I can relate to that. Most human commit messages aren't good because the author can't be bothered to write a good one, or doesn't know what a good message is supposed to be, or is bad at writing.

But AI commit messages are still bad. Way too verbose and focused on the wrong level: that of code mechanics. That's just wrong. Messages should focus on the level of intent and design, with the primary purpose being to aid human review. They should include a high level overview of the change, decisions, caveats, information not obvious from reading the diff.

So I wrote a skill that captures these principles and allows the agent to even research past related commits and to ask focused questions in order to uncover the intent rather than guessing and writing a bad one.

Now the AI writes better commit messages than it used to, and even writes better than most humans (who can't be bothered to write a good one). Not better than a good manual message, but you can't have everything.

But sometimes even the good writers are tired or didn't think things through. Being able to compare with the AI's version is still useful.

Here is the skill for anyone interested: https://github.com/FooBarWidget/ai-skills-and-principles/blo...

Depends on my "documentation principles" skill: https://github.com/FooBarWidget/ai-skills-and-principles/blo...