gabrielmoreira PR Description Writer Skill
Writes structured, reviewer-friendly pull request descriptions from a diff, commit list, or informal notes. Covers the what, why, and how-to-review so reviewers can start immediately.
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
- What changed (paste a git diff,
git log --oneline, or describe the changes in plain English) - Why it was changed (the problem being solved or feature being added)
- How to test it (any specific steps a reviewer needs to verify it works)
- Risk level (low / medium / high — affects how much reviewer guidance to include)
- PR type (feature / bug fix / refactor / dependency upgrade / config change / hotfix)
- Target branch (e.g. main / develop / release/2.4 — affects risk framing and reviewer guidance)
- Linked issue or ticket (e.g. JIRA-1234, GitHub #567 — or "none")
Output Format
Title
A clear, imperative-mood title under 72 characters:
[type]: [concise description of what changed]
Examples:
feat: add rate limiting to the public APIfix: resolve race condition in session expiryrefactor: extract payment logic into PaymentService
Summary
2–3 sentences covering:
- What this PR does (the change)
- Why it was needed (the problem or goal)
- The approach taken (at a high level)
Changes Made
Bullet list of specific changes — one bullet per logical change, not per file:
- Added [X] to handle [Y]
- Refactored [A] to reduce [B]
- Removed [C] as it was replaced by [D]
- Updated [E] to fix [F]
Screenshots / Demo
[If UI change: include before/after screenshots or a screen recording] [If API change: include example request/response] [If no visual change and no API contract change: omit this section entirely — do not leave it as a placeholder]
How to Test
Step-by-step instructions a reviewer can follow:
- [Setup step if needed]
- [Action to take]
- [What to verify]
- [Edge case to check]
Include any specific commands, test data, or environment flags needed.
Testing Checklist
- Unit tests added/updated
- Integration tests added/updated
- Edge cases covered
- Manual testing completed
- No regressions in existing tests
Reviewer Notes
Flag anything that warrants extra attention:
- Areas of uncertainty where a second opinion is welcome
- Deliberate trade-offs made (and why)
- Out-of-scope items noticed but not addressed
- Dependencies on other PRs (link them)
Related
- Closes #[issue number] (if applicable)
- Related to #[PR/issue number]
Scoring Rubric (0–40)
Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.
| Dimension | 0 | 5 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Why over what | Description only restates the diff; no motivation given | The what is clear, but the why is thin or generic ("improves the code") | Problem, goal, and approach are explicit; the description adds context the diff cannot convey |
| Title & structure | Single unstructured paragraph; title vague, missing a type prefix, or over 72 characters | Structured with headers, but the title or section usage slips (placeholder sections left in) | Valid type prefix, imperative mood, under 72 characters; sections let a reviewer navigate straight to what they need |
| Testing reproducibility | No testing steps | Steps exist but assume codebase familiarity or skip edge cases | Someone unfamiliar with the code can reproduce verification — commands, test data, flags, and at least one edge case included |
| Risk-calibrated reviewer guidance | High-risk PR with no reviewer notes, or notes that are pure boilerplate | Notes exist but name no specific trade-off, uncertainty, or out-of-scope item | Guidance matches risk: high-risk flags specific concerns and deliberate trade-offs; low-risk keeps notes to one line or omits them |
Quality Checks
- Title is imperative mood and under 72 characters
- Summary explains what AND why (not just what)
- Changes list describes logical changes (not file-by-file changes)
- Title starts with a valid type prefix (feat / fix / refactor / chore / deps / config / hotfix) and is under 72 characters
- Testing steps are reproducible by someone unfamiliar with the code
- For high-risk PRs, Reviewer Notes flags at least one specific area of concern or deliberate trade-off; for low-risk PRs, Reviewer Notes is either omitted or kept to one line
Anti-Patterns
- Do not write a description that only restates what changed — explain why the change was made
- Do not skip the testing steps — reviewers need to know how to verify the change works
- Do not omit the reviewer notes for high-risk PRs — flag deliberate trade-offs and areas needing careful review
- Do not describe implementation details that are obvious from the diff — add context that the diff cannot convey
- Do not produce a single paragraph — structure with headers so reviewers can navigate to what they need
Usage Examples
- "Write a PR description for these changes" + [paste diff or description]
- "Draft a pull request for [feature]"
- "I need a PR description — here's what I changed"
- "Summarise these commits into a PR description"
- "Write the PR body for this branch"