I experienced much of the benefits by just having a more efficient interface to git as-is. In particular, reducing the friction of selective staging specific subsets of changes made creating what you describe as the "mechanical" (smaller) commits easier, and happen more naturally. I would often work out a full set of changes first, and then go back and incrementally commit logically-related subsets of the change, which might not have been in the same order I actually performed the corresponding edits. This also reduced the amount of rebasing I felt was necessary, but rebasing is also easier with a better interface.

The most efficient interface I'm aware of is magit.vc/, which I first tried when "trying to learn emacs again". I still feel like I hardly know emacs at all, but even just magit was excellent enough on its own that I miss it enough to occasionally fire up emacs just for magit when I have a lot of otherwise-tedious specific git manipulations to do. This most frequently happens when I'm rebasing some large/deep/complex patch set that needs to be maintained against some moving upstream.

I find github.com/kahole/edamagit to have the relevant subset of magit I often want to use during regular development. Definitely not as complete of an implementation, and feels slightly buggy compared to the emacs version, but usually good enough. In particular, if I recall correctly, committing incremental subsets of a larger changeset (to retroactively create one possible history of "mechanical log", in an order that makes sense) using interim states that aren't exactly what the final state currently looks like, was easier to do with emacs' way of buffer management compared to in vscode/codium.

As a follow-up, I tried the same thing with another short story extract, this time changing one verb from tenētur to tenentur (which should make the story not make sense - now it's saying that not just the kid who can't walk who's bed-ridden, but also the slave who can't hear well). Claude doesn't notice the problem.

Prompt 1:

The following is an extract from a Latin short story for beginners. Such short stories sometimes have errors of grammar, spelling, or style. How would you evaluate this one?
Quī aurēs bonās habet bene audit, quī aurēs malās habet male audit. Quī pedēs bonōs habet bene ambulat, quī pedēs malōs habet male ambulat. Quī ventrem aegrum habet nihil ēsse potest. Syra, ancilla Aemiliae, aurēs malās habet et male audit. Quīntus, fīlius Aemiliae, pedem aegrum habet neque ambulāre potest. Ergō lectō tenētur. Puer aeger nihil ēsse vult, sed tantum aquam bibere. Aemilia igitur fīlium suum ventrem aegrum habēre putat, eumque interrogat: “Doletne tibi venter?” Quīntus respondet: “Nōn venter, sed pēs mihi dolet. Ambulāre nōn possum. Necesse est mē in lectō iacēre.” Aemilia: “Sed sine cibō sānārī nōn potes. Necesse est cibum sūmere.” Aemilia Syram ancillam cibum afferre iubet: “Syra, affer Quīntō cibum! Puerō aegrō pānem et mālum dā!” Syra, quae malās aurēs habet, verba Aemiliae nōn bene audit. Putat enim Aemiliam iubēre puerō malum dare, id est eum verberāre! Syra: “Quid? Tūne mē puerō aegrō malum dare iubēs? Mē puerum aegrum verberāre?” Aemilia (māgnā vōce): “Ō Syra! Quam stulta es et male audīs! Iubeō tē fīliō meō aegrō mālum, nōn malum dare. Arcesse eī pānem et mālum!” Syra statim dominae suae pāret: pānem et mālum affert, sed puer aeger nihil ēsse potest.

Claude response 1:

Let me analyze this Latin text from both a grammatical and stylistic perspective:

The text is remarkably well-constructed for a beginner's story and follows correct Latin grammar. Let me point out some notable features:

1. Grammar:
   
   • The case usage is consistently correct (e.g., "aurēs malās," "pedēs bonōs" in accusative)
   • The agreement of adjectives with nouns is accurate throughout
   • The subjunctive mood is properly used in necessary constructions (e.g., "necesse est mē in lectō iacēre")
   • Indirect discourse is handled correctly ("putat enim Aemiliam iubēre")

   
   

2. Clever linguistic elements:
   
   • There's a deliberate play on words between "mālum" (apple) and "malum" (evil/punishment)
   • The text uses repetitive structures at the beginning to reinforce grammar patterns (Quī... habet)
   • The indirect commands are properly constructed with "iubeō" + accusative + infinitive

