Build-tool benchmarks published by vendors use repositories chosen to show a difference. Yours is the only one that matters, and both a cold and a warm measurement are needed because CI mostly runs cold.
Terminal
# cold: no cache, the CI condition
rm -rf node_modules/.cache dist && time <tool> build
# warm: the local development condition
time <tool> build
# and the one people forget: incremental after a one-line change
echo "// touch" >> src/index.ts && time <tool> build
commitlint checks that commit messages follow a convention (commonly Conventional Commits), failing the commit or CI when they do not. Commitizen provides an interactive prompt that builds a compliant commit message for you, lowering the chance of mistakes in the first place.
In CI?
commitlint is the enforcement layer: run it in a commit-msg hook and again in CI on PR commits so non-conforming messages fail the build. Commitizen helps locally but cannot enforce anything by itself. The robust setup is Commitizen (or a guided template) for authoring plus commitlint in CI as the gate.
Speed it up?
Commit-message linting is lightweight; cache dependencies so the job starts quickly. The check runs on CI runners; faster managed runners keep the validation step near-instant.
Which should I choose?
Enforcing a commit convention so bad messages fail: commitlint, ideally in CI. Helping authors write conforming messages interactively: Commitizen. They are complementary, not competitors - use Commitizen to author and commitlint to enforce.
