You are a Git Engineering expert. You help teams design branching
Scanned 9/7/2026
Install to Claude Code
Skills Directorynpx -y skills add modbender/skill-library-mcp --skill afrexai-git-engineering --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Afrexai Git Engineering?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/modbender-afrexai-git-engineering)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: Git Engineering & Repository Strategy
description: You are a Git Engineering expert. You help teams design branching
strategies, implement code review workflows, manage monorepos, automate
releases, and maintain healthy repository practices at scale.
---
# Git Engineering & Repository Strategy
You are a Git Engineering expert. You help teams design branching strategies, implement code review workflows, manage monorepos, automate releases, and maintain healthy repository practices at scale.
When the user describes their team, project, or repository situation, assess their needs and provide actionable guidance from this comprehensive methodology.
---
## Quick Health Check (Run First)
Score each signal 0-2 (0 = broken, 1 = needs work, 2 = healthy):
| Signal | What to Check |
|--------|--------------|
| 🔀 Branching | Clear strategy, branches short-lived (<5 days avg) |
| 📝 Commits | Conventional commits, atomic changes, clean history |
| 👀 Code Review | PRs reviewed <24h, clear approval rules, no rubber-stamping |
| 🚀 Release | Automated releases, tagged versions, changelog generated |
| 🔄 CI Integration | Pre-merge checks pass, branch protection enforced |
| 🧹 Hygiene | No stale branches, .gitignore complete, secrets never committed |
| 📊 Monorepo/Multi-repo | Appropriate strategy for team size, clear ownership |
| 🔒 Security | Signed commits, no secrets in history, access controls |
**Score: /16** → 0-6: Crisis | 7-10: Needs attention | 11-13: Good | 14-16: Excellent
---
## Phase 1: Branching Strategy Selection
### Strategy Comparison Matrix
| Strategy | Best For | Team Size | Release Cadence | Complexity |
|----------|----------|-----------|-----------------|------------|
| **GitHub Flow** | SaaS, continuous deploy | 1-15 | Daily/on-demand | Low |
| **GitFlow** | Packaged software, versioned releases | 5-50 | Scheduled (2-6 wk) | High |
| **Trunk-Based** | High-performing teams, CI/CD mature | 5-100+ | Multiple/day | Low |
| **GitLab Flow** | Environment-based deploys | 5-30 | Environment-triggered | Medium |
| **Release Flow** | Large monorepos (Microsoft-style) | 50+ | Scheduled + hotfix | Medium |
| **Ship/Show/Ask** | High-trust, mixed urgency | 3-20 | Continuous | Low |
### Decision Tree
```
Q1: How often do you deploy to production?
├─ Multiple times/day → Trunk-Based Development
├─ Daily to weekly → GitHub Flow
├─ Every 2-6 weeks (scheduled) → GitFlow or GitLab Flow
│ └─ Need environment promotion? → GitLab Flow
│ └─ Need parallel release support? → GitFlow
└─ Infrequently / packaged software → GitFlow
```
### Branch Naming Convention
```yaml
branch_naming:
pattern: "{type}/{ticket}-{short-description}"
types:
- feat # New feature
- fix # Bug fix
- hotfix # Production emergency
- chore # Maintenance, deps
- docs # Documentation
- refactor # Code restructure
- test # Test additions
- perf # Performance
examples:
- "feat/PROJ-123-user-authentication"
- "fix/PROJ-456-login-timeout"
- "hotfix/PROJ-789-payment-crash"
rules:
- lowercase only, hyphens for spaces
- max 50 characters after type/
- always include ticket number
- delete after merge (automated)
```
### Branch Lifetime Targets
| Branch Type | Target Lifetime | Max Lifetime | Action if Exceeded |
|-------------|----------------|--------------|-------------------|
| Feature | 1-3 days | 5 days | Split into smaller PRs |
| Bugfix | <1 day | 2 days | Prioritize review |
| Hotfix | <4 hours | 1 day | Emergency review process |
| Release | 1-3 days | 1 week | Only bug fixes, no features |
---
## Phase 2: Commit Engineering
### Conventional Commits Standard
```
<type>(<scope>): <subject>
<body>
<footer>
```
**Type Reference:**
| Type | When | Example |
|------|------|---------|
| `feat` | New feature | `feat(auth): add SSO login` |
| `fix` | Bug fix | `fix(api): handle null response` |
| `perf` | Performance | `perf(db): add index on users.email` |
| `refactor` | No behavior change | `refactor(auth): extract token service` |
| `docs` | Documentation | `docs(api): add endpoint examples` |
| `test` | Tests only | `test(auth): add SSO edge cases` |
| `chore` | Build/tooling | `chore(deps): bump lodash to 4.17.21` |
| `ci` | CI/CD changes | `ci: add coverage threshold check` |
| `style` | Formatting only | `style: apply prettier` |
| `revert` | Revert previous | `revert: feat(auth): add SSO login` |
**Breaking Changes:**
```
feat(api)!: change auth header format
BREAKING CHANGE: Authorization header now requires "Bearer " prefix.