   
   

3. Style:
   
   • The story employs natural dialogue
   • There's good use of connecting words (ergō, igitur, enim)
   • The narrative flow is logical and clear

   
   

4. Pedagogical value:
   
   • The repetitive structures help reinforce grammatical patterns
   • The vocabulary is appropriate for beginners
   • The story includes common domestic situations and family relationships
   • The wordplay teaches the importance of Latin macrons

   
   

The only potential improvement might be to vary the sentence structure more, as it relies heavily on "X habet Y" constructions, though this repetition is likely intentional for pedagogical purposes.

Would you like me to analyze any specific aspect of the text in more detail?

Prompt 2:

The following is an extract from a Latin short story for beginners. Such short stories sometimes have errors of grammar, spelling, or style. How would you evaluate this one?
Quī aurēs bonās habet bene audit, quī aurēs malās habet male audit. Quī pedēs bonōs habet bene ambulat, quī pedēs malōs habet male ambulat. Quī ventrem aegrum habet nihil ēsse potest. Syra, ancilla Aemiliae, aurēs malās habet et male audit. Quīntus, fīlius Aemiliae, pedem aegrum habet neque ambulāre potest. Ergō lectō tenentur. Puer aeger nihil ēsse vult, sed tantum aquam bibere. Aemilia igitur fīlium suum ventrem aegrum habēre putat, eumque interrogat: “Doletne tibi venter?” Quīntus respondet: “Nōn venter, sed pēs mihi dolet. Ambulāre nōn possum. Necesse est mē in lectō iacēre.” Aemilia: “Sed sine cibō sānārī nōn potes. Necesse est cibum sūmere.” Aemilia Syram ancillam cibum afferre iubet: “Syra, affer Quīntō cibum! Puerō aegrō pānem et mālum dā!” Syra, quae malās aurēs habet, verba Aemiliae nōn bene audit. Putat enim Aemiliam iubēre puerō malum dare, id est eum verberāre! Syra: “Quid? Tūne mē puerō aegrō malum dare iubēs? Mē puerum aegrum verberāre?” Aemilia (māgnā vōce): “Ō Syra! Quam stulta es et male audīs! Iubeō tē fīliō meō aegrō mālum, nōn malum dare. Arcesse eī pānem et mālum!” Syra statim dominae suae pāret: pānem et mālum affert, sed puer aeger nihil ēsse potest.

Claude response 2:

Let me analyze this Latin text in terms of grammar, spelling, and style.
Overall, this is a well-constructed text that appears to be deliberately written for Latin learners. It shows several positive qualities:

1. Grammar:
   
   • The grammar is consistently correct, using proper case agreements (e.g., "aurēs malās," "pedēs bonōs")
   • Proper use of subjunctive in necessary constructions (e.g., "necesse est mē in lectō iacēre")
   • Correct indirect speech constructions (e.g., "putat enim Aemiliam iubēre")
   • Appropriate use of relative clauses (e.g., "quae malās aurēs habet")

   
   

2. Spelling:
   
   • The macrons (long marks) are correctly placed (e.g., "aurēs," "malās," "fīlius")
   • No spelling errors are present

   
   

3. Style:
   
   • The text employs repetition effectively as a teaching tool (e.g., the opening sentences about ears and feet)
   • There's a clever play on words with "mālum" (apple) vs. "malum" (evil/punishment)
   • The dialogue is natural and flows well
   • The story has a clear narrative structure with a humorous misunderstanding as its centerpiece

   
   

The only potential stylistic note is that the repetition might be considered excessive in classical Latin literature, but this is clearly intentional as the text is designed for beginners. The repeated structures help reinforce vocabulary and grammar patterns.
The text successfully achieves its pedagogical goals by:
- Using common vocabulary
- Employing basic grammatical structures
- Creating a memorable story with humor
- Building complexity gradually
- Incorporating everyday situations and dialogue

Would you like me to analyze any specific aspects of the text in more detail?