본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

commit-validator

Validates commit messages against Conventional Commits specification using programmatic validation. Replaces the git-conventional-commit-messages text file with a tool that provides instant feedback.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(10)

  • SKILL.md7.6 KB
  • commands/commit-validator.md116 B
  • hooks/post-execute.cjs310 B
  • hooks/pre-execute.cjs427 B
  • references/research-requirements.md482 B
  • rules/commit-validator.md420 B
  • schemas/input.schema.json269 B
  • schemas/output.schema.json630 B
  • scripts/main.cjs570 B
  • templates/implementation-template.md190 B

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

References (archive): SCAFFOLD_SKILLS_ARCHIVE_MAP.md — commit validation logic inspired by claude-flow v3 git-commit hook, everything-claude-code commitlint.

<identity> Commit Message Validator - Programmatically validates commit messages against the [Conventional Commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/) specification. </identity> <capabilities> - Before committing code - In pre-commit hooks - In CI/CD pipelines - During code review - To enforce team standards </capabilities> <instructions> <execution_process>

Step 1: Validate Commit Message

Validate a commit message string against Conventional Commits format:

Format: <type>(<scope>): <subject>

Types:

  • feat: A new feature
  • fix: A bug fix
  • docs: Documentation only changes
  • style: Code style changes (formatting, etc.)
  • refactor: Code refactoring
  • perf: Performance improvements
  • test: Adding or updating tests
  • chore: Maintenance tasks
  • ci: CI/CD changes
  • build: Build system changes
  • revert: Reverting a previous commit

Validation Rules:

  1. Must start with type (required)
  2. Scope is optional (in parentheses)
  3. Subject is required (after colon and space)
  4. Use imperative, present tense ("add" not "added")
  5. Don't capitalize first letter
  6. No period at end
  7. Can include body and footer (separated by blank line) </execution_process> </instructions>
<examples> <code_example> **Implementation**

Use this regex pattern for validation:

const CONVENTIONAL_COMMIT_REGEX =
  /^(feat|fix|docs|style|refactor|perf|test|chore|ci|build|revert)(\(.+\))?: .{1,72}/;

function validateCommitMessage(message) {
  const lines = message.trim().split('\n');
  const header = lines[0];

  // Check format
  if (!CONVENTIONAL_COMMIT_REGEX.test(header)) {
    return {
      valid: false,
      error: 'Commit message does not follow Conventional Commits format',
    };
  }

  // Check length
  if (header.length > 72) {
    return {
      valid: false,
      error: 'Commit header exceeds 72 characters',
    };
  }

  return { valid: true };
}

</code_example>

<code_example> Valid Examples:

feat(auth): add OAuth2 login support
fix(api): resolve timeout issue in user endpoint
docs(readme): update installation instructions
refactor(components): extract common button logic
test(utils): add unit tests for date formatting

</code_example>

<code_example> Invalid Examples:

Added new feature  # Missing type
feat:new feature   # Missing space after colon
FEAT: Add feature  # Type should be lowercase
feat: Added feature  # Should use imperative tense

</code_example>

<code_example> Pre-commit Hook (.git/hooks/pre-commit):

#!/bin/bash
commit_msg=$(git log -1 --pretty=%B)
if ! node .claude/tools/cli/validate-commit.mjs "$commit_msg"; then
  echo "Commit message validation failed"
  exit 1
fi

</code_example>

<code_example> CI/CD Integration:

# .github/workflows/validate-commits.yml
- name: Validate commit messages
  run: |
    git log origin/main..HEAD --pretty=%B | while read msg; do
      node .claude/tools/cli/validate-commit.mjs "$msg" || exit 1
    done

</code_example> </examples>

<examples> <formatting_example> **Output Format**

Returns structured validation result:

{
  "valid": true,
  "type": "feat",
  "scope": "auth",
  "subject": "add OAuth2 login support",
  "warnings": []
}

Or for invalid messages:

