Make PR Easy to Review
Prepare a PR so a reviewer can quickly understand the intent, important files, and risk. The default goal is reviewability without behavior changes.
Workflow
- Resolve the target PR from the user-provided URL or current branch.
- Inspect commits, diff size, changed paths, generated files, and PR description.
- Identify reviewability issues: noisy commits, stale description, unrelated changes, mixed mechanical and logic changes, missing tests, or unclear reviewer entry points.
- Propose a plan before rewriting history or force-pushing.
- Apply safe improvements, then verify the tree or diff still matches the intended code.
History Cleanup
Only rewrite history when the user asks for it or agrees to the plan. Before rewriting:
gh pr view <PR> --json title,headRefName,baseRefName,state,commits
git fetch origin <headRefName> <baseRefName>
ORIGINAL_TREE=$(git rev-parse origin/<headRefName>^{tree})
Good commit groupings usually follow dependency order:
- Schema/storage or generated API definitions.
- Core logic.
- Wiring and integration.
- UI or surface behavior.
- Tests.
After rewriting, verify content identity:
echo "Original tree: $ORIGINAL_TREE"
echo "Current tree: $(git rev-parse HEAD^{tree})"
git diff origin/<headRefName> --stat
Do not push if the tree changed unintentionally.
Reviewer Guidance
When code behavior should stay untouched, prefer PR description and review notes:
- Add a TL;DR that matches the actual diff.
- Separate core files from generated or mechanical files.
- Call out risky behavior changes, migration order, rollout plan, and test coverage.
- Link issue trackers, dashboards, or design docs when they explain intent.
Guardrails
- Never hide meaningful behavior changes inside "cleanup".
- Do not bypass hooks unless the user explicitly asks.
- If the PR is too large to make reviewable with notes, recommend splitting instead of polishing around the problem.
1---2name: make-pr-easy-to-review3description: Prepare PRs for review by cleaning noisy history, improving PR descriptions, and adding reviewer guidance without changing code behavior. Use for "make this easy to review", "tidy this PR", "clean up commits", or "annotate the diff".4---5# Make PR Easy to Review67Prepare a PR so a reviewer can quickly understand the intent, important files, and risk. The default goal is reviewability without behavior changes.89## Workflow10111. Resolve the target PR from the user-provided URL or current branch.122. Inspect commits, diff size, changed paths, generated files, and PR description.133. Identify reviewability issues: noisy commits, stale description, unrelated changes, mixed mechanical and logic changes, missing tests, or unclear reviewer entry points.144. Propose a plan before rewriting history or force-pushing.155. Apply safe improvements, then verify the tree or diff still matches the intended code.1617## History Cleanup1819Only rewrite history when the user asks for it or agrees to the plan. Before rewriting:2021```bash22gh pr view <PR> --json title,headRefName,baseRefName,state,commits23git fetch origin <headRefName> <baseRefName>24ORIGINAL_TREE=$(git rev-parse origin/<headRefName>^{tree})25```2627Good commit groupings usually follow dependency order:28291. Schema/storage or generated API definitions.302. Core logic.313. Wiring and integration.324. UI or surface behavior.335. Tests.3435After rewriting, verify content identity:3637```bash38echo "Original tree: $ORIGINAL_TREE"39echo "Current tree: $(git rev-parse HEAD^{tree})"40git diff origin/<headRefName> --stat41```4243Do not push if the tree changed unintentionally.4445## Reviewer Guidance4647When code behavior should stay untouched, prefer PR description and review notes:4849- Add a TL;DR that matches the actual diff.50- Separate core files from generated or mechanical files.51- Call out risky behavior changes, migration order, rollout plan, and test coverage.52- Link issue trackers, dashboards, or design docs when they explain intent.5354## Guardrails5556- Never hide meaningful behavior changes inside "cleanup".57- Do not bypass hooks unless the user explicitly asks.58- If the PR is too large to make reviewable with notes, recommend splitting instead of polishing around the problem.
CatCorner22