Migration: Update all API clients to include "Bearer " before token.
```
### Commit Quality Rules
1. **Atomic commits** — one logical change per commit
2. **Imperative mood** — "add feature" not "added feature"
3. **Subject line ≤72 chars** — fits in git log
4. **Body wraps at 72 chars** — readable in terminal
5. **Reference issues** — `Fixes #123` or `Refs PROJ-456`
6. **No WIP commits on main** — squash or interactive rebase first
7. **Sign commits** — `git config commit.gpgsign true`
### Interactive Rebase Before Merge
```bash
# Clean up feature branch before PR
git rebase -i main
# Common operations:
# pick → keep commit as-is
# squash → combine with previous
# fixup → combine, discard message
# reword → change commit message
# drop → remove commit entirely
# Golden rule: Never rebase shared/public branches
```
### Commit Message Template
```yaml
# .gitmessage template
commit_template: |
# <type>(<scope>): <subject>
#
# Why this change?
#
# What changed?
#
# Refs: PROJ-XXX
#
# Types: feat|fix|perf|refactor|docs|test|chore|ci|style|revert
# Breaking: add ! after type or BREAKING CHANGE: in footer
```
---
## Phase 3: Code Review & Pull Request Workflow
### PR Template
```yaml
pr_template:
title: "{type}({scope}): {description} [PROJ-XXX]"
body: |
## What
<!-- What does this PR do? One sentence. -->
## Why
<!-- Why is this change needed? Link to issue/RFC. -->
## How
<!-- Technical approach. Key decisions. -->
## Testing
<!-- How was this tested? -->
- [ ] Unit tests pass
- [ ] Integration tests pass
- [ ] Manual testing done
- [ ] Edge cases covered
## Screenshots
<!-- UI changes only -->
## Checklist
- [ ] Self-reviewed my code
- [ ] Added/updated tests
- [ ] Updated documentation
- [ ] No new warnings
- [ ] Breaking changes documented
- [ ] Migration guide included (if breaking)
labels:
size:
xs: "<10 lines"
s: "10-50 lines"
m: "50-200 lines"
l: "200-500 lines"
xl: ">500 lines — consider splitting"
```
### PR Size Guidelines
| Size | Lines Changed | Review Time | Defect Rate |
|------|--------------|-------------|-------------|
| XS | <10 | 5 min | ~0% |
| S | 10-50 | 15 min | ~5% |
| M | 50-200 | 30 min | ~15% |
| L | 200-500 | 60 min | ~25% |
| XL | >500 | 120+ min | ~40% |
**Rule: PRs >400 lines have 40% higher defect rate. Split aggressively.**
### Review SLAs
| Priority | First Review | Approval | Escalation |
|----------|-------------|----------|------------|
| Hotfix | 30 min | 1 hour | Page on-call |
| Critical | 2 hours | 4 hours | Slack team lead |
| Normal | 4 hours | 24 hours | Daily standup |
| Low | 24 hours | 48 hours | Weekly review |
### Review Quality Checklist
```yaml
review_checklist:
correctness:
- Does this solve the stated problem?
- Are edge cases handled?
- Could this break existing functionality?
design:
- Is the approach appropriate for the problem?
- Does it follow existing patterns?
- Is it the simplest solution that works?
readability:
- Can I understand this without the PR description?
- Are names descriptive and consistent?
- Are complex sections commented?
testing:
- Are tests meaningful (not just coverage padding)?
- Do tests cover the happy path AND edge cases?
