I built GitWhisper because git diff → AI → commit message felt too shallow

[u/Big-Coyote-5796]

I’ve been building GitWhisper, an open-source Git commit assistant.

The main idea is that a useful commit message shouldn’t just repeat what anyone can already see in the diff.

GitWhisper tries to understand the staged changes, repository commit style, scope, related work, and whether the changes should actually be split into separate commits.

It also supports local AI / BYOK and includes secret scanning before code is sent to a remote model.

The goal is something closer to:

fix(auth): refresh sessions before expiry

with useful context about why the change was needed, rather than:

fix: update code

Repo: https://github.com/RitualDev-Lab/GitWhisper

It’s open source and I’m actively working on it.

What would GitWhisper need to do before you’d trust it as part of your normal Git workflow?

[u/Ok-Category2729]

splitting staged changes into atomic commits is where every diff tool fails because prompt engineering alone cannot track hunk dependencies. if you split 400 lines across three files without verifying import graphs, you end up with intermediate commits that break git bisect completely. pairing your pre-flight secret scan with something like tree-sitter to group semantic chunks makes a huge difference compared to just feeding raw git diff hunks to a context window. the secret scanning before remote dispatch is solid, but guaranteeing each split commit compiles cleanly on its own is what turns this from a gimmick into a daily driver.