INDEPENDENT EDITORIAL
How to turn git commits into social posts
Your git history is the most honest record of what you've built — and the most under-used source of build-in-public content you have. This is a guide to mining commits for posts: which ones are worth sharing, how to translate code into a story, and how to automate the pipeline without turning into a changelog bot.
Every founder building in public faces the same daily question — "what do I even post?" — while sitting on a perfect answer they never look at. You already documented your work today. You wrote commit messages. The raw material isn't missing; it's just trapped in a format nobody outside your terminal cares about. The skill is turning that log into something a human will stop scrolling for.
Done badly, this produces the worst kind of build-in-public content: a robotic stream of "v1.4.2: bump deps, fix null check" that signals activity but communicates nothing. Done well, your commit history becomes a renewable feed of authentic, specific stories about real work. The difference is entirely in the filtering and the translation.
Step one: filter ruthlessly
The first mistake is treating every commit as postable. The vast majority are noise to anyone but you — refactors, formatting, dependency bumps, internal plumbing. Posting those trains your audience to ignore you. Run every commit through one question: did this change anything a user would notice or care about?
The keepers usually fall into a few buckets: a new feature, a fix for something users actually hit, a visible improvement (faster, cleaner, simpler), a thing you removed, or a decision you can narrate. A useful heuristic is the conventional-commit prefix — feat: and many fix: commits are candidates; chore:, refactor:, style: and build: almost never are. Filter first, and you've already avoided the changelog-bot trap.
Step two: translate from diff to outcome
A commit message is written for your future self and your collaborators. A post is written for someone who has never seen your code. The translation runs in one direction: from what changed in the codebase to what changed in someone's experience.
Walk it through. The commit:
fix: debounce search input to prevent excessive re-renders
becomes the post: "Search used to stutter when you typed fast — it was re-running on every keystroke. Fixed it today; it's smooth now even on long lists." Notice what happened. The implementation detail (debounce, re-renders) got dropped or demoted. The human outcome (search no longer stutters) got promoted to the front. Unless your audience is explicitly technical, lead with the outcome and treat the mechanism as optional colour.
Step three: add the "why" — that's the actual content
A translated commit tells people what changed. What makes it a post worth reading is the why — the decision, the trade-off, the thing you learned. "I cut the bulk-import feature" is a fact. "I cut the bulk-import feature because three months of data showed almost no one finished it and it was generating most of our support tickets — sometimes shipping is deleting" is a story. The commit is the hook; your reasoning is the substance. The best build-in-public posts are commits with their reasoning re-attached.
Step four: batch a week of commits into a few good posts
You don't need one post per commit — that's just the changelog problem in slow motion. A better rhythm is to look back across a few days of work and synthesise. Several small fixes that all point the same direction become one post: "Spent this week making the editor faster — three separate bottlenecks, here's the one that mattered most." A messy real week of commits compresses into a clean narrative of progress, which reads far better than a stream of disconnected micro-updates.
Building the commit-to-post pipeline
Once the editorial logic is clear, you can systematise it. A reliable pipeline has four stages, and you can assemble them by hand or have a tool run them for you:
- Watch: pull from commits, merged pull requests, or tagged releases — releases and merged PRs tend to be higher-signal than raw commits.
- Filter: keep only user-visible changes, using prefixes or labels as the first cut.
- Draft: translate each kept change into a plain-language, outcome-first post, with the "why" left as a field for you to fill.
- Approve: a human reviews, edits, and decides what actually goes public.
That last stage is non-negotiable. Fully automating commit-to-post is how you end up auto-publishing "fix: typo in error message" to a thousand followers, or worse, leaking a feature you weren't ready to announce. The automation's job is to kill the friction of noticing and drafting — not to remove your judgment.
Where LCNCagents fits
The commit-to-post pipeline above is exactly what LCNCagents runs for you. It watches the work you ship — your real, shipped changes — filters out the noise, and drafts outcome-first, platform-native posts you approve before anything goes live. You connect your work, it surfaces the postable changes as ready-to-edit drafts, and you add the "why" and hit publish. The honest record in your git history finally becomes the build-in-public feed it was always capable of being.
The compounding payoff
Once this pipeline runs, the daily "what do I post?" question disappears for good. Your work generates your content as a byproduct — every shipped change is a candidate post, every week of commits a potential narrative. You stop choosing between building and marketing, because the building now feeds the marketing. That's the whole promise of building in public, finally made cheap enough to sustain.
FAQ
Should I post about every git commit?
No. Most commits are noise — refactors, typo fixes, dependency bumps. The postable ones are user-visible changes, features, meaningful fixes, and decisions you can tell a story about. Post the why behind a change, not the diff.
How do I turn a technical commit message into something non-developers care about?
Translate from what changed in the code to what changed for the user. "fix: debounce search input" becomes "search no longer lags when you type fast." Lead with the human outcome and drop the implementation detail unless your audience is technical.
Can I automate turning commits into posts?
Partly. Automate the pipeline that watches commits or releases, filters for user-visible ones, and drafts a plain-language post for each — but keep a human approval step. The automation removes the friction of noticing and drafting; you keep editorial control.