git:20260723.7608dd1 to git:20260729.65fa574

10 added, 5 removed. Audit A to A.

---

name: committing-and-pushing

description: Commit and push discipline — build before committing, one concern per commit with behavior and structure never mixed, deliberate staging, semantic reconciliation before main advances. Use when committing, pushing, or merging a branch toward main.

---

# Committing and pushing

## Every commit

1. Build before you commit. Run the build and the tests the change touches; a commit

that does not build is never pushed. A broken commit on a shared branch breaks every

colleague who pulls it.

2. `git status` and `git diff` first: know exactly what you are committing, and confirm

every staged change is yours. Stage deliberately — do not sweep in files you did not

change.

3. One concern per commit, and never behavior and structure in the same one. A commit

that both moves code and changes what it does cannot be reviewed under one lens —

the reviewer cannot tell which lines are supposed to change output. Split them:

structure commits reviewed for direction, behavior commits reviewed for

correctness. A tangled commit is also permanent damage — it poisons blame, bisect,

and defect archaeology long after it merges.

4. Message: concise, descriptive, states what the change does. No co-author lines, no

tool or model attributions, no generated-by noise.

5. Push to your own branch.

## Merging your branch into main

Merging is a semantic integration problem, not a text-selection problem.

1. Merge main into your branch first. Every conflict is resolved on your branch.

2. Resolve conflicts semantically. Never resolve by wholesale accepting ours, theirs,

or the newer block. For each conflict, determine what each side contributes — read

the merge base, both sides, callers, and tests — and produce a combination that

keeps your intended change and every orthogonal behavior main already carries. When

two behaviors are truly incompatible, stop and send the decision up; do not silently

choose one.

3. Prove the reconciled branch: build, tests, and the repository's required gates, on

the branch, after reconciliation.

4. The review that clears the work covers the post-reconciliation result; a review from

before reconciliation is stale where reconciliation changed semantics.

- 5. Advancing main is the orchestrator's decision: it happens after the orchestrator has

- cleared the work — the `reviewed-clean` verdict is on record. You execute the

- mechanics: confirm main is an ancestor of the reconciled branch

- (`git merge-base --is-ancestor main <branch>`), then advance main from the branch —

- fast-forward, because the reconciliation already happened on the branch.

+ 5. Advancing main is the orchestrator's decision: it happens after the

+ orchestrator has cleared the work — the `reviewed-clean` verdict is on

+ record, and, for a substantial change (feature-cycle's spirit-review

+ definition), the product owner's `--kind verdict` attest is on the goal's

+ assignment. A routine change — a wire-spelling fix, not an effort-check-in —

+ advances on `reviewed-clean` alone. You execute the mechanics: confirm main

+ is an ancestor of the reconciled branch

+ (`git merge-base --is-ancestor main <branch>`), then advance main from the

+ branch — fast-forward, because the reconciliation already happened on the

+ branch.

6. When main moved during reconciliation, merge it in again and re-prove before

advancing.