In my understanding, omega must be an (n-1)-form on an n-dimensional differential manifold, and so Stokes theorem does not apply to the question involving integrals of a vector and scalar on, say, manifolds of dimension 4. Is this incorrect?
A volume form on an n-dimensional manifold is, by definition, a nonvanishing n form. Thus [tex]X\lrcorner\Omega[/tex], as the contraction of a vector field with an n form, is an n-1 form.
In other words, having fed it one vector field, it still expects n-1 more.
The exterior derivative takes k forms to k+1 forms, so [tex]d(X\lrcorner\Omega)[/tex] is another n-1+1=n form. The equation
[tex]d(X\lrcorner\Omega) = (\mathrm{div}\ X)\Omega[/tex]
was not an identity, but my (perfectly sensible)
definition of the divergence with respect to this volume form. In other words, since the top exterior power is 1-dimensional, [tex]d(X\lrcorner\Omega)[/tex] must be a scalar multiple of [tex]\Omega[/tex]. I defined the divergence to be this scalar (I didn't write something like [tex]\mathrm{div}_\Omega\ X[/tex] because there was only one volume form in sight).
It's not hard to verify that this agrees with both the classical definition in [tex]\mathbb{R}^n[/tex], and with the original poster's definition in terms of the metric covariant derivative on a Riemannian manifold.
Perhaps it will clarify things to point out that, in the Riemannian case, if we take [tex]\omega[/tex] to be the induced volume form on the boundary and [tex]N[/tex] to be the outward-pointing unit normal vector field, we also have
[tex]
\int_S (\mathrm{div}\ X) \Omega = \int_{\partial S} \langle X, N\rangle \omega.[/tex]
Cheers,
Jason