> strictly enforces the Conventional Commits specification (feat, fix, chore, etc.).

Nope. Waste of bytes in my commit message header that are better done by git trailers.

Otherwise, I love the idea of the tool. I personally try to answer “why does this commit exist?” when I create commits.

Core AI model interaction is here https://github.com/arpxspace/smartcommit/blob/main/internal/...

It is fun you have to pre-prompt with: You are an expert software developer.

I'm assuming the commits in the repo were generated with the tool itself. In that case, commit `cc677f7` has a (in my opinion) terrible commit message. It starts out with a listing of stuff I could just as well read from the patch. It then contains another list that tries to explain the why, but it ends up being useless fluff like `The full path specification in `go build` was redundant given the context of how Go modules are structured.` and `streamlining the project structure and reducing unnecessary directory complexity.` which tells me exactly nothing about why those changes were made.

It generates a whole lot of text that makes me none the wiser as to why you wanted to do any of those changes. It feels like a robot trying to justify the changes post hoc. Which it of course is, so that's understandable.

Don't take this comment as rudeness BTW. It's cool that you're making a fun little tool. I'm assuming you care about writing more useful commit messages, so I thought I'd give you some feedback on that part.

All my commit messages are a mess and I spend the time that I have designing and writing code, not figuring out how to make the commit message look pretty. That's what merges are for. I don't see the value of this tbh. Just pedantic time wasting.

ok, but did they have to make commit message required, or is there a way to disable it? i think of git as checkpoints, nothing more. the day i have to explore history is the day i quit.