commitlint vs Commitizen: Commit Conventions
commitlint validates commit messages against rules; Commitizen interactively guides you to write conventional commits. They complement each other.
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. They solve different ends of the same goal: Commitizen helps authors write correct messages, commitlint enforces them - many teams use both.
| commitlint | Commitizen | |
|---|---|---|
| Role | Validates messages | Guides writing messages |
| When it runs | commit-msg hook / CI | At commit time (prompt) |
| Enforcement | Yes (fails bad commits) | No (assists) |
| Setup | Config + rules | Adapter (e.g. cz) |
| Best for | Enforcing convention | Authoring convention |
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.
The verdict
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.