PR helper skills: review and resolve PR comments, and draft structured PR descriptions.
97
89%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
98%
1.42xAverage score across 11 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Write PR descriptions so reviewers understand why the change exists, what changed, and where to look next. Prefer plain language; avoid dumping raw diffs into prose.
Use this order. Omit a section only if it truly adds nothing (e.g. no ticket yet—say “None” or “TBD” in Links & tracking).
One short paragraph: what this PR does in product or technical terms.
Background the reviewer needs: prior behavior, constraints, related systems, or user-facing problem. Not a repeat of the diff—explain situation.
Motivation: problem being solved, risk being reduced, or requirement being met. If there was an alternative approach, one line on why this one was chosen (optional).
Bullets grouped by area (e.g. API, UI, infra). Call out breaking changes, migrations, or feature flags explicitly.
Steps or checklist so a reviewer can validate behavior locally or in staging.
Copy and fill:
## Summary
[One paragraph: what this PR does.]
## Context
[Why this work exists; what was wrong or missing before.]
## Why
[Motivation and any notable tradeoffs.]
## What changed
- [Area]: [concise bullet]
- …
## Links & tracking
- Ticket: [URL or ID]
- Docs / design: [links]
- Related PRs: [links]
## How to test
1. …
2. …Always use type(scope): short description.
feat, chore, fix, refactorpr-description, pr-helpers, auth)Examples:
feat(pr-description): add pr naming specificsrefactor(pr-helpers): combine two skills into a single pluginfix(auth): handle expired refresh tokenschore(deps): bump eslint to v9Pick the type by intent: feat for new behavior, fix for bug fixes, refactor for behavior-preserving restructuring, chore for tooling, deps, configs, or housekeeping.
type(scope): description format above. Reject vague titles like Fix stuff or WIP.