> Stage automatically analyzes the diff, clusters related changes, and generates chapters.

Isn't that what commits are for? I see no reason for adding this as an after-thought. If the committers (whether human or LLM) are well-behaved, this info is already available in the PR.

In our experience, it's difficult to create well-mannered commits as you code and new ideas pop into your head or you iterate on different designs (even for LLMs). One concept we toyed around with was telling an LLM to re-do a branch using "perfect commits" right before putting up a PR. But even then you might discover new edge cases and have to tack them on as additional commits.

We thought git wasn't the right level of abstraction and decided to tackle things at the PR level instead. Curious to hear your experiences!

I feel that grouping related change in commits can be challenging, as git really presents commits as grouping in time, not topic.

It is certainly possible to do topic-grouping in commits, but it requires significant effort to het that consistent on a team level.

I concur. I cannot accept that we are so disconnected from what we're building that we can't go back and revise our commits or something else to make it make sense.