Poe’s Law applies here. “This is a pretty good parody of vibe coding” I thought, but then I didn’t see example commits like “update heart pacer firmware and push to users”.
Intent-Based Commits
11–20 of 54 posts
Re: Intent-Based Commits
#12I start with a conversation and then ask the coding agent to write a design doc. It might go through several revisions. The implementation might also be a bit different if something unexpected is found, so afterwards I ask the agent to update it to explain what was implemented.
This naturally happens over several commits. I suppose I could squash them, but I haven't bothered.
Re: Intent-Based Commits
#13I start with a conversation and then ask the coding agent to write a design doc. It might go through several revisions. The implementation might also be a bit different if something unexpected is found, so afterwards I ask the agent to update it to explain what was implemented. This naturally happens over several commits. I suppose I could squash them, but I haven't bothered.
I use the same approach, derived off of https://boristane.com/blog/how-i-use-claude-code/.
Re: Intent-Based Commits
#14I dont know. I get the idea that its like comitting c code that then gets compiled to machine code when someone needs the binary, but what if the prompt isnt complete? For any formal language, there was a testing and iteration process that resulted in the programmer verifying that this code results in the correct functionality, and because a formal compiler is deterministic, they can know that the same code will have…
In a way that matches what you describe, using modern Python as an example,
the prompt is equivalent to:
dependencies = [“foo”]
$ wc -l uv.lock
245
Re: Intent-Based Commits
#15It would be good to see a real example. There’s a sketch of one in the README.md but I’d be interested to see how it works in real life with something complicated.
> Add users with authentication
> No, not like that
> Closer, but I don’t want avatars
> I need email validation too
> Use something off the shelf?
It’s unclear what the “squash” process is for “make me a foo” + “no not like that”.
Re: Intent-Based Commits
#16I love this idea although not sure I’d be comfortable with the level of steering control I would get without trying it for real! What would be even better would be to unshittify my poorly written commit message into a beautiful detailed commit message. We can still keep the original in the footnote if we have to.
Re: Intent-Based Commits
#17It would be good to see a real example. There’s a sketch of one in the README.md but I’d be interested to see how it works in real life with something complicated. > Add users with authentication > No, not like that > Closer, but I don’t want avatars > I need email validation too > Use something off the shelf? Someone in this place was saying this the other day: a lot of what might seem like public commits to main ar…
I imagine you could use AI as well to create a "squash prompt", but verifying using diff that the "squash commit" results in the same code.
Re: Intent-Based Commits
#18I noticed in the README that each commit message includes the agent and model, which is a nice start toward reproducibility. I’m wondering how deep you plan to go on environment pinning beyond that. Is the system prompt / agent configuration versioned? Do you record tool versions or surrounding runtime context? My mental model is that reproducible intent requires capturing the full "execution envelope", not just the…
LLMs are non-deterministic so I don't see how it's reproducible.
Re: Intent-Based Commits
#19> Every commit is reproducible. The prompt is preserved with
> some extra attributes about which model and agent was used.
> You can re-run any commit against a fresh checkout to see
> what Claude generates from the same instruction.
I don't see how this is true. LLMs can generate different outputs even with the same model and inputs.
Re: Intent-Based Commits
#20I think I'd be more interested in a new worktree job type CLI. At the end of the day I don't want to be reverting commit who were a clear mistake, no matter how good AI will be in the near future.