> never mix your changes with the agent's changes
yeah, but if you don't want to lose your existing context sometimes you have to. When I do, I tell claude to check the diff on the files I changed, which is quite annoying to be honest. But still easier than telling claude to do _very specific line-change_ on file X.
Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. What do you mean by "lose your existing context"? Can't you just... commit in turns? It's not like you're editing files while your agent's also editing in parallel, right?
Again, the trick is to treat the commits as throwaway checkpoints/packets of work. They don't need to be pretty, nor need to make sense. The point where you clean that mess up is when you're done and you're doing an interactive rebase at the end. At least that's how I work.
In my company we use graphite and stacked PRs so it is highly encouraged to keep one commit per PR, so I am constantly ammending my commits.
So this makes it even simpler for you. Then you don't have to care at all about keeping your commits clean (as in: you don't have to keep them organized enough to be able to reshuffle them into a nice set of multiple commits later on).
Just commit whatever, and then just do `git rebase -i` interactive rebase at the end to squash them. You don't have to keep amending the same commit over and over again!
It is a bit unfortunate but when using Graphite it is usually better to completely avoid any raw git commands that modify history at all.