Git Commit — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited Git Commit (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Generate Conventional Commits messages that tell a complete story for future code archeology, with Jira ticket context integration.
Activate this skill when:
IMPORTANT: NEVER EVER ADD CO-AUTHOR TO THE GIT COMMIT MESSAGE NEVER mention Claude Code in commit messages
First, collect information about the current state:
# Current git status
git status
# Current git diff (staged changes)
git diff --staged
# Recent commits for context
git log --oneline -5
# Current branch
git branch --show-currentParse the current branch name to find Jira ticket IDs using these patterns:
PROJ-123-feature-namefeature/PROJ-123-descriptionPROJ-123If a Jira ticket ID is found:
mcp__zapier__jira_software_cloud_find_issue_by_key to fetch ticket detailsALWAYS use the AskUserQuestion tool to ask WHY the change was made.
Based on the diff and Jira context (if available), generate 3-4 plausible options for why the change was made. Present these as multiple choice options using AskUserQuestion.
Example:
Question: "Why did you make these changes?"
Options:
- "Fix bug where X was causing Y"
- "Add new feature for Z"
- "Refactor to improve maintainability"
- (User can always select "Other" to provide custom explanation)The options should be specific to the actual changes observed in the diff, not generic. Analyze the code changes to infer likely motivations.
Wait for their response and incorporate their explanation into the commit message.
Review the staged changes to understand WHAT changed technically:
Generate a commit message that tells a complete story for future code archeology:
Format:
type(scope): concise subject line describing what changed
Why this change was needed:
[Incorporate the user's explanation and Jira ticket context]
What changed:
[Technical summary of the modifications]
Problem solved:
[Explain the business/technical problem this addresses]
[If Jira ticket found] Refs: PROJ-123Conventional Commits Types:
IMPORTANT: Do not use `git add -A` or `git add .` Commit only the files that are already staged and understood.
CRITICAL: The user MUST confirm before executing `git commit` or `git push`. These commands are intentionally NOT in the allowed-tools list, so the user will be prompted for approval.
After receiving the user's approval of the commit message:
git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
type(scope): subject line
Why this change was needed:
[explanation]
What changed:
[technical summary]
Problem solved:
[problem description]
Refs: PROJ-123
EOF
)"git pushCreate commit messages that future developers will appreciate when doing code archeology months later. The message should answer:
feat(mcp): add tool execution timeout handling
Why this change was needed:
Tools were hanging indefinitely when external APIs failed to respond,
blocking the entire MCP server. This was causing user-facing timeouts
in the chat interface.
What changed:
- Added configurable timeout wrapper around tool execution
- Implemented graceful timeout error messages
- Updated tool registry to support per-tool timeout configuration
Problem solved:
External API failures no longer block the MCP server. Users now receive
clear timeout errors instead of indefinite hanging.
Refs: AGP-582fix(auth): prevent token refresh race condition
Why this change was needed:
Multiple simultaneous requests were triggering concurrent token refresh
attempts, causing some requests to fail with stale tokens.
What changed:
- Added mutex lock around token refresh logic
- Implemented token refresh deduplication
- Added retry logic for failed requests during refresh
Problem solved:
Concurrent requests no longer cause authentication failures due to
token refresh race conditions.refactor(api): extract validation logic to shared module
Why this change was needed:
Input validation was duplicated across 7 different API endpoints,
making it difficult to maintain consistent validation rules.
What changed:
- Created shared validation utilities in packages/validation
- Updated all API endpoints to use shared validators
- Removed 200+ lines of duplicated validation code
Problem solved:
Validation logic is now centralized and consistent across all endpoints.
Future validation changes only need to be made in one place.~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.