The message 1 is invalid: * The line 24 of the message (line 22 of the body) exceeds the limit of 72 characters. The line contains 112 characters: " if ! grep -x \" '$word',\" ~/src/opinionated-commit-message/src/mostFrequentEnglishVerbs.ts > /dev/null; then". Please reformat the body so that all the lines fit 72 characters. The original message was: Add more verbs from A through D We ran into more missing verbs. So I figured instead of adding them a few at a time when we run into issues, let's investigate what we actually have used historically and batch add them. I did the following for our largest repository, this is the only place where we currently enforce git commit message style with this action: https://github.com/mullvad/mullvadvpn-app/. I grabbed all the first words from the subject line of our commits: ```bash git log --format=%s | \ awk '{print tolower($1)}' | \ tr -cd '\n[:alnum:]._-' | \ sort -u > first-words ``` I then filtered out the ones not already in `mostFrequentEnglishVerbs.ts`: ```bash for word in $(cat first-words); do if ! grep -x " '$word'," ~/src/opinionated-commit-message/src/mostFrequentEnglishVerbs.ts > /dev/null; then echo "$word"; fi; done ``` I then manually started going through the list of words. Many of them are not even verbs, or verbs not in imperative form, since we have not enforced this style before. But many of them are perfectly fine imperative form verbs and I suggest they are added to this action. I stopped at the letter D and decided to submit this PR. That's because I was not sure if you wanted this addition or not, and figured I should reach out for feedback before spending more time. I'll likely continue the filtering anyway, and add it to a local `path-to-additional-verbs` in case you don't want them upstream. But having them upstream would be way more handy, since then we can easily run this on multiple repositories without having to duplicate the verb list. Semi-related question: Does it make sense to separate "Verbs specific to programming"? I personally think that distinction is not very important.