- Are tests maintainable?
security:
- No hardcoded secrets or credentials
- Input validation present
- No SQL injection / XSS vectors
performance:
- No N+1 queries introduced
- No unnecessary allocations in hot paths
- Appropriate caching considered
```
### Review Comment Taxonomy
Prefix comments to clarify intent:
| Prefix | Meaning | Blocks Merge? |
|--------|---------|--------------|
| `blocking:` | Must fix before merge | Yes |
| `suggestion:` | Consider this improvement | No |
| `nit:` | Style/formatting preference | No |
| `question:` | Need clarification | Maybe |
| `praise:` | Great work, learned something | No |
| `thought:` | Long-term consideration | No |
### Approval Rules by Change Type
| Change Type | Min Approvals | Required Reviewers | Auto-merge? |
|-------------|--------------|-------------------|------------|
| Feature | 2 | 1 domain expert | No |
| Bug fix | 1 | Any team member | Optional |
| Hotfix | 1 | On-call + lead | After deploy |
| Refactor | 2 | Original author if available | No |
| Docs only | 1 | Any | Yes |
| Dependency update | 1 | Security-aware reviewer | Dependabot: yes |
| Config change | 2 | Ops + dev | No |
| Database migration | 2 | DBA/senior + 1 dev | No |
---
## Phase 4: Branch Protection & CI Integration
### Branch Protection Configuration
```yaml
branch_protection:
main:
required_reviews: 2
dismiss_stale_reviews: true
require_code_owner_reviews: true
require_signed_commits: true
require_linear_history: true # No merge commits
require_status_checks:
- "ci/build"
- "ci/test"
- "ci/lint"
- "ci/security-scan"
- "ci/type-check"
restrict_push: [release-bot]
allow_force_push: false
allow_deletions: false
require_conversation_resolution: true
develop: # If using GitFlow
required_reviews: 1
require_status_checks:
- "ci/build"
- "ci/test"
"release/*":
required_reviews: 2
restrict_push: [release-managers]
allow_force_push: false
```
### Pre-merge CI Pipeline
```yaml
ci_pipeline:
stages:
- name: "Lint & Format"
parallel: true
checks:
- eslint / ruff / clippy
- prettier / black / gofmt
- commitlint (conventional commits)
target: "<30 seconds"
- name: "Type Check"
checks:
- tsc --noEmit --strict
- mypy / pyright
target: "<60 seconds"
- name: "Unit Tests"
checks:
- jest / pytest / go test
- coverage threshold (≥80%)
target: "<3 minutes"
- name: "Integration Tests"
checks:
- API tests
- Database migration test
target: "<5 minutes"
- name: "Security Scan"
parallel: true
checks:
- dependency audit (npm audit / safety)
- SAST (semgrep / CodeQL)
- secrets detection (gitleaks / trufflehog)
target: "<2 minutes"
- name: "Build"
checks:
- Docker build
- Bundle size check
target: "<3 minutes"
total_target: "<10 minutes"
rules:
- All checks must pass before merge
- Flaky tests quarantined within 24h
- New code must not decrease coverage
- Security findings block merge (high/critical)
```
### CODEOWNERS Configuration
```
# .github/CODEOWNERS
# Default
* @team-leads
# Infrastructure
/infra/ @platform-team
/terraform/ @platform-team
/.github/ @platform-team
Dockerfile @platform-team
# API
/src/api/ @backend-team
/src/middleware/ @backend-team
# Frontend
/src/components/ @frontend-team
/src/pages/ @frontend-team
# Database
/migrations/ @dba-team @backend-team
# Docs
/docs/ @docs-team
# Security-sensitive
/src/auth/ @security-team @backend-team
/src/crypto/ @security-team
```
---
## Phase 5: Release Management & Versioning
### Semantic Versioning (SemVer)
```
MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH[-prerelease][+build]
Examples:
1.0.0 → First stable release
1.1.0 → New feature, backward compatible
1.1.1 → Bug fix
2.0.0 → Breaking change
2.0.0-beta.1 → Pre-release
2.0.0-rc.1 → Release candidate
```
### Version Bump Decision
| Change Type | Version Bump | Example |
|-------------|-------------|---------|
| Breaking API change | MAJOR | Remove endpoint, change response shape |
| New feature (backward compatible) | MINOR | Add endpoint, new optional field |
| Bug fix | PATCH | Fix calculation error, typo |
| Performance improvement | PATCH | Optimize query (same behavior) |
| Dependency update (compatible) | PATCH | Bump lodash minor |
| Dependency update (breaking) | Depends | Evaluate downstream impact |
### Automated Release Pipeline
```yaml
release_pipeline:
trigger: merge to main (or release branch)
steps:
1_version:
tool: "semantic-release / release-please / changesets"
action: "Determine version bump from commits"
2_changelog:
action: "Generate CHANGELOG.md from conventional commits"
sections:
- "🚀 Features" (feat)
- "🐛 Bug Fixes" (fix)
- "⚡ Performance" (perf)
- "💥 Breaking Changes" (!)
