What problem does it solve? Merge conflicts are often resolved by blindly picking one side, which silently deletes work, drops test coverage, or produces a merged tree that fails for reasons nobody can attribute. This Skill provides a disciplined method for deciding what a conflicted file should actually say once both changes exist, and for proving which post-merge failures the merge itself caused. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Intent-based resolution: Reads each side's history with git log -p to determine what changed, when, and which lineage is live, instead of reaching for --ours or --theirs. - Union and semantic conflict handling: Recognizes conflicts that are unions rather than choices, catches cleanly-merged files that are still semantically wrong, and regenerates generated files instead of hand-merging them. - Failure attribution: Runs failing tests on both parents to distinguish pre-existing failures from merge-caused ones, measures ratchets against the merged tree, and inverts orphaned tests with fault injection. - Use Case: Two green branches must become one tree, but the merge stops on conflicts and the merged result fails tests. Use this Skill to resolve each hunk with a stated reason, regenerate lock files, and prove which failures predate the merge. ## Quick Start Resolve the conflicts in my current git merge by analyzing what each branch changed and verifying the merged tree against both parents.
