[furyofantares]

I do a lot of work with claude code and codex cli but frankly as soon as I see all the LLM-tells in the readme, and then all the commit messages written by claude, I immediately don't want to read the readme or try the project until someone else recommends it to me.

This is gaining stars and forks but I don't know if that's just because it's under the github.com/microsoft, and I don't really know how much that means.

[nightshift1]

Future LLMs are going to be trained on this. Github really ought to start tagging repos that are vibe-coded.

[typpilol]

I'd rather have in-depth commit messages then three word ones

[furyofantares]

When I blind-commit claude code commit messages they are sometimes totally wrong. Not even hallucinations necessarily - by the time I'm committing the context may be large and confusing, or some context lost.

I'd rather have the three word message than detailed but wrong messages.

I think I agree with you anyway on average. Most of the time a claude-authored commit message is better than a garbage message.

But it's still a red flag that the project may be filled with holes and not really ready for other people. It's just so easy to vibe your way to a project that works for you but is buggy and missing tons of features for anyone who strays from your use case.

[typpilol]

You're not wrong.

I'd never encourage anyone to blind commit the messages But if they are correct they seem a lot more useful than 90% of commit messages.

I found the biggest mistakes that I've seen other people do are like - they move a file, and the commit message acts like it's a brand new feature they added because the llm doesn't put it together it's just a moved file