3 ms·

I'm not sure that Claude's "Realigned the shape of the load-bearing ownership gate to reduce the blast radius of the design contract; confirmed, not assumed" is

I'm not sure that Claude's "Realigned the shape of the load-bearing ownership gate to reduce the blast radius of the design contract; confirmed, not assumed" is more meaningful than "fix".

0x696C6961 14d ago
The long-ass Claude commit messages & PR descriptions suck. But they are 100% better than "fix".
- ericbarrett 14d ago
  Mildly disagree. "Fix" is exasperating but immediately tells me I need to look at the diff. With unconstrained Claude spew, I need to wade through three levels of deep fried LLM-speak before realizing...I need to look at the diff
  - atif089 14d ago
    [flagged]
  - atif089 14d ago
    This.
  - bitwize 14d ago
    "Deep fried" is the perfect analogy. LLMs have been trained on themselves so many times that their output is the linguistic equivalent of many rounds of JPEG compression.
  - danielbln 13d ago
    I don't get this thread. Just tell the agent to use conventional commit messages and to keep it nice and tight. Are you all just raw dogging agent output with no alignment/conventions?
    - ericbarrett 13d ago
      Sadly yes, a lot of people are
    - rudedogg 12d ago
      > Just tell the agent to use conventional commit messages and to keep it nice and tight. I have this in my claude.md along with guidance on (not) writing comments but it’s still dumps multi-paragraph comments of Claude speak everywhere. I think a lot of us are talking past eachother, but what I and I think others are complaining about is doing things well, and being minimal. LLMs don’t really do that yet, they can’t look at and simplify a codebase well, even with guidance. They always seem to add rather than subtract. And eventually it becomes an issue. I think they were actually better in this regard with like Opus 4.8, and are now getting even worse (but score better, and are more autonomous). At home I use Codex, and it’s better as far as language goes at least. Anyway, it’s like the logic piece necessary to do good work is still missing, and hurt by recent reinforcement fine-tuning. And it leads to massive bloat since more comments = higher scores, but walls of text and the tokens (or cognition if you’re the sad human reading them) aren’t free.
- burnished 14d ago
  How? One looks like someone cared about it and the other can be dismissed at a glance
winrid 14d ago
"fix stupid shit" is all you need :)
skissane 14d ago
> I'm not sure that Claude's "Realigned the shape of the load-bearing ownership gate to reduce the blast radius of the design contract; confirmed, not assumed" is more meaningful than "fix". For PR/commit descriptions, I mainly use Claude Sonnet 4.5. It isn’t perfect, but it produces significantly less of this weird gibberish than 5.x models or even Opus 4.x do I also use an iterative process in which it writes the description, I read it, and then either manually edit it or ask it to make changes
- my-next-account 14d ago
  I use Astra at Very High, and shit is still bad. It doesn't actually understand anything, so it often says things which are clearly not needed to be stated. Recently, I've learned that I have very high standards for these things. For example, "fixes" as a commit msg just is NOT acceptable and would never fly where I work.
  - manmal 14d ago
    Astra is such a mixed bag. It makes some amazing reviews and sometimes architecture suggestions that I like. But it’s also lazy and will just make up things.
    - senderista 13d ago
      hence adversarial review
      - manmal 13d ago
        I’m familiar with how those are used, but not sure what you mean in this context.
        adastra22 13d ago
        Have another model (or even another instance of the same model) review the output of the first. Models will hallucinate. They are also quite good at spotting hallucinations in other models' output (with some more hallucinations thrown in). With a threshold for confirmation, and a few iteration loops, you arrive at a fixed point where every claim is supported.
ben_w 13d ago
Could go either way, TBH. So long as there are in fact those things, and so long as it didn't sneak something else in there at the same time, it being just on the knife-edge between sense and word-salad is better than "fix". Buuuuuut far to often it says it fixed a bug I reported, when it only touched one superficial failure mode rather than the root cause. Yesterday's issue: Why is zoom/pan randomly failing? It told me it was because it was applying a transformation matrix with every input and sometimes JavaScript gave it a non-invertible matrix (why?) which then propagated NaNs everywhere and you can't update a matrix filled with non-numbers. Why was it doing that in the first place? Seems to be because it's too motivated to perform quick wins and not sufficiently motivated to do good engineering. Good thing this was just a game editor. Spiky intelligence: superhuman on some dimensions, total noob on others.
TeMPOraL 13d ago
It is, because it includes the key words such as "ownership gate" and perhaps others, which makes it infinitely more informative than just "fix", by pointing at what was in scope, and what wasn't.
jasonlotito 13d ago
I've never had Claude spew that out in a commit message. That being said, I also use my tools properly. Your comment sounds like the type of thing someone who puts "don't make any mistakes" at the end of a prompt and gets upset when it doesn't come out perfect. Like, someone adding "make it better than AAA" is going to do something. At this point, it's really just telling on yourself that this is the output that you get.
deleted 13d ago
[deleted]
deleted 13d ago
[deleted]
raincole 13d ago
FYI I never had LLM writing such a commit message. So as they say, skill issue.

