Git Commit Message Prompt Template

alias aicommit="gemini --yolo -p 'Analyze my git repository changes and generate 5 commit message recommendations WITH comprehensive issue review:

Instructions:
1. Run git status to detect new and modified files
2. Run git diff to understand what changed in modified files
3. For new files, only read them if they are critical to understanding the overall change
4. Prioritize analyzing modifications over new file contents
5. Perform SonarQube-style code quality and security analysis
6. Generate 5 commit messages in numbered list format
7. Skip git log --oneline -5

Requirements:
- Use conventional commit format (feat/fix/refactor/test/docs/chore)
- Focus primarily on what was modified and why
- Emphasize the nature of changes in existing code
- Consider modified files as the primary source of truth for the change intent
- Return as numbered list only

Format each message as:
type(scope): brief description

Analysis should prioritize:
- What existing functionality was changed and how
- Why the modifications were made (bug fix, refactor, enhancement)
- The impact of changes on existing behavior
- Secondary consideration for new files only if they are essential context

ISSUE SCANNING (SonarQube-style):

🔴 BLOCKER (Must fix before commit):
- Security hotspots (hardcoded credentials, SQL injection, XSS, CSRF)
- Critical bugs (null pointer, unhandled exceptions, resource leaks)
- Data corruption risks

🟠 CRITICAL (Should fix before commit):
- Major security vulnerabilities (weak crypto, auth issues)
- Breaking API changes without versioning
- Memory leaks, deadlocks
- Missing error handling in critical paths

🟡 MAJOR (Review recommended):
- Code smells (high complexity, duplicate code >10 lines)
- Performance issues (N+1 queries, inefficient algorithms)
- Maintainability issues (god classes, long methods >50 lines)
- Missing tests for new logic
- TODO/FIXME comments in production code

🔵 MINOR (Nice to fix):
- Convention violations (naming, formatting)
- Missing documentation
- Unused imports/variables
- Magic numbers without constants

Output Format:
1. Issue Summary Section:
   - \"⚠️ [SEVERITY] ISSUES DETECTED\" or \"✓ No critical issues detected\"
   - List issues by severity with file:line location
   - Include SonarQube-like quality gate status (PASSED/FAILED)

2. Commit Messages Section:
   - If blocker issues: Prefix messages with \"⚠️ BLOCKED: \"
   - If critical issues: Prefix with \"⚠️ REVIEW REQUIRED: \"
   - If only minor issues: Proceed with normal messages
   - Provide 5 conventional commit messages'"

alias aibranch="gemini --yolo -p 'Analyze my git repository changes and generate 5 branch recommendations and corresponding commit messages WITH comprehensive issue review:

Instructions:
1. Run git status to detect new and modified files
2. Run git diff to understand what changed in modified files
3. For new files, only read them if they are critical to understanding the overall change
4. Prioritize analyzing modifications over new file contents
5. Perform SonarQube-style code quality and security analysis
6. Generate 5 branch recommendations in numbered list format
7. Provide 5 matching commit message recommendations for the changes
8. Skip git log --oneline -5

Requirements:
- Use conventional branch naming (feature/fix/refactor/hotfix/chore)
- Use conventional commit format (feat/fix/refactor/test/docs/chore)
- Focus primarily on what was modified and why
- Emphasize the nature of changes in existing code
- Consider modified files as the primary source of truth for the change intent

ISSUE SCANNING (SonarQube-style):

🔴 BLOCKER (Must fix before commit):
- Security hotspots (hardcoded credentials, SQL injection, XSS, CSRF)
- Critical bugs (null pointer, unhandled exceptions, resource leaks)
- Data corruption risks

🟠 CRITICAL (Should fix before commit):
- Major security vulnerabilities (weak crypto, auth issues)
- Breaking API changes without versioning
- Memory leaks, deadlocks
- Missing error handling in critical paths

🟡 MAJOR (Review recommended):
- Code smells (high complexity, duplicate code >10 lines)
- Performance issues (N+1 queries, inefficient algorithms)
- Maintainability issues (god classes, long methods >50 lines)
- Missing tests for new logic
- TODO/FIXME comments in production code

🔵 MINOR (Nice to fix):
- Convention violations (naming, formatting)
- Missing documentation
- Unused imports/variables
- Magic numbers without constants

Output Format:

1. Issue Summary Section:
   - \"⚠️ [SEVERITY] ISSUES DETECTED\" or \"✓ No critical issues detected\"
   - List issues by severity with file:line location
   - Include SonarQube-like quality gate status (PASSED/FAILED)

2. Branch Recommendations Section:
   Format: category/short-description
   Examples: feature/user-auth, fix/memory-leak, refactor/api-cleanup
   - If blocker issues: Prefix with \"⚠️ BLOCKED: \"
   - If critical issues: Prefix with \"⚠️ REVIEW REQUIRED: \"

3. Commit Messages Section:
   Format: type(scope): brief description
   - Match each branch recommendation
   - Include issue severity prefix if applicable
   - Provide 5 conventional commit messages paired with branches'"

# Generate commit messages with issue scanning
aicommit

# Generate branch names + commit messages
aibranch

✓ No critical issues detected
Quality Gate: PASSED

1. feat(auth): add user login validation
2. fix(api): implement secure authentication flow
3. feat(security): add login form with validation
4. chore(auth): update user authentication system
5. feat(user): implement login functionality

⚠️ CRITICAL ISSUES DETECTED
Quality Gate: FAILED

🟠 CRITICAL:
- auth.js:42 - Hardcoded API key in source code
- login.js:15 - Missing input sanitization (XSS risk)

🟡 MAJOR:
- utils.js:87 - High cyclomatic complexity (score: 15)
- api.js:120 - Missing error handling for async operation

1. ⚠️ REVIEW REQUIRED: feat(auth): add user login validation
2. ⚠️ REVIEW REQUIRED: fix(security): implement authentication with input validation
3. ⚠️ REVIEW REQUIRED: feat(api): add login endpoint with security fixes
4. ⚠️ REVIEW REQUIRED: chore(auth): update authentication system and remove hardcoded credentials
5. ⚠️ REVIEW REQUIRED: fix(critical): implement secure login with sanitization