Post #45660

2025-12-09 15:50 UTC

As an experiment I asked Claude to manage my git commits, it wrote the messages, kept a log, archived excess documentation, and worked really well for about 2 weeks. Then, as the project got larger, the commit process was taking longer and longer to execute. I finally pulled the plug when the automated commit process - which had performed flawlessly for dozens of commits and archives, accidentally irretrievably lost a batch of work - messed up the archive process and deleted it without archiving it first, didn’t commit it either. AI/LLM workflows are non-deterministic. This means: they make mistakes. If you want something reliable, scalable, repeatable, have the AI write you code to do it deterministically as a tool, not as a workflow.

Replies (1)

@PoliteDudeInTheMood@lemmy.ca 2025-12-09 17:17

The longer the project the more stupid Claude gets. I’ve seen it both in chat, and in Claude code, and Claude explains the situation quite well: Increased cognitive load: Longer projects have more state to track - more files, more interconnected components, more conventions established earlier. Each decision I make needs to consider all of this, and the probability of overlooking something increases with complexity. Git specifically: For git operations, the problem is even worse because git state is highly sequential - each operation depends on the exact current state of the repository. If I lose track of what branch we’re on, what’s been committed, or what files exist, I’ll give incorrect commands. Anything I do with Claude. I will split into different chats, I won’t give it access to git but I will provide it an updated repository via Repomix. I get much better results because of that.

Open ##45928