- "📝 Documentation" (docs)
- "🔧 Maintenance" (chore)
3_tag:
action: "Create signed git tag"
format: "v{major}.{minor}.{patch}"
4_release:
action: "Create GitHub Release with changelog"
assets:
- build artifacts
- checksums
5_publish:
action: "Publish to package registry"
registries:
- npm / PyPI / Maven / Docker Hub
6_notify:
action: "Post to Slack #releases"
template: "🚀 {package} v{version} released — {changelog_url}"
```
### Release Tool Comparison
| Tool | Approach | Monorepo | Config |
|------|----------|----------|--------|
| **semantic-release** | Fully automated | Via plugins | .releaserc |
| **release-please** | PR-based | Native | release-please-config.json |
| **changesets** | Developer-driven | Native | .changeset/ |
| **standard-version** | Local CLI | No | .versionrc |
| **lerna** | Monorepo-specific | Yes | lerna.json |
**Selection Guide:**
- Want zero-touch automation? → semantic-release
- Want human review before release? → release-please
- Want developer-controlled changelogs? → changesets
- Monorepo with independent packages? → changesets or lerna
### Hotfix Process
```yaml
hotfix_process:
trigger: "Production incident requiring code fix"
steps:
1: "Create branch from latest release tag: hotfix/PROJ-XXX-description"
2: "Implement fix with test"
3: "PR with 'hotfix' label → expedited review (1 reviewer)"
4: "Merge to main AND release branch (if using GitFlow)"
5: "Tag patch release immediately"
6: "Deploy to production"
7: "Cherry-pick to develop (if using GitFlow)"
8: "Post-incident: add regression test to CI"
sla: "Fix deployed within 4 hours of identification"
```
---
## Phase 6: Monorepo vs Multi-Repo Strategy
### Decision Matrix
| Factor | Monorepo | Multi-Repo |
|--------|----------|------------|
| **Code sharing** | Trivial (same tree) | Requires packages/versioning |
| **Refactoring** | Atomic cross-project changes | Coordinated multi-repo PRs |
| **CI complexity** | Higher (affected-only builds) | Simpler (per-repo pipelines) |
| **Dependency management** | Single lockfile, consistent | Independent, may drift |
| **Team autonomy** | Lower (shared conventions) | Higher (own rules) |
| **Onboarding** | One clone, full context | Clone what you need |
| **Build times** | Can grow large | Naturally bounded |
| **Access control** | Coarser (same repo) | Fine-grained (per-repo) |
### When to Use Each
**Monorepo When:**
- Shared libraries change frequently
- Teams need atomic cross-package changes
- Tight integration between services
- Strong shared tooling culture
- <50 active contributors OR excellent tooling
**Multi-Repo When:**
- Teams are autonomous (different stacks, cadences)
- Strong security boundaries needed
- Open source components mixed with private
- >100 contributors without monorepo tooling
- Microservices with stable API contracts
### Monorepo Tooling
| Tool | Language | Features | Best For |
|------|----------|----------|----------|
| **Turborepo** | JS/TS | Fast, simple, caching | JS/TS monorepos |
| **Nx** | Any | Full-featured, generators | Large JS/TS + mixed |
| **Bazel** | Any | Hermetic, scalable | Google-scale, polyglot |
| **Pants** | Python, Go, Java | Incremental, remote cache | Python-heavy |
| **Rush** | JS/TS | Microsoft-backed | Enterprise JS/TS |
| **Lerna** | JS/TS | Publishing-focused | npm package sets |
### Monorepo Structure
```
/
├── apps/
│ ├── web/ # Next.js frontend
│ ├── api/ # Express backend
│ ├── mobile/ # React Native
│ └── admin/ # Admin dashboard
├── packages/
│ ├── ui/ # Shared components
│ ├── utils/ # Shared utilities
│ ├── config/ # Shared configs (eslint, tsconfig)
│ ├── database/ # Prisma/Drizzle schema
│ └── types/ # Shared TypeScript types
├── tools/
│ ├── scripts/ # Build/deploy scripts
│ └── generators/ # Code generators
├── .github/
│ ├── workflows/ # CI/CD
│ └── CODEOWNERS
├── turbo.json # Turborepo config
├── package.json # Root workspace
└── pnpm-workspace.yaml # Workspace definition
```
### Affected-Only CI for Monorepos
```yaml
monorepo_ci:
strategy: "Only build/test what changed"
detection:
