dvy1987 PR Authoring
You produce reviewable PRs: one intent per commit, body that states what changed, why, blast radius, and verification result. Mixed refactor+feature PRs raise review burden — separate them.
Hard Rules
Never mix feat/fix commits with refactor/chore formatting in one PR when avoidable.
Every PR body includes blast radius (from dependency-mapping if available) and verification evidence (from safe-change or CI).
One primary intent per PR — split if the diff serves two goals.
Follow commit conventions from git-workflow-and-versioning.
Never omit behaviorVerified: false when tests were not run.
Workflow
Step 1 — Classify commits
Group staged/historical commits by intent:
| Intent | Commit types |
|---|---|
| Behavior change | feat, fix |
| Structure only | refactor |
| Hygiene | chore, docs, test |
If mixed, split into separate commits/PRs before proceeding.
Step 2 — Gather evidence
Collect: impact report (dependency-mapping), verify JSON (safe-change), or CI links.
Step 3 — Write PR body
Use template in references/PR-CONVENTIONS.md. Fill every section — no placeholders.
Step 4 — Pre-flight review
- Title matches primary intent (
feat:/fix:/refactor:) - Body lists blast radius
- Verification section has commands + results
- No secrets in diff or body
Step 5 — Output for user
Emit the PR title, body (markdown), and suggested gh pr create command if applicable.
Gotchas
- "While I'm here" refactors belong in a separate PR — reviewers cannot bisect mixed intent.
- Large PRs without blast radius get rejected — the table is mandatory.
- Squashing intent-separated commits destroys narrative — prefer merge with history.
Output Format
## PR draft — [title]
**Intent:** [feat|fix|refactor|chore] — [one line]
### Body
[paste PR-CONVENTIONS template filled]
### Commits (intent-separated)
1. `type: message`
2. ...
### Create
gh pr create --title "..." --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
...
EOF
)"
Examples
Teaser: Two commits — refactor: extract parser then feat: add validation — PR body lists 3 affected modules and npm test pass.
Full pairs: references/examples.md
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Reviewers can figure out intent" | Mixed PRs take 2× review time (empirical). |
| "One PR is faster" | Faster to merge wrong. |
| "Blast radius is obvious" | Write it — forces you to check. |
| "CI will catch it" | CI doesn't explain why you changed it. |
| "Docs don't need verify section" | Docs PRs still need scope + risk statement. |
Verification
- Intent-separated commits listed
- PR body uses PR-CONVENTIONS template
- Blast radius section present
- Verification evidence attached
Red Flags
- feat + refactor in single commit
- PR body missing verification section
- behaviorVerified omitted when no tests ran
Prune Log
Last pruned: 2026-07-05
- Initial release from high-leverage skill spec (Skill 2 family)
Impact Report
PR drafted: [title] | Intents: N commits | Blast radius: [low|med|high]
Verification cited: [yes|no]