Merge Base Branch

Merge the remote base branch into the current feature branch with pre-merge analysis, intelligent conflict resolution, and a behavioral change report.

Output philosophy: Be concise. Show summaries, not diffs or source code. The user will ask for details if they want them. Never dump raw diffs, full file contents, or initial state unless explicitly requested.

Phase 1: Sync with Remote

Fetch all remotes and pull tracked branch changes (merge mode, never rebase).

CURRENT_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current)
TRACKING=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref @{upstream} 2>/dev/null || echo "")

git fetch --all --prune

if [ -n "$TRACKING" ]; then
  git pull --no-rebase
fi

If the pull produces conflicts, resolve them (see Phase 4) before continuing.

Phase 2: Identify the Base Branch

Determine the base branch from PR metadata using the git-and-github skill:

BASE_BRANCH=$(gh pr view --json baseRefName -q .baseRefName 2>/dev/null)

If no PR exists, fall back to the repo default branch:

BASE_BRANCH=$(git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's@^refs/remotes/origin/@@')

If neither works, ask the user.

Use origin/$BASE_BRANCH (the remote-tracking ref, already updated by fetch) for the merge — not the local base branch, which may be stale.

Phase 3: Pre-Merge Analysis

Understand both sides of the merge internally. Read the diffs and logs to build context for conflict resolution and behavioral analysis. Do NOT output diffs or source — only summaries.

MERGE_BASE=$(git merge-base origin/$BASE_BRANCH HEAD)

# Our changes
git log --oneline $MERGE_BASE..HEAD
git diff --stat $MERGE_BASE..HEAD
git diff $MERGE_BASE..HEAD

# Their changes
git log --oneline $MERGE_BASE..origin/$BASE_BRANCH
git diff --stat $MERGE_BASE..origin/$BASE_BRANCH
git diff $MERGE_BASE..origin/$BASE_BRANCH

Overlap and semantic analysis

Identify files modified on both sides:

comm -12 \
  <(git diff --name-only $MERGE_BASE..HEAD | sort) \
  <(git diff --name-only $MERGE_BASE..origin/$BASE_BRANCH | sort)

Also look for semantic overlaps — cases where there's no textual conflict but behavior changes (e.g., upstream changed a function signature or default value that local code relies on).

Report a brief summary to the user:

• What each side changed (1-2 sentences per side)
• Overlapping files (if any)
• Semantic overlaps identified (if any)

Phase 4: Execute the Merge

git merge origin/$BASE_BRANCH --no-edit

If no conflicts

The merge commits automatically. Proceed to Phase 5.

If conflicts occur

Git will list conflicted files. For each one:

1. Read the conflict markers — understand both sides using Phase 3 context
2. Resolve intelligently — preserve intent from both sides. When ambiguous, prefer the version that preserves existing behavior.
3. Stage the resolution — git add <file>
4. Present to the user — use a table summarizing the conflict, not raw source:

Area	Ours	Theirs	Resolution
function_name()	Added X	Changed Y	Combined: X + Y

Ask for approval before continuing.

After all conflicts are resolved and the user approves:

git commit --no-edit

If the user rejects a resolution, apply their feedback and re-present.

Phase 5: Behavioral Change Report

This is the most important deliverable. Analyze the merge result for anything that could change runtime behavior. Read the merged files internally — do not dump diffs to the user.

Assign an overall Risk Factor (0-100%) reflecting the likelihood that the merge introduced unintended behavioral changes:

• 0-20%: Routine merge, disjoint changes, no behavioral overlap
• 21-50%: Minor behavioral touches — new defaults, added parameters (backward-compatible)
• 51-80%: Significant behavioral changes — modified control flow, changed defaults affecting existing callers, schema changes
• 81-100%: Breaking changes — incompatible signatures, algorithm swaps, data format changes

What to look for

• Function signature changes — parameters added/removed/reordered upstream affecting local callers
• Default value changes — config defaults, function defaults, env var fallbacks changed upstream
• Control flow changes — conditionals, early returns, error handling paths in overlapping code
• Type/schema changes — struct fields, API shapes, database schemas changed on either side
• Dependency version conflicts — lock files merged with potentially incompatible versions
• Import/module resolution — new upstream imports that shadow or conflict with local ones
• Test expectations — tests that may now fail due to changed behavior from either side

Upstream attribution

For conflicted files and files flagged under "Changes Requiring Attention", identify which upstream authors introduced the problematic changes. Only include authors whose changes directly caused conflicts or semantic issues — not every upstream contributor.

Report format

## Behavioral Change Report — Risk: <N>%

### Safe Changes
- <file> — <what changed, why it's safe>

### Changes Requiring Attention
- <file> — <what changed, potential impact>

### Relevant Upstream Contributors
| Author | Key Changes |
|---|---|
| @<github-handle> | <PR(s) that caused conflicts or semantic issues> |

### Recommended Follow-up
- [ ] <action items, if any>

Show safe changes first so the user can quickly confirm the routine stuff and focus attention on what matters. If the report is clean (risk ~0%), say so in one line and skip the sections. Only list contributors whose changes caused conflicts or semantic issues — skip unrelated authors.

Error Recovery

If anything goes wrong mid-merge:

git merge --abort

Then report what happened and let the user decide how to proceed.