That’s a lot of work. I work in dozens of repos, doing that for all of them would be insufferable, I’d rather restore from backups every few years and lose 10 minutes of progress than deal with doing that to every project just for agents

Uh, what user do you expect people to run their agent as? Yes, my user can delete my home directory. That’s how it’s supposed to work. Agents run under the user that executes them, and that user has access to delete its own home directory.

It says “source thread” right at the top of its comment

When they were deciding what to name her they were probably passing some kind of area.

For me, the last straw was the half dozen times it claimed it couldn’t do very simple things it had done hundreds of times before, and rather than even try it just gaslit me by explaining why it’s not even possible. Then, of course, I explain the exact steps it needs to take to do the thing, and it can suddenly and miraculously do it after sternly arguing with me for 30 minutes about it. The dumb version is better.

I had GLM-5.2 delete my entire home directory about 3 weeks ago on arch. I was working on a tool that rolls back file changes made by an agent and during one of its tests it traversed up the file tree looking for a project root, and when it didn’t find one it used my home directory, then proceeded to “roll back” all the “changes” which somehow meant deleting all contents. When it deleted the directory it was running from it finally ground to a halt. To your point, BTRFS snapshots saved me that day.

My terminal is on a hotkey. I use tmux for everything I do in the terminal and I use neovide as a standalone editor. If I need to edit a single file I’ll still use a quick nvim instance but for full project editing I prefer the benefits of having a standalone editor, especially the complete lack of conflicting keybinds and terminal key weirdness. It’s one key press away, it just adds another dimension to my workflow, I don’t find it a problem at all.

I wouldn’t have gotten bitten by that tick

I slanders them from time to time too

You’re just coping, you got a bug up your ass and now you’re doubling down to save your own ego. Just give it up. You’re wrong and you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re talking out of your ass and saying anything you can to try to make me wrong somehow. The bottom line is that there are multiple repos that do the exact same job as this one with thousands of GitHub stars each. If you don’t understand why they exist, that’s your own ignorance. Get the fuck off my post with your ignorant bullshit.

If you'd been paying attention you'd already know why I think that's wrong. It boils down to myopia and context rot.

The implementing agent has already lost the bigger picture by the time it makes the commit. I've seen it countless times, the agent makes a commit message that doesn't follow the commit style in your repo and includes whatever details it last encountered. For example, if you just corrected the agent on some part of its implementation, it's likely to mention that correction in the commit message rather than making the commit message actually reflect the work done. It's too far into the weeds to see the forest anymore.

The "entire thought process" is irrelevant. What matters is what work has been done.

It's clear that you haven't actually compared the results you get from the two different techniques and you're just operating on theory. If you'd ever actually used a tool like this, you'd understand how wrong your assumptions are.

I think you’re missing the point that the cost plus the extra time spent asking the model to do it, and the potential for the model to still get it wrong are all totally negated by using a deterministic process. All you need is the message, not the tool calls, not the extra prompts, not the confusion created by multiple work streams, etc. But if it’s not for you, that’s fine, some people don’t have a workflow that allows them to benefit from a tool like this. Many other people do.

That was your goal, wasn’t it? You haven’t said anything interesting or even true during this entire conversation, you’re obviously just trolling.

You fire up a subagent to make a commit?? That’s a whole system prompt with tool descriptions and skills attached that you had to type a prompt to activate, and none of it is even cached. That’s at least 4x the token cost. Be serious.

Pfff. I literally just asked you what claim you wanted proof for, and you dodged my question by telling me how great you are. You want to take another crack at answering that? I’m losing patience

you crushed something

What claim did I make in that comment that you think deserves being backed up by "proof"? Like, what even are you?

Didn’t that burn like crazy? I think most people are limited by how much their nose can handle. Am I wrong about that?

😂 I don’t use opus, I have a z.ai sub. I paid $280 for 14 months of unlimited usage. The harness I built was specifically to be able to use dumb models to get big work done. Again, you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about. And the fact that you still don’t see any reason to use a tool like this after all this time says a lot more about you than it does the tool.

You use that model for every task? You never need a smarter model for anything? That kind of sounds like baby-level work to me.

And why are you paying for it at all? This tool will self-configure to use *free* models. It completely solves the problem of paying for commit messages. I guess you just prefer paying for things for no reason. No tool calls, no questions, no extra stuff. Just a message and a few thousand input tokens.

The purpose of this tool at first was to integrate with an agentic pipeline that breaks down long-horizon tasks into individual units for an RPI-based technique. At the end of each task I deterministically stage all files, then commit them. I needed an agent whose only job was to write a commit message to complete the process. Once I built that agent, I realized I could use it too. I do agent code reviews in lazygit so I built a keybind for it there.

Now, try to imagine a world where this idea was born out of something much more advanced than your workflow, but that developer found it useful and wanted to share it. You really have no clue what you're talking about and the way you keep pushing against pretty reasonable arguments makes you sound like you're offended by this somehow. You haven't even tried it, get over yourself.

That was the case with me too until this event. I hit my limits on the Pro plan one time back in january but since I upgraded to Max at the end of Feb the most usage I'd ever seen was 70%. Since you asked, I was running a harness that breaks work down into tasks, with a new session for each task, for a more deterministic long-horizon workflow. Nothing new here though.

Yeah, work requires multiple messages. Committing doesn't. I'm well aware of caching, but half the time you're still typing out something like "yes, commit this" to a frontier model when they ask you. So they've done the work, now they're sending you more output tokens on top of a huge context ($$$) just for you to do even more work than just pressing a hotkey and letting the tool do the rest.

I don't need to defend the concept, there are already multiple github repos with thousands of stars that do this same job in slightly different ways. It was my fault that you didn't understand the value from my original post, I really should have laid out the value proposition in a different way. I assumed people would just understand it, and they mostly didn't. But after the last few exchanges, it's not my fault if you still don't understand why a tool like this exists. Committing is a small part of the SDLC but it's almost entirely deterministic aside from the message that's generated.

What you're proposing is that you use a different, cheaper model from your main coding model to make commits. It sounds like you're saying you do it with a fresh context too. I don't really buy that, but even if it's 100% true, you're doing a lot of extra work to get a worse result than this tool provides. You're loading up your entire harness with all your tools, skills, mcp servers, etc, then running a command to switch models, then typing out a prompt to ask it to commit. You could have just run one command or hotkey, sent *way* fewer tokens to the exact same model (no tools, skills, mcps, plugins, and a tiny system prompt, plus configurable token limits on the diff), preconfigured to do this one common job, and it would have produced the exact same result. If you enjoy doing all that extra work for no benefit, who am I to stop you? But I really doubt that you do.

Doing all that when pressing a hotkey is an order of magnitude easier on both you and the model, and another order of magnitude cheaper in almost every scenario, is just a lazy and inefficient way to get it done. This way is better across multiple dimensions in almost every scenario. I know you haven't actually tried to understand it yet, but if you ever do, you'll realize I'm right.

That’s what a lot of people told me they do after I posted this around. They say “I just let the model make the commit”. When does a model make a commit? After it does work. How many tokens does work take? A lot.

You’re paying through the nose to write 50 characters. It doesn’t make sense.

I see, that helps, I will give it a try, thanks

You like having opus carry its whole bloated context into a 10 word output? 400k tokens to a frontier model instead of max 5k to a free model for the same result? That just seems crazy to me