> The PR descriptions are more thorough than what I’d write

Why do people do this? Why do they outsource something that is meant to have been written by a human, so that another human can actually understand what that first human wanted to do, so why do people outsource that to AI? It just doesn't make sense.

▲

ytoawwhra92 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Same reason they outsource writing their blog posts.

This weird notion that the purpose of the thing is the thing itself, not what people get out of the thing. Tracks completely that a person who thinks their number of commits and think that shows how productive they are (while acknowledging that it's a poor metric and just shrugging).

▲

godd2 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Why do they outsource something that is meant to have been written by a human

Says who? The point of the summary is so that I don't have to go look at the diff and figure out what happened.

	▲	piva00 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The point of the summary is also to explain "why" something was done, most Claude-generated PR descriptions I've been seeing go through the "what" and "how" but if the human-in-the-loop didn't care to precisely describe the "why" it is just an English version of the changes made in the code... I can just read the code for that, give me the reasons behind the diff and I'm a happy camper.

▲

paulhebert 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah I agree.

We have “Cursor Bot” enabled at work. It reviews our PRs (in addition to a human review)

One thing it does is add a PR summary to the PR description. It’s kind of helpful since it outlines a clear list of what changed in code. But it would be very lacking if it was the full PR description. It doesn’t include anything about _why_ the changes were made, what else was tried, what is coming next, etc.