alt Hacker NewsIn my experience the models perform substantially worse if asked to create small PRs or commits. They lack the ability to sequence work and understand dependencies efficiently enough to manage it – it's not that they can't do small PRs, it's that doing them takes vastly more resources which then hits context limits etc. And if you want to then go back and edit a stack of commits or PRs, rebasing work into the middle, that's even more. I don't think any of this scales linearly in the amount of code or number of commits.
This is all in addition to the fact that the models are generally poor at storytelling, because that requires a theory of mind of the person you're communicating with. Authoring for review is storytelling, it's making changes in such a way as to build confidence in the reviewer. I believe current LLMs are still years away from this.
In my opinion, if you can't do these things, you're just cosplaying software engineering. Vibe coding has its uses, as does LLM programming, I do a lot of this! But we're kidding ourselves and dropping our standards dangerously low if we think that this is software engineering.
Replies
I think LLMs are actually great at breaking up work into workstreams and tasks. The issue is that tasks do not equal good PR stacks on their own. You’ll need to use feature slices instead (like do backend part -> PR it, etc). LLMs can do that, but you need to harness them into it.
I've had no trouble getting small PRs. No idea if I'm doing something different than you or the things I asked for just happened to be small. Next time I get a big one I'll consider trying to ask the AI to break it up after it's finished.
A human should be able to take the work and break it up properly during rework though.
I have a completely different experience than you, but I have also invested quite a bit of effort into the issue. I will agree that with simple prompting and without reminders, models do not do this sort of thing well or consistently. On the other hand I have two skills that I use regularly `/atomic-commits` and `/split-branch` that do exactly what you're describing. It has been an exercise in taking the time to put to words the concepts you're describing, which has been very interesting because it's forced me to put to words many thoughts on the subject I had never formalized, and you're correct, there's a lot of theory of mind and considering of other people's perspectives that go into it.
* Does the series of commits tell a cohesive story of the feature, each commit building on the last one? It's surprisingly easy to have an ordering of commits where each one builds, but the ordering is nonsense. * Is each commit scoped to the right size? Not too big of course, describes a single idea or concept. That same rule can also lead to commits that are comically small or separates two changes that can obviously be argued are "two different things" but that make more sense when seen together as a single conceptual change. * When is it appropriate to split up disparate changes within a single file, interwoven together, and how to correctly orchestrate that with git commands.
I care _deeply_ about commit hygiene and presentation because it's a foundation for making code review a smooth process and in the Before Times™ I would spend a _substantial_ amount of time reworking my own commits to ensure they were up to my own standards. I can count on two hands the number of commits I've authored on my own in the last year, and the process is immediately replicated and standardized across our entire engineering organization.
It is perfect 100% of the time? No, every once in a while I'll hit some weird case and need to issue some corrective instructions, or more likely ask the model why things are like that to see if there's tuning we need to do.
Commits are effectively like automated code-formatting now. This isn't years in the future, this is already _old news_.
I mean, sometimes I don’t know how I want to write something until I’m finished. Huge refactors are often like this.
So, just like you said, rewrite the whole thing, THEN break it apart into bite size chunks that tell the story and feed it to others with acceptable and reasonable context.
It’s a skill that engineers need, and it pays dividends to all on the team, including you, when your coworkers ALSO start doing this back to you and you’re asked to review it.
Most professional software developers (probably including you) never do any work that could legitimately be described as engineering. And that's fine because most software isn't very important anyway. There's very little software that requires true engineering practices. The exceptions are in domains like avionics and medical devices.
Agreed. Asking for small PRs or commits can backfire, unless the work is deliberately scoped into smaller pieces from the beginning. This requires a human design review and planning and is one of the reasons I don't outsource that part to an agent.
I can't be happier seeing how many posts are about AI making PR terrorists unhappy. They can no longer bully their teammates so they rant about it here
That's just like humans though. Find me a developer that loves maintaining code and I'll show you 10 that love rewrites or greenfield.
I have had some success with asking the LLM to rewrite the commit history after the feature was written. I often have a good idea of a good conceptual split, and the LLM has no problem doing the soul-crushing work of manually pulling out individual files or hunks into a sequence of commits and making sure each builds.
I need to do this before I can even review the code myself, and I review everything before I send it to my colleagues for their review.