Yeah, git is certainly a low level tool. That's actually what I like most about it. There's a few fundamental concepts I get to manipulate directly with git commands. I like dealing with innards like this because I can form a mental model of the tool. High level tools are a lot harder to understand.
I think the problem with add, commit and reset is they aren't low level enough. The reset command in particular is juggling several concepts at once: HEAD, the index and the working tree. The add and commit commands work with fewer concepts: working tree to index and index to commit, respectively.
I too google the commands I don't use often. There's no shame in that.
I probably pushed and pulled O(100) remote branches over the past decade (jeepers I'm getting old), so roughly once a month. It's not that rare, yet I still haven't memorised them, because I find them so unintuitive.
Once a month is close to my usage and it's often enough to remember things in principle but not often enough to remember the d#$%#$%^#$n syntax with all its obscure details.
Depends on the result. I do interactive rebases extremely often, I don't have to look up how it works.
Sometimes I have to use some command I'm not familiar with. Sometimes familiar commands gain new options. It's perfectly okay to use some reference for that. Also, "more time" is like 1 minute.
I think the problem with add, commit and reset is they aren't low level enough. The reset command in particular is juggling several concepts at once: HEAD, the index and the working tree. The add and commit commands work with fewer concepts: working tree to index and index to commit, respectively.
I too google the commands I don't use often. There's no shame in that.