- "git diff --name-only origin/main...HEAD"
- "Use tool-native affected detection (nx affected, turbo --filter)"
caching:
local: "node_modules/.cache, .turbo"
remote: "S3/GCS for CI cache sharing"
key: "hash of lockfile + source files"
rules:
- "Root config change → rebuild everything"
- "Package change → rebuild package + dependents"
- "App change → rebuild only that app"
- "Docs change → skip build, only lint"
```
---
## Phase 7: Git Security
### Secrets Prevention
```yaml
secrets_prevention:
pre_commit:
tool: "gitleaks / trufflehog / detect-secrets"
config: |
# .gitleaks.toml
[allowlist]
paths = ["test/fixtures/**", "docs/examples/**"]
[[rules]]
id = "aws-access-key"
description = "AWS Access Key"
regex = '''AKIA[0-9A-Z]{16}'''
tags = ["aws", "credentials"]
ci_scan:
tool: "trufflehog --since-commit HEAD~1"
action: "Block merge on detection"
emergency_response:
steps:
1: "Revoke the exposed credential IMMEDIATELY"
2: "git filter-repo to remove from history"
3: "Force push cleaned history"
4: "Audit access logs for the exposed credential"
5: "Rotate all credentials that may have been exposed"
6: "Add pattern to pre-commit hook"
warning: |
Even after removing from history, assume the secret is compromised.
Anyone who cloned the repo may have it cached.
```
### Commit Signing
```bash
# GPG signing setup
git config --global commit.gpgsign true
git config --global user.signingkey YOUR_KEY_ID
git config --global tag.gpgsign true
# SSH signing (GitHub, simpler)
git config --global gpg.format ssh
git config --global user.signingkey ~/.ssh/id_ed25519.pub
git config --global commit.gpgsign true
# Verify signed commits
git log --show-signature
```
### .gitignore Best Practices
```yaml
gitignore_checklist:
always_ignore:
- "node_modules/ / venv/ / __pycache__/"
- ".env / .env.local / .env.*.local"
- "*.key / *.pem / *.p12"
- ".DS_Store / Thumbs.db"
- "*.log / logs/"
- "dist/ / build/ / out/"
- "coverage/ / .nyc_output/"
- ".idea/ / .vscode/ (except shared settings)"
- "*.sqlite / *.db (unless intentional)"
never_ignore:
- ".gitignore itself"
- "lockfiles (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml)"
- ".env.example (template without secrets)"
- "docker-compose.yml"
- "Makefile / Taskfile"
template: "Use github.com/github/gitignore as base"
```
---
## Phase 8: Git Workflows for Common Scenarios
### Feature Development (GitHub Flow)
```yaml
feature_workflow:
steps:
1_branch: "git checkout -b feat/PROJ-123-description main"
2_develop:
- "Make atomic commits following conventional commits"
- "Push regularly (at least daily)"
- "Keep rebased on main: git rebase main"
3_pr:
- "Open PR early as draft for visibility"
- "Convert to ready when tests pass"
- "Request reviewers via CODEOWNERS"
4_review:
- "Address feedback in new commits (don't force-push during review)"
- "Re-request review after changes"
5_merge:
- "Squash merge for clean history"
- "Delete branch after merge (automated)"
6_deploy:
- "CI/CD deploys from main automatically"
```
### Trunk-Based Development
```yaml
trunk_based:
rules:
- "All developers commit to main (or short-lived branches <1 day)"
- "Feature flags gate incomplete features"
- "No long-lived branches (ever)"
- "Broken main = stop everything, fix immediately"
- "Pair programming reduces need for PR reviews"
short_lived_branches:
max_lifetime: "1 day"
merge_strategy: "squash"
review: "Optional for small changes, required for >50 LOC"
prerequisites:
- "Comprehensive CI pipeline (<10 min)"
- "Feature flag infrastructure"
- "High test coverage (>80%)"
- "Trunk-based CI (main always deployable)"
- "Strong automated testing culture"
```
### Database Migration Workflow
```yaml
migration_workflow:
rules:
- "One migration per PR (never batch)"
- "Migrations are forward-only (no down migrations in production)"
- "Every migration must be backward compatible"
- "Test migration against production data clone"
backward_compatible_patterns:
add_column: "Add with default value, make nullable initially"
rename_column: "Add new → migrate data → update code → drop old (3 PRs)"
remove_column: "Stop reading → stop writing → drop (2 PRs)"
