mohitagw15856/pr-description

PR Description Skill

A good PR description is a gift to the reviewer: it explains intent before they read the diff, so review is fast and confident. This skill turns a change into a structured PR write-up — what and why, how it was tested, the risk, and where to focus — the difference between a one-pass approval and three rounds of confused back-and-forth.

Required Inputs

Ask for these only if they aren't already provided:

• The change — what was done (the diff summary, commits, or a description).
• The why — the problem/issue it solves (link the ticket).
• Testing — how it was verified (tests added, manual steps, edge cases checked).
• Risk & rollout — blast radius, migrations, flags, backward compatibility, how to roll back.

Output Format

[Concise, imperative PR title] (e.g. "Add rate limiting to the login endpoint")

What & why — 2–4 sentences: the problem and what this change does about it. Link the issue (Closes #123).

Changes — the key changes as bullets (the substantive ones, not every file). Group if large.

How it was tested — tests added/updated, and the manual verification + edge cases checked. Be specific enough that the reviewer trusts it works.

Risk & rollout — blast radius, any migration/flag/config, backward-compatibility notes, and how to roll back if it goes wrong. Say "low risk, no migration" if so.

Reviewer guide — where to start, what to scrutinize, anything intentionally out of scope or deferred (with a follow-up note). Call out anything you're unsure about and want eyes on.

Screenshots / output (if UI or user-facing) — before/after.

Keep it proportional — a one-line fix gets a short description; a big change earns the full structure.

Quality Checks

• [ ] Title is concise and imperative; the why and linked issue are clear up front
• [ ] Changes summarize intent, not a file-by-file dump
• [ ] Testing is specific (what was run, which edge cases) — not "tested locally"
• [ ] Risk, rollout, and rollback are addressed (even if "low risk, none")
• [ ] A reviewer guide points to where to focus and flags anything uncertain
• [ ] Length is proportional to the size of the change

Anti-Patterns

• [ ] Do not just paste the commit list — explain intent the diff can't convey
• [ ] Do not say "tested" without saying how — give the reviewer something to trust
• [ ] Do not hide risk or migrations — surface them so they're reviewed deliberately
• [ ] Do not write a novel for a one-line change — match effort to size
• [ ] Do not omit the "what to focus on" — undirected review is slow review

Based On

Code-review and PR best practices (explain intent, make review easy, surface risk) — modern engineering norms.