Commit Message and Branching Convention Audit
Check a sample of commit messages and branch names against your team convention and find the patterns that make history hard to use.
The Open buttons send the prompt text as currently shown below to that site only when you click. Fill in the placeholders first.
[VERIFY] is an editorial flag, not a blank to fill. Wherever the prompt shows [VERIFY], check that item against a reliable source before you use it.
I would like to see whether our commit history is actually useful. Our stated convention is: [CONVENTION_TEXT], and if we have none, say "none". I will paste [NUMBER_OF_COMMITS] recent commit messages (subject lines, plus bodies if short) and a list of recent branch names: [COMMITS_AND_BRANCHES]. Our team uses [ISSUE_TRACKER] for tickets. Give me: 1) A table with the columns Commit or branch, Problem (vague, too long, no ticket link, mixes unrelated changes, "fix" with no detail, inconsistent style) and A better version using only information visible in the text. 2) Counts: percentage of commits that follow the convention, percentage that reference a ticket, average subject length in characters, and number of "wip" or "fix" style messages, with the arithmetic. 3) Branch naming issues and a simple pattern that would fix them. 4) The three most valuable convention rules for a team of [TEAM_SIZE], each with a one-line reason. 5) A short commit message template. Do not invent what a change did; if the message is too vague to improve, write "ask the author". Do not criticise individuals by name; treat it as a team habit review. Rewriting history on shared branches is risky, so remind me that this audit is for improving future commits, and mark any advice about rewriting history [VERIFY] with a senior engineer.
Fill in before use
Optional: type your details and the prompt above updates. Nothing is saved or sent.
Replace each bracketed placeholder with your own details, then paste into Any AI or another assistant.