add_index: "CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY"
change_type: "Add new column → migrate → swap → drop old"
review:
required_reviewers: ["dba", "senior-backend"]
extra_checks:
- "Migration runs in <30 seconds"
- "No table locks on large tables"
- "Rollback tested"
```
### Dependency Update Workflow
```yaml
dependency_updates:
automation:
tool: "Dependabot / Renovate"
config:
schedule: "weekly"
group_by: "update-type"
automerge:
- "patch updates (tests pass)"
- "minor updates (for low-risk deps)"
manual_review:
- "major updates"
- "security-sensitive packages"
renovate_config:
# renovate.json
extends: ["config:recommended"]
schedule: ["before 9am on Monday"]
automerge: true
automergeType: "pr"
packageRules:
- matchUpdateTypes: ["patch"]
automerge: true
- matchUpdateTypes: ["major"]
automerge: false
reviewers: ["team/leads"]
- matchPackagePatterns: ["eslint", "prettier", "typescript"]
groupName: "dev tooling"
```
---
## Phase 9: Git Performance & Large Repos
### Performance Optimization
| Problem | Solution | Impact |
|---------|----------|--------|
| Slow clone | `git clone --depth 1` (shallow) | 10-100x faster |
| Large repo | `git sparse-checkout` | Clone only needed dirs |
| Slow fetch | `git fetch --prune --tags` | Remove stale refs |
| Large files | Git LFS | Keep repo size manageable |
| Slow status | `git config core.fsmonitor true` | 2-5x faster on large repos |
| Slow diff | `git config diff.algorithm histogram` | Better diff quality |
| Many branches | Auto-delete merged branches | Keep ref count low |
### Git LFS Setup
```yaml
git_lfs:
when_to_use:
- "Binary files >1MB (images, videos, models)"
- "Generated files that change frequently"
- "Design assets (PSD, Sketch, Figma exports)"
never_lfs:
- "Source code"
- "Configuration files"
- "Small images (<100KB)"
setup: |
git lfs install
git lfs track "*.psd"
git lfs track "*.zip"
git lfs track "models/**"
git add .gitattributes
cost_warning: |
GitHub LFS: 1GB free, then $5/50GB/month
Consider alternatives for very large assets:
- S3/GCS with download scripts
- DVC (Data Version Control) for ML
- Git Annex for large media
```
### Sparse Checkout for Monorepos
```bash
# Clone only what you need
git clone --filter=blob:none --sparse https://github.com/org/monorepo.git
cd monorepo
git sparse-checkout init --cone
git sparse-checkout set apps/my-app packages/shared
# Add more directories later
git sparse-checkout add packages/another-lib
```
---
## Phase 10: Git Troubleshooting & Recovery
### Common Issues & Fixes
| Problem | Command | Notes |
|---------|---------|-------|
| Undo last commit (keep changes) | `git reset --soft HEAD~1` | Staged, ready to recommit |
| Undo last commit (discard) | `git reset --hard HEAD~1` | ⚠️ Destructive |
| Find lost commit | `git reflog` | Reflog keeps 90 days |
| Recover deleted branch | `git reflog` → `git checkout -b branch <sha>` | Find the SHA in reflog |
| Remove file from all history | `git filter-repo --path file --invert-paths` | Requires force push |
| Fix wrong branch | `git stash` → `git checkout correct` → `git stash pop` | |
| Resolve merge conflict | `git mergetool` or manual edit | Accept theirs: `git checkout --theirs file` |
| Bisect to find bug | `git bisect start` → `git bisect bad` → `git bisect good <sha>` | Binary search |
| Squash last N commits | `git rebase -i HEAD~N` | Mark as squash/fixup |
| Amend last commit message | `git commit --amend` | Only if not pushed |
### Emergency Procedures
```yaml
emergency_procedures:
secrets_in_repo:
severity: "CRITICAL"
steps:
1: "Revoke credential IMMEDIATELY (don't wait for history clean)"
2: "Remove with git filter-repo"
3: "Force push all branches"
4: "Contact GitHub support to clear caches"
5: "Audit credential usage"
6: "Add to pre-commit hooks"
broken_main:
severity: "HIGH"
steps:
1: "Revert the breaking commit: git revert <sha>"
2: "Push revert immediately"
3: "Investigate in separate branch"
4: "Fix forward (don't revert the revert)"
accidental_force_push:
severity: "HIGH"
steps:
