>Contributors
>...
>claude
You don't need to presume. If someone is so lazy that they tell claude to commit their code (ie. they're too lazy to run git commit themselves), the chances they reviewed the code is slim.
>...
>claude
You don't need to presume. If someone is so lazy that they tell claude to commit their code (ie. they're too lazy to run git commit themselves), the chances they reviewed the code is slim.
Personally I've mostly given in to letting it commit for me now, though I do occasionally take over and hand-write the messages if it's a particularly important concept and Claude's is too verbose.
Codex/GPT-x defaults to one-line commit messages, which are too short. Claude likes to write several paragraphs, which is usually too long.
If you tell it how to commit properly once per session it will stick with your standards for the rest of that session, and you can put that in AGENTS.md if you can be bothered to.
They also write better PR descriptions. At work we have a PR authoring skill and we’ve included an instruction for it to write a reviewer guide that tells the most logical way to review the code and I’ve found that really helps, so much so that I’m creating a tool to have “literate” PR reviews, where it constructs a narrative interwoven with diffs.
This person that you’ve never met and probably never will doesn’t owe any of us anything.
They’re out there doing what they want to do how they want to do it and if you don’t like it the correct response isn’t to insult them in front of a bunch of strangers on the internet for clout or whatever.
I doubt that you’d ever call them lazy to their face — why do it here?
What makes you so sure about that?
Posting LLM generated obviously un-reviewed slop and wasting people's time deserves scorn.