That's a strange and arbitrary line to draw. There's plenty of times I make edits by hand and then tell an agent to kick it up to a PR, or on the other extreme, let an agent implement something autonomously, and review the diff myself once it's in PR. Both of those scenarios involve the agent running the git commands, neither scenario indicates "the chances they've reviewed the code is slim"

I often let Claude write my commit messages even when I'm the one who wrote the code. Claude is often damn good at writing commit messages, and they frequently end up much better than if I wrote it all by hand. I nearly always edit them somewhat, but it's like starting from 80% instead of 0%. Some might call it laziness, but I call it working smarter rather than harder.

To be fair, I appreciate when they are so upfront about who wrote the code without requiring further heuristics, so I encourage this behavior.

Honestly, Claude writes better commit messages than most people.

Personally I've mostly given in to letting it commit for me now, though I do occasionally take over and hand-write the messages if it's a particularly important concept and Claude's is too verbose.

Codex/GPT-x defaults to one-line commit messages, which are too short. Claude likes to write several paragraphs, which is usually too long.

If you tell it how to commit properly once per session it will stick with your standards for the rest of that session, and you can put that in AGENTS.md if you can be bothered to.

Why do you say lazy? maybe they are ok with people seeing it is claude?

That’s a needlessly antagonistic and insulting thing to say.

This person that you’ve never met and probably never will doesn’t owe any of us anything.

They’re out there doing what they want to do how they want to do it and if you don’t like it the correct response isn’t to insult them in front of a bunch of strangers on the internet for clout or whatever.

I doubt that you’d ever call them lazy to their face — why do it here?