1: "Check reflog for the previous HEAD"
2: "Reset to previous state"
3: "Force push the recovery"
4: "Notify team to re-pull"
5: "Add branch protection to prevent recurrence"
repo_too_large:
severity: "MEDIUM"
steps:
1: "Identify large files: git rev-list --objects --all | git cat-file --batch-check"
2: "Move large files to LFS: git lfs migrate import --include='*.zip'"
3: "Or remove with filter-repo"
4: "Force push cleaned history"
5: "Team re-clones"
```
---
## Phase 11: Advanced Patterns
### Git Hooks Architecture
```yaml
git_hooks:
tool: "husky (JS) / pre-commit (Python) / lefthook (any)"
recommended_hooks:
pre_commit:
- lint-staged (format only changed files)
- commitlint (conventional commit check)
- gitleaks (secrets scan)
commit_msg:
- commitlint --edit $1
pre_push:
- type-check
- unit tests (fast subset)
prepare_commit_msg:
- Add branch ticket number to commit
lefthook_config: |
# lefthook.yml
pre-commit:
parallel: true
commands:
lint:
glob: "*.{ts,tsx,js,jsx}"
run: npx eslint {staged_files}
format:
glob: "*.{ts,tsx,js,jsx,json,md}"
run: npx prettier --check {staged_files}
secrets:
run: gitleaks protect --staged
commit-msg:
commands:
lint-commit:
run: npx commitlint --edit {1}
```
### Worktrees for Parallel Development
```bash
# Work on hotfix while feature branch is open
git worktree add ../hotfix-workspace hotfix/PROJ-789
cd ../hotfix-workspace
# Fix, commit, push — without touching main workspace
git worktree remove ../hotfix-workspace
# Use cases:
# - Reviewing PR while working on feature
# - Running tests on one branch while coding on another
# - Comparing behavior between branches
```
### Git Subtree for Shared Libraries
```bash
# Add shared library
git subtree add --prefix=libs/shared https://github.com/org/shared.git main --squash
# Pull updates
git subtree pull --prefix=libs/shared https://github.com/org/shared.git main --squash
# Push changes back
git subtree push --prefix=libs/shared https://github.com/org/shared.git feature-branch
# When to use subtree vs submodule:
# Subtree: simpler, code lives in your repo, no extra clone steps
# Submodule: pointer to external repo, separate versioning, requires init
```
### Changelog Generation
```yaml
changelog_tools:
conventional_changelog:
command: "npx conventional-changelog -p angular -i CHANGELOG.md -s"
output: "Groups by feat/fix/perf with commit links"
git_cliff:
command: "git cliff --output CHANGELOG.md"
config: |
# cliff.toml
[changelog]
header = "# Changelog\n"
body = """
## [{{ version }}] - {{ timestamp | date(format="%Y-%m-%d") }}
{% for group, commits in commits | group_by(attribute="group") %}
### {{ group }}
{% for commit in commits %}
- {{ commit.message }} ([{{ commit.id | truncate(length=7) }}]({{ commit.id }}))
{% endfor %}
{% endfor %}
"""
trim = true
release_please:
approach: "Creates PR with changelog + version bump"
config: |
{
"release-type": "node",
"packages": { ".": {} }
}
```
---
## Phase 12: Metrics & Health Dashboard
### Weekly Repository Health Dashboard
```yaml
repo_health_dashboard:
date: "YYYY-MM-DD"
velocity:
prs_merged_this_week: 0
avg_pr_size_lines: 0
avg_time_to_first_review_hours: 0
avg_time_to_merge_hours: 0
quality:
prs_requiring_rework: 0
review_comments_per_pr: 0
ci_pass_rate_percent: 0
reverts_this_week: 0
hygiene:
stale_branches_count: 0
open_prs_older_than_7_days: 0
unsigned_commits_percent: 0
ci_pipeline_duration_p95_minutes: 0
security:
secrets_detected_blocked: 0
dependency_vulnerabilities_open: 0
scoring:
dimensions:
velocity: { weight: 20, score: 0 }
quality: { weight: 25, score: 0 }
hygiene: { weight: 20, score: 0 }
security: { weight: 20, score: 0 }
culture: { weight: 15, score: 0 }
total: "/100"
```
### Benchmarks
| Metric | Good | Great | World-Class |
|--------|------|-------|-------------|
| PR review time | <24h | <4h | <2h |
| PR merge time | <48h | <24h | <8h |
| CI pipeline | <15 min | <10 min | <5 min |
| CI pass rate | >90% | >95% | >99% |
| Branch lifetime | <5 days | <3 days | <1 day |
| Stale branches | <20 | <10 | 0 |
| Code review coverage | >80% | >95% | 100% |
| Signed commits | >50% | >90% | 100% |
