You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
First off - huge thanks to @CasJam for creating Agent OS! It's been a game-changer for structuring AI-driven development workflows, and the results speak for themselves.
The Challenge
I've been using Agent OS in a corporate environment where automatic remote git operations (push/PR creation) can be problematic due to:
Team review processes that require manual approval before pushing
Compliance requirements around code changes
Different git workflow preferences across team members
Concerns about work-in-progress commits appearing on shared repositories
Currently, Agent OS's post-execution tasks automatically handle the full git workflow, which is fantastic for personal projects but can clash with enterprise policies.
Current Workaround & Its Limitations
I've implemented a temporary solution by directly modifying .agent-os/instructions/core/post-execution-tasks.md:
Added a pre-flight check (Step 1.5) that scans for project restrictions
Pattern-based detection of rules like "NEVER push to remote" in project files
User confirmation prompts before any remote git operations
Graceful degradation to local-only operations when restricted
While this works, it has significant drawbacks:
Not update-safe: Changes get overwritten when Agent OS updates
Manual maintenance: Requires re-applying patches after updates
Not portable: Each project needs individual modification
Fragile: Direct file modification feels like a hack
Local developer preferences (respecting existing patterns like CLAUDE.md)
Example Configuration Levels:
{
"git-workflow": {
"auto-commit": true, // Always safe - local only"auto-push": "ask", // Options: true, false, "ask""auto-pr": false, // Disabled for this project"respect-local-rules": true// Check for project restrictions
}
}
This would allow:
Personal projects: Full automation (current behavior)
Team projects: Commit locally, ask before push/PR
Corporate environments: Local commits only, manual push/PR
Benefits
✅ Update-safe - Configuration survives Agent OS updates
✅ Backward compatible - existing projects unchanged
✅ Flexible - adapts to different team workflows
✅ Portable - Configuration travels with projects
✅ Native - No more manual file modifications
Community Input Welcome!
What are your thoughts on this approach? Have others encountered similar challenges with automatic remote operations? Are there other git workflow scenarios we should consider?
Would love to hear how this might fit into different team setups and if there are other configuration options that
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hi Agent OS community! 👋
First off - huge thanks to @CasJam for creating Agent OS! It's been a game-changer for structuring AI-driven development workflows, and the results speak for themselves.
The Challenge
I've been using Agent OS in a corporate environment where automatic remote git operations (push/PR creation) can be problematic due to:
Currently, Agent OS's post-execution tasks automatically handle the full git workflow, which is fantastic for personal projects but can clash with enterprise policies.
Current Workaround & Its Limitations
I've implemented a temporary solution by directly modifying
.agent-os/instructions/core/post-execution-tasks.md
:While this works, it has significant drawbacks:
Potential Solution: Hierarchical Git Workflow Configuration
What if we could implement a native configuration hierarchy that respects project-specific restrictions? Something like:
.agent-os/config/git-workflow.json
)Example Configuration Levels:
This would allow:
Benefits
✅ Update-safe - Configuration survives Agent OS updates
✅ Backward compatible - existing projects unchanged
✅ Flexible - adapts to different team workflows
✅ Portable - Configuration travels with projects
✅ Native - No more manual file modifications
Community Input Welcome!
What are your thoughts on this approach? Have others encountered similar challenges with automatic remote operations? Are there other git workflow scenarios we should consider?
Would love to hear how this might fit into different team setups and if there are other configuration options that
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions