alt Hacker NewsI use a different LLM family to review commits and write detailed descriptions. If a commit was written with Fable/Opus, I use Sol/Astra to write a well reasoned commit message. If the message doesn't match my intent, then that triggers a manual review.
Replies
This would have an even greater loss of the “why” context the author is describing in the piece.
This makes no sense to me. The code is already self-documenting if written well, and all you need is a one line commit message to summarize that.
Doesn't the original conversation at least retain the context about why the change was made? A different LLM literally has no way to tell why you made this change besides guessing from the codebase and git history.
The blog post is advocating against this.
If you ask an LLM to write a message that explains "the why", it'll make up a why.
If the second LLM is just describing the content of the commit doesn't that defeat the purpose of the description, to capture the context that doesn't make it to the code?