# Pull Request Creator

> Structure reviewable Pull Request descriptions from a set of changes. Use it when you need purpose, change summary, validation, risks, and self-review checkpoints.

- Skill: `lteawoo/pull-request-creator` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add lteawoo/pull-request-creator`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/lteawoo/pull-request-creator/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: lteawoo (https://skillmd.com/u/lteawoo)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/lteawoo/pull-request-creator

---


# Pull Request Creator

## Purpose
Create a PR body that helps reviewers understand and review a commit set or diff quickly.

## Core Principles
1. Lead with why, not what.
2. Separate In Scope from Out of Scope.
3. Include validation evidence such as commands and results.
4. Document risks and rollback strategy.
5. Include screenshots or behavioral evidence for UI changes.
6. Link related issues using `Closes`, `Related`, or `Depends on`.
7. Recommend or assign at least one PR label that matches release categorization rules.

## PR Label Rules
Based on `.github/release.yml`, PR labels determine the release category.

- `New Features`: `feat`, `feature`, `enhancement`
- `Bug Fixes`: `fix`, `bug`, `bugfix`
- `Maintenance (Chore)`: `chore`, `dependencies`, `ci`, `build`, `refactor`
- Unmatched or missing labels: `Other Changes`

Operating Rules:
1. Recommend or assign at least one category label when creating or updating the PR.
2. If the PR includes features, bug fixes, and maintenance work together, choose the representative label based on the primary change.
3. Treat missing labels as a release-note quality risk and block the checklist on it.

## Required Self-Review Before Opening the PR
1. Confirm that the goal is met, including requirements and acceptance criteria.
2. Confirm that there is no scope drift.
3. Check for security issues, including OWASP-style input validation, auth, sensitive-data exposure, path manipulation, and privilege bypass.
4. Confirm adherence to existing conventions such as style, architecture, naming, and commit rules.

## Output Format

### Title
- Prefer a Conventional Commits style title
- Example: `fix: fix deselection bug in move modal`

### Summary
- Problem
- Solution
- Expected effect

### Related Issues
- Closes #<number>
- Related #<number>
- Depends on #<number>

### Changes
- Core changes
- File or module impact scope

### Scope
- In Scope
- Out of Scope

### Testing and Validation
- Commands run
- Manual validation scenarios
- Result summary (PASS or FAIL)

### Risks and Mitigation
- Potential regression points
- Monitoring points
- Rollback method

### Review Guide
- Three to five files reviewers should inspect first
- Decision points that still need attention

### Checklist
- [ ] Goal is met
- [ ] No scope drift
- [ ] OWASP-oriented security review completed
- [ ] Existing conventions confirmed
- [ ] Release-category label confirmed (`feat/feature/enhancement`, `fix/bug/bugfix`, `chore/dependencies/ci/build/refactor`)
- [ ] Related issue links confirmed (`Closes`/`Related`/`Depends on`)
- [ ] Build and tests passed
- [ ] Impact scope reviewed
- [ ] Docs updated if needed
- [ ] Breaking changes explicitly stated

## When Information Is Missing
- Draft the PR first.
- Limit follow-up questions to three.