Ft Create Concise Pr

Snapshot PR

A PR description is a snapshot: one glance gives the reviewer the whole picture. A concise description is kindness to the people who review your work.

Gather

Know the whole change before writing a word:

1. Find where the branch forked: git merge-base HEAD <default-branch> (default branch via gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef).
2. Read the full diff and commit messages since the merge base.
3. If a PR already exists (gh pr view), read its current description and review comments. If the description is already a snapshot (matches the template below), jump to Update below. If it isn't, rewrite it with Write, keeping facts from the old description that are still true — and never dropping images or links you can't regenerate.

Done when every changed file is accounted for in your understanding — not necessarily in the description.

Write

Use exactly this template. Omit sections that don't apply. Never add top-level sections (the ## headers are fixed; content nested under them, like Flow's diagram and Under the hood note, is not a new section).

## Summary

## Changes

## Screenshots

## Flow

## Breaking / Migration

## Test plan

Rules:

• Title: under 70 characters, written for the PR list. Name the outcome in whichever shape reads most naturally: the new reality ("Multi-line paste builds a tree"), the win as the verb ("Speed up caret pickers: maintained tag corpus"), or the thing gained ("Add dark mode"). Then the spoken test: read it aloud — if a teammate would look at you funny ("Mandate snapshot PR descriptions via ft-create-concise-pr"), rewrite it. No tool or skill names. Prefix with type: only if the repo's merged PRs do.
• Summary: max 2 sentences. What changed and why. No "This PR..." openers. Then the hallway test: read it aloud as if telling a PM in the hallway — if they couldn't retell it to someone else, rewrite. If the PR closes an issue, add Fixes #N on its own line — GitHub auto-closes it on merge.
• Changes: a numbered list, 1–7 items — numbers let a reviewer say "change 3" in a comment. One sentence each; if an item needs a second sentence, it's either two changes or Summary material. Order: behavior changes first, then logic changes, then refactors/chores. Lead with the outcome, trail the mechanism: "Highlights survive flaky networks (retry with backoff)", not "Added retry logic for highlights". The outcome names who benefits and how — a user keeping their moments, a developer getting faster builds. Never file names; the diff shows those. If one change deserves disproportionate scrutiny, add a line under the list: **Start here:** change 3 — <the subtle part, in a few words>. One item max — if you'd flag two, flag none. No line means no landmines.
• Screenshots: only when the change is visible on screen. Before/after for modified UI; one shot or short recording for new UI. The image replaces prose — don't also describe what it shows.
• Flow: only when a gate below passes — a diagram, an Under the hood note, or both.
• Breaking / Migration: only when the change breaks consumers or requires a migration step.
• Test plan: bullets, one verification per line (command run, flow exercised) — never prose. If anything is left for the reviewer to check, end with one bold line: **Needs manual check:** <what and why>. No such line means nothing is asked of the reviewer. If nothing was verified, write Not tested. Never invent verification.
• No filler, no adjectives.

Flow gates

Two optional pieces live under Flow, each independently gated; most PRs get neither.

Diagram — a Mermaid diagram (GitHub renders it natively), shown open. Include only when the change alters flow across 3 or more components, or reorders a sequence of operations. Max 8 nodes. Show the new flow only — no before/after pairs. Never diagram what one bullet already explains.

Under the hood — a collapsed <details><summary>Under the hood</summary> block for the reviewer, human or agent, who needs the mental model the snapshot can't hold. Include only when the change spans enough moving parts that Summary and Changes can't convey how they connect. Put two things: how the changed pieces interact, and the one non-obvious decision plus the alternative it beat. A few sentences — if it runs long, the change wanted splitting, not more prose. Never restate Changes or the **Start here:** line.

Apply

Post it:

• New PR: push the branch if it isn't pushed, then gh pr create. If HEAD is the default branch, stop and ask the user before branching.
• Existing PR: gh pr edit --body-file, adding --title if the current title breaks the title rule.

Done when the PR on GitHub shows the snapshot description.

Update

When a PR that already has a snapshot description changes:

• Keep the structure. Edit only the items affected by new commits.
• Keep change numbers stable — review comments may cite them. Edit items in place, append new ones at the end of their tier; renumber only when an item is deleted.
• Don't let the Summary grow.
• If a change reverses an earlier item, replace the item rather than appending.
• Refresh the Test plan if new verification happened, dropping the **Needs manual check:** line once the check is done. Refresh or delete the diagram if the flow changed, the Under the hood note if the mental model changed, screenshots if the UI changed, and the **Start here:** line if it no longer points at the riskiest change.
• Leave bot-appended blocks (release notes, coverage reports — usually wrapped in HTML comments) untouched. They're not yours.