesty:** Messages match what the diff actually does. 4. **Control:** The author approves each step. --- Git history is long-lived. Prefer small, well-explained commits and explicit approval before each `git commit`.