Depends, I have a prompt ready for changes I made manually, that checks the diff, gets the context, spits a conventional commit with a summary of the changes, I check, correct if needed and add the ticket number. It’s faster because it types really fast, no time thinking about phrasing and remembering the changes, and usually way more complete then what I would have written, given time constraints.

If I’m using a CLI:

the agent already has: - the context from the chat - the ticket number via me or when it created the ticket - meta info via project memory or other terminal commands like API call etc - Info on commit format from project memory

So it boils down to asking it to commit and update the ticket when we’re done with the task in that case. Having a good workflow is key

For your question: I still read and validated/correct, in the end I’m the one committing the code! So it’s the usual requirements from there. If someone would use their LLM the results would vary, here they have an approved summary. This is why human in the loop is essential.