Squash commits during rebase — AI Prompts for Git

The four heights

The same task, four distances: today's deadline, the next reviewer, the stuck moment, the pattern.

Execute — do the immediate task

I need to squash four minor style and typo commits into the preceding feature commit to tidy…

I need to squash four minor style and typo commits into the preceding feature commit to tidy history before merging. Combine those four into one commit with a message that summarizes the feature and notes 'squashed style fixes', keep the original author, and pause to show the resulting commit for approval before completing the rebase.

Improve — make it easier to accept

Before squashing these small commits into the feature commit, make approval easy: surface which…

Before squashing these small commits into the feature commit, make approval easy: surface which commits will be squashed, show the net diff that will result, propose a single concise commit message that preserves rationale, and flag any commit that contains test changes or code that reviewers might expect to inspect individually.

Decide — diagnose the stuck moment

I have four trivial commits after my main feature commit and want to squash them to clean the…

I want to squash minor commits into a larger feature commit.

I have four trivial commits after my main feature commit and want to squash them to clean the branch before merging. I'm afraid reviewers will complain that individual decisions were hidden, and I don't know if any of those commits fixed tests. What is the least disruptive squashing approach that preserves reviewability and avoids breaking the PR conversation?

Become — change the pattern

Our branches routinely end up with dozens of tiny fix and style commits that we squash at merge…

Branches accumulate tiny 'fix' commits before merge.

Our branches routinely end up with dozens of tiny fix and style commits that we squash at merge time. This wastes reviewer time and makes blame noisy. Which change to our commit discipline or tooling will reduce this friction long term and actually stick with engineers who are in a rush to finish a feature?

Next to this one

Other version control work people do in Git.

Set up hooks Show branch graph Show changes between commits Sign commits or tags Split a commit into multiple Squash multiple commits Stage changed files Stash local changes Submodule add or update Switch to a branch

Every task here came from the work, not from a feature list — which is why the prompts name what you want done and never the button that does it. The tool changes; the work does not.

The rest of the map

Same library, five ways in.

Work Atlasthe whole map, interactive Careers1,949 jobs and their real tasks Soft skillsthe human part of the work Activities500 things people do Prompt Librarybrowse every prompt