[singlow]

I agree with your idea but I would take it further. If possible I think the commit message is more concise if it can actually refer to the resulting action that is the result of the change to the code, unless the primary result of the commit is to refactor or clean up code formatting, etc. This way we avoid one more level of indirection to indicate that we edited code to accomplish something, since that is always the case.

Link to login from home screen Enforce standard for PR titles

For refactoring, applying linting changes, or general formatting, I do prefer a prefix to indicate that it is not intended to change behavior. Something that is consistent for a project is good such as "Refactor:" or "Reformat:" or "Lint:" as a prefix to make it easy to spot these in the history is good.

I often see message such as:

Implemented new framework to... Edited 3 files...

Then someone will edit it to be imperative and it reads:

Implement new framework to... Edit 3 files...

Which is not really any better. They were past tense indicative because they described the actions of the programmer which are in the past. Writing from the imperative is not just better because it is more concise in english (shorter verbs) but because it is the natural way to describe what will happen in the program when the commit is merged.