Draft and review Epicenter pull request titles and bodies, including changelog and merge details. Use when creating a PR or editing its text, not for local commits, branches, or issue replies.
68
85%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
Low
Low-risk findings worth noting
If the task is only staging, splitting, or committing local changes, use git. If the task is issue triage or public issue replies, use github-issues. The writing-voice rules govern the prose in any body you write.
A pull request body explains why the change should exist and why it takes this shape. Briefly state what changed so the reader can place the explanation, then develop the reasoning the diff cannot supply: what prompted the change, why this approach fits, and which consequences or tradeoffs matter.
Build a readable rhythm of explanation and concrete things the reader can inspect. Use code to show behavior, diagrams to expose relationships, and tables to make comparisons visible. Let these carry part of the explanation so the reader has less to hold in their head. Give each visual enough context to read it, then explain what follows from it.
Let the change determine the body’s shape and length. A small fix may need two sentences. An ownership change may need a diagram and its rationale. A breaking API change needs old and new usage with migration guidance. End when the reader has enough context to understand and judge the change.
Read the final diff and affected callers before drafting. Identify the main change and the reason for it; check examples against the implementation. Distinguish demonstrated behavior from intended benefits, and do not invent a rationale when the evidence leaves it unresolved.
Write for someone who has not followed the conversation. Keep the explanation useful after merge. Rewrite the title and body when the final scope changes, and include history only when it explains a decision that still matters.
Read the draft as that reader: can they tell what changed, why it was needed, and why this approach fits? Does each example help them judge a claim? Cut repetition of the diff and of what the visuals already show. Use the references for examples when useful; no body shape or sequence is mandatory.
## Summary, ## Changes, ## Testing, ## Test Plan, or ## Verification sections unless the user explicitly asks.## Changelog section only for feat: and fix: PRs with user-visible changes.Load these on demand:
feat: or fix: PRs: references/changelog-entries.md.f9441c8
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.