A reviewer facing hundreds of changed lines needs to know the purpose and risky areas before reading the diff. The immediate goal is to make the next change safer and easier to explain. Begin with the branch state and the people who depend on it.
Why this deserves attention
Git’s official documentation separates the working tree, index and commit history because each command acts on a different part of that model. A workflow is easier to trust when teammates can see what changed, why it changed and how to recover if an assumption was wrong. Good habits matter more than memorising every flag. The description is a map of the decision, not a substitute for the code; it should make testing and expected behaviour visible. A clear explanation of the intended result is usually more valuable than a long sequence of clever commands.
A practical way forward
State the problem, summarise the approach, link the issue and list tests and known limitations. Read git status before acting and inspect the diff afterwards. If the change affects a shared branch, communicate the plan before rewriting or merging history.
Picture it in a real situation
For a search change, show an example query that failed before, the expected result now and any index migration needed. A small, named change is easier for a teammate to review. Record the commit or branch involved so a later investigation can reconstruct the choice.
What to avoid
Avoid pasting a generic checklist that claims every test passed when some paths were never exercised. Check whether the branch is shared and whether the command can discard work. A recovery step should be understood before a risky history operation begins.
Takeaway
Make the next change small, reviewable and recoverable. Explain the intent beside the result.
Sources and further reading: Official Git documentation; Git worktree manual.