I'm not sure that Claude's "Realigned the shape of the load-bearing ownership gate to reduce the blast radius of the design contract; confirmed, not assumed" is more meaningful than "fix".

0x696C6961 14d ago

The long-ass Claude commit messages & PR descriptions suck. But they are 100% better than "fix".

ericbarrett 14d ago
Mildly disagree. "Fix" is exasperating but immediately tells me I need to look at the diff. With unconstrained Claude spew, I need to wade through three levels of deep fried LLM-speak before realizing...I need to look at the diff
- atif089 14d ago
  [flagged]
- atif089 14d ago
  This.
- bitwize 14d ago
  "Deep fried" is the perfect analogy. LLMs have been trained on themselves so many times that their output is the linguistic equivalent of many rounds of JPEG compression.
- danielbln 13d ago
  I don't get this thread. Just tell the agent to use conventional commit messages and to keep it nice and tight. Are you all just raw dogging agent output with no alignment/conventions?
  - ericbarrett 13d ago
    Sadly yes, a lot of people are
  - rudedogg 12d ago
    > Just tell the agent to use conventional commit messages and to keep it nice and tight. I have this in my claude.md along with guidance on (not) writing comments but it’s still dumps multi-paragraph comments of Claude speak everywhere. I think a lot of us are talking past eachother, but what I and I think others are complaining about is doing things well, and being minimal. LLMs don’t really do that yet, they can’t look at and simplify a codebase well, even with guidance. They always seem to add rather than subtract. And eventually it becomes an issue. I think they were actually better in this regard with like Opus 4.8, and are now getting even worse (but score better, and are more autonomous). At home I use Codex, and it’s better as far as language goes at least. Anyway, it’s like the logic piece necessary to do good work is still missing, and hurt by recent reinforcement fine-tuning. And it leads to massive bloat since more comments = higher scores, but walls of text and the tokens (or cognition if you’re the sad human reading them) aren’t free.
burnished 14d ago
How? One looks like someone cared about it and the other can be dismissed at a glance

winrid 14d ago

"fix stupid shit" is all you need :)

skissane 14d ago

> I'm not sure that Claude's "Realigned the shape of the load-bearing ownership gate to reduce the blast radius of the design contract; confirmed, not assumed" is more meaningful than "fix". For PR/commit descriptions, I mainly use Claude Sonnet 4.5. It isn’t perfect, but it produces significantly less of this weird gibberish than 5.x models or even Opus 4.x do I also use an iterative process in which it writes the description, I read it, and then either manually edit it or ask it to make changes

my-next-account 14d ago
I use Astra at Very High, and shit is still bad. It doesn't actually understand anything, so it often says things which are clearly not needed to be stated. Recently, I've learned that I have very high standards for these things. For example, "fixes" as a commit msg just is NOT acceptable and would never fly where I work.
- manmal 14d ago
  Astra is such a mixed bag. It makes some amazing reviews and sometimes architecture suggestions that I like. But it’s also lazy and will just make up things.
  - senderista 13d ago
    hence adversarial review
    - manmal 13d ago
      I’m familiar with how those are used, but not sure what you mean in this context.
      - adastra22 13d ago
        Have another model (or even another instance of the same model) review the output of the first. Models will hallucinate. They are also quite good at spotting hallucinations in other models' output (with some more hallucinations thrown in). With a threshold for confirmation, and a few iteration loops, you arrive at a fixed point where every claim is supported.

ben_w 13d ago

Could go either way, TBH. So long as there are in fact those things, and so long as it didn't sneak something else in there at the same time, it being just on the knife-edge between sense and word-salad is better than "fix". Buuuuuut far to often it says it fixed a bug I reported, when it only touched one superficial failure mode rather than the root cause. Yesterday's issue: Why is zoom/pan randomly failing? It told me it was because it was applying a transformation matrix with every input and sometimes JavaScript gave it a non-invertible matrix (why?) which then propagated NaNs everywhere and you can't update a matrix filled with non-numbers. Why was it doing that in the first place? Seems to be because it's too motivated to perform quick wins and not sufficiently motivated to do good engineering. Good thing this was just a game editor. Spiky intelligence: superhuman on some dimensions, total noob on others.

TeMPOraL 13d ago

It is, because it includes the key words such as "ownership gate" and perhaps others, which makes it infinitely more informative than just "fix", by pointing at what was in scope, and what wasn't.

jasonlotito 13d ago

I've never had Claude spew that out in a commit message. That being said, I also use my tools properly. Your comment sounds like the type of thing someone who puts "don't make any mistakes" at the end of a prompt and gets upset when it doesn't come out perfect. Like, someone adding "make it better than AAA" is going to do something. At this point, it's really just telling on yourself that this is the output that you get.

deleted 13d ago

[deleted]

deleted 13d ago

[deleted]

raincole 13d ago

FYI I never had LLM writing such a commit message. So as they say, skill issue.