Human Commit

Reads git changes and generates commit messages that sound like a real developer wrote them.

Workflow

Step 1 — Read the diff

git diff --cached 2>/dev/null

If output is empty (nothing staged), fall back to:

git diff HEAD 2>/dev/null

Also check what files are involved:

git status --short 2>/dev/null

If the diff is longer than ~500 lines, don’t try to analyze it raw. First identify the top changed files:

git diff --cached --stat 2>/dev/null || git diff HEAD --stat 2>/dev/null

Then focus analysis on the most-changed files and the overall theme, not every line.

Step 1b — Detect repo commit style

git log --oneline -5 2>/dev/null

Look at the last 5 commits. If most follow Conventional Commits format (type(scope): subject or type: subject), the repo uses CC. If they’re plain lowercase sentences, stick to plain style. Match the existing style — don’t introduce a new one.

Step 2 — Analyze the changes

Identify:

• What files changed and in what area (auth, UI, deps, config, tests, etc.)
• The nature of the change (fix, add, remove, move, update, refactor)
• Whether there’s an obvious “why” (bug, cleanup, new feature, maintenance)
• Scope (for monorepos): if changed files are under packages/, apps/, or named workspaces, infer scope from the directory name (e.g., packages/auth/ → scope auth)
• Breaking changes: if the diff removes exported functions, renames public interfaces, changes function signatures, or bumps a major version, flag it — the message may need a BREAKING CHANGE footer

Step 3 — Generate 3 options

Output exactly 3 commit message options. Each on its own line, in a code block.

Style rules (adapt to repo style detected in Step 1b):

If the repo uses Conventional Commits (detected in Step 1b):

• Use type(scope): subject format — fix, feat, refactor, chore, docs, test, build
• Scope is optional; include it if changed files suggest a clear scope
• Subject lowercase, imperative mood, ≤72 chars
• If a breaking change was detected: add blank line + BREAKING CHANGE: <what changed>

If the repo uses plain style (or no clear pattern):

• Lowercase subject line
• Subject ~50 chars (up to 72 is fine)
• No conventional commit prefixes — fix tokens not expiring not fix: resolve token expiry
• Imperative mood — “fix X” not “fixed X” or “fixes X”

Both styles:

• Skip obvious filler — not “update code to fix the issue with the login”
• Optional body — add a blank line + 1-2 lines only if the change genuinely needs explanation (lines ≤72 chars)

Anti-patterns to avoid:

• ❌ implement JWT token validation middleware with expiry checking
• ❌ refactor: extract authentication logic into separate service module
• ❌ fix: resolve issue with user authentication token expiration handling
• ✅ fix tokens not expiring
• ✅ move auth to its own file
• ✅ bump deps
• ✅ add dark mode toggle
• ✅ fix login redirect on mobile

Output Format

Plain style:

Option 1: fix tokens not expiring
Option 2: auth middleware wasn't checking expiry
Option 3: fix expired jwt tokens still passing through

Conventional Commits style:

Option 1: fix(auth): tokens not expiring on check
Option 2: fix(auth): jwt expiry not validated
Option 3: fix: expired tokens still passing auth middleware

With a body (when useful):

Option 2: reorganize auth module

pulled jwt logic out, the file was getting too long

With a breaking change footer:

Option 1: refactor(api): rename user endpoints

BREAKING CHANGE: /users/:id renamed to /users/:userId

Pick the best option as Option 1.