| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Three new paragraphs under "Voice and Focus": first person where it fits, brief/terse, kind. The section now applies to PR comments (review replies, follow-up notes, thread responses) as well as commit bodies and PR descriptions.
New "For PR review comments and replies" subsection under Step 2 mirrors the commit-message and PR-description flows: draft to /tmp/pr-<N>-comment.md, humanizer skill, plain-English pass, user approval, then post with the right gh command for the comment type.
The trivial-one-liner exception at the bottom of Step 2 now covers acknowledgment-style replies ("thanks for the review") alongside trivial commits.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Added a new Voice and Focus section between Commit Message Format and Review and Publish. It covers three rules that kept coming up in practice. Write in the user's voice — first person fits, and "This PR introduces X" reads as press-release self-narration. Focus on what was wrong and what was corrected, not the mechanics. Don't stack three or more type signatures or API names in a single sentence.
Also extended the post-humanizer checklist in both the commit-message and PR-description flows. Items (c) "prefer contractions" and (d) "break up long sentences" now sit alongside the existing (a) "rewrite dev-jargon" and (b) "replace semicolons". Uncontracted English reads stiff in short prose, and stacked-clause sentences read easier split on a conjunction.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Three additions to claude-rules/commits.md.
A new conventions section adds two rules. First, do not hard-wrap commit body lines. Let the renderer soft-wrap instead. Hard wraps shrink the visible width in web UIs and cause awkward mid-sentence breaks. Second, do not reference how the change was produced (code review, linting, test runs) in the message. The body is for the what and the why. The how belongs in the PR discussion.
A new Review and Publish section defines a two-step gate for every commit and PR. Step 1 runs /review-code against the change and blocks on Critical or Important findings unless the user overrides. Step 2 drafts the message to /tmp, opens it in the user's editor, runs the humanizer skill, and waits for explicit approval before committing or pushing. PRs also require a Linear cross-link line, a Linear comment with the PR URL after creation, and a status transition to Dev Review.
A short hook-level authorization note clarifies that the review-plus-approval flow is the authorization gate. Tools like git-commit-confirm should not add a second independent prompt once Step 2 has been approved.
|
|
|
New generic rule at claude-rules/commits.md covers author identity,
absence of Claude/Anthropic/LLM/AI attribution (messages, PRs,
comments, trailers, emojis), and conventional commit format. Applies
to all repos.
Bundle settings.json now sets attribution.commit: "" and
attribution.pr: "" so Claude Code's default attribution is suppressed
belt-and-suspenders with the written rule.
Elisp CLAUDE.md template trimmed to reference commits.md instead of
inlining the rules.
|
