CC is usually sitting on way more context than really ever makes it into my git history. So I added instructions to CLAUDE.md for it to propose a commit message after big changes, using Conventional Commits with a short body that explains intent.
The win isn’t the formatting, it’s the reasoning. Claude already knows the underlying problem and the user impact, whereas I tend to just describe the diff and move on. It’s a tiny workflow tweak, but it’s nudged my commits from being mechanical change logs into something closer to actual explanations.
Here’s the addition to my CLAUDE.md if you want to try it
Summary additions After completing a major code change, include a suggested git commit message at the end of your response. Use Conventional Commits v1.0.0 structure: <type>[optional scope][!]: <description> [optional body] [] Follow these rules: - Use a valid type. Prefer: feat, fix, docs, refactor, test, chore, ci, build, perf, revert. - Add an optional scope when helpful (for example sync, blog, mixpanel, content, docusaurus). - Keep the description short, specific, and actionable. - Add a body when context is useful; separate it from the header with one blank line. - IMPORTANT: Explain intent and impact in the body (why this change was needed, what behavior changed). - Use footers for metadata like issue refs (Refs: #123) or review trailers (Reviewed-by: name). - Mark breaking changes with ! in the header and/or a BREAKING CHANGE: <description> footer. - Keep formatting machine-parseable and consistent so release tooling can use commit history. Format the suggestion as: Suggested commit message: text <type>(<scope>): <short description> <optional body explaining intent and impact> <optional footer(s)>
submitted by /u/magicsrb
Originally posted by u/magicsrb on r/ClaudeCode
You must log in or # to comment.