---
## 100-Point Quality Rubric
| Dimension | Weight | 0-25 | 50 | 75 | 100 |
|-----------|--------|------|----|----|-----|
| Branching Strategy | 15% | No strategy | Basic (main + feature) | Documented, enforced | Automated, measured |
| Commit Quality | 10% | Random messages | Mostly conventional | Enforced conventional + signing | Automated changelog from commits |
| Code Review | 20% | Optional/rubber stamp | Required, basic | SLAs, taxonomy, CODEOWNERS | Data-driven, continuous improvement |
| CI/CD Integration | 15% | Manual checks | Basic pipeline | Branch protection + all checks | <10 min, affected-only, cached |
| Release Management | 10% | Manual | SemVer, manual tagging | Automated versioning | Full automation + changelog + notify |
| Security | 15% | No controls | .gitignore, basic | Pre-commit secrets scan + signing | Full security pipeline + audit |
| Repository Hygiene | 10% | Stale branches, large repo | Periodic cleanup | Automated cleanup, LFS | Monitored dashboard, zero debt |
| Documentation | 5% | None | README + PR template | Contributing guide + ADRs | Full developer onboarding docs |
**Score:** 0-40 = Crisis | 41-60 = Developing | 61-80 = Good | 81-100 = Excellent
---
## 10 Git Engineering Mistakes
| # | Mistake | Fix |
|---|---------|-----|
| 1 | Committing secrets | Pre-commit hooks (gitleaks) + CI scan |
| 2 | Long-lived branches | Max 5-day policy, split large features |
| 3 | Merge commits everywhere | Squash merge or rebase, linear history |
| 4 | No branch protection | Enforce reviews + status checks |
| 5 | Giant PRs (>500 lines) | Split by concern, stacked PRs |
| 6 | Force pushing shared branches | Never force push main/develop |
| 7 | No CI before merge | Block merge without passing checks |
| 8 | Manual releases | Automate with semantic-release/release-please |
| 9 | Ignoring git history | Conventional commits, meaningful messages |
| 10 | No CODEOWNERS | Define ownership for review routing |
---
## Edge Cases
### Startup / Solo Developer
- Start with GitHub Flow (simplest)
- Use conventional commits from day 1
- Set up pre-commit hooks immediately
- Branch protection even on solo repos (prevents accidents)
### Large Enterprise (>100 devs)
- Trunk-Based Development with feature flags
- Monorepo with Bazel/Nx + remote caching
- CODEOWNERS for every directory
- Automated everything (lint, test, release, changelog)
### Open Source Project
- Require signed commits from maintainers
- Fork-based workflow for external contributors
- DCO (Developer Certificate of Origin) or CLA
- Protected main + develop branches
- Issue templates + PR templates mandatory
### Migration from SVN/Perforce
- Use `git svn` or `git p4` for initial migration
- Preserve history where possible
- Retrain team on branching (it's cheap in git!)
- Start with GitHub Flow, graduate to trunk-based
### Regulated Industry (SOX/HIPAA/PCI)
- Signed commits mandatory
- PR approval from compliance-aware reviewer
- Audit trail: never squash (keep individual commits)
- Branch protection: no admin override
- Tag every production release
---
## Natural Language Commands
| Command | Action |
|---------|--------|
| "Set up git for our project" | Assess team, recommend branching strategy + full config |
| "Review our branching strategy" | Analyze current approach, suggest improvements |
| "Create PR template" | Generate PR template with checklist |
| "Set up branch protection" | Generate protection rules config |
| "Help with monorepo setup" | Tool selection + structure + CI config |
| "Fix git problem" | Diagnose from troubleshooting guide |
| "Set up automated releases" | Tool selection + pipeline config |
| "Audit repository security" | Run through security checklist |
| "Optimize CI pipeline" | Analyze and recommend speedups |
| "Set up commit conventions" | Configure commitlint + hooks + template |
| "Create CODEOWNERS" | Generate ownership file from project structure |
| "Help with git recovery" | Guide through emergency procedures |
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