{
  "valid": false,
  "error": "Commit message does not follow Conventional Commits format",
  "suggestions": [
    "Use format: <type>(<scope>): <subject>",
    "Valid types: feat, fix, docs, style, refactor, perf, test, chore, ci, build, revert"
  ]
}

</formatting_example> </examples>

<examples> <usage_example> **Example Commands**:
# Validate a commit message
node .claude/tools/cli/validate-commit.mjs "feat(auth): implement jwt login"

# Validate from stdin (e.g. in a hook)
echo "fix: incorrect variable name" | node .claude/tools/cli/validate-commit.mjs

</usage_example> </examples>

<instructions> <best_practices> 1. **Validate Early**: Check commit messages before pushing 2. **Provide Feedback**: Show clear error messages with suggestions 3. **Enforce in CI**: Add validation to CI/CD pipelines 4. **Team Training**: Educate team on Conventional Commits format 5. **Tool Integration**: Integrate with Git hooks and IDEs </best_practices> </instructions>

Iron Laws

  1. ALWAYS validate commit messages in both pre-commit hook and CI — pre-commit catches local violations; CI catches cases where the hook was bypassed or not installed; both layers are required.
  2. NEVER accept commit messages without a type prefix — conventional commit format (type: subject) is the foundation; messages without a type are unparseable for changelog generation and semantic versioning.
  3. ALWAYS enforce subject line length limit (72 characters) — subjects over 72 characters are truncated in git log --oneline and GitHub PR views; conciseness is enforced, not just encouraged.
  4. NEVER block commits for body/footer format issues — only type, subject, and length are blocking; optional sections (body, footer, co-authorship) should warn, not block.
  5. ALWAYS provide the correct format example in rejection messages — error messages without examples cause developers to guess the format; show feat: add user authentication alongside every rejection.

Anti-Patterns

Anti-PatternWhy It FailsCorrect Approach
Validating only in CI (not pre-commit)Developers don't discover format issues until after pushAdd pre-commit hook for local instant feedback
Blocking on body/footer formatExcessive friction leads developers to bypass hooksOnly block on missing type prefix and subject length
Rejection without format exampleDeveloper must guess the correct formatAlways show a passing example in the error message
Allowing freeform subject without typeBreaks changelog generation and semantic versioningRequire type: subject format unconditionally
Single-line validation (no body check)Missing Co-Authored-By and footer go undetectedValidate presence of required footers when configured

Memory Protocol (MANDATORY)

Before starting: Read .claude/context/memory/learnings.md

After completing:

  • New pattern -> .claude/context/memory/learnings.md
  • Issue found -> .claude/context/memory/issues.md
  • Decision made -> .claude/context/memory/decisions.md

ASSUME INTERRUPTION: If it's not in memory, it didn't happen.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Ensure accessibility in UI components including semantic HTML, ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, and WCAG 2.2 AA compliance.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

oimiragieo/agent-studio422026년 7월 14일 업데이트

Use when you want to improve response quality through meta-cognitive reasoning. Applies 15+ reasoning methods to reconsider and refine initial outputs.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

oimiragieo/agent-studio422026년 7월 14일 업데이트

N-round opposing-stance debates for trade-off analysis. Assigns pro/con roles to agents, runs structured debate rounds with quality scoring, and produces a moderator synthesis with confidence-rated recommendation. Generalizable to architecture, technology, security, and design decisions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

oimiragieo/agent-studio422026년 7월 14일 업데이트

Force adversarial code review stance that eliminates confirmation bias — reviewer must find issues or re-analyze

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

oimiragieo/agent-studio422026년 7월 14일 업데이트

Creates specialized AI agents on-demand when no existing agent matches a request. Use when the Router cannot find a suitable agent for a task. Enables self-evolution by generating persistent agents.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

oimiragieo/agent-studio422026년 7월 14일 업데이트

LLM-as-judge evaluation framework with 5-dimension rubric (accuracy, groundedness, coherence, completeness, helpfulness) for scoring AI-generated content quality with weighted composite scores and evidence citations

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

oimiragieo/agent-studio422026년 7월 14일 업데이트

oimiragieo의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고