agentleFS
Sign inStart free
OactoDevOactoDev/claude-code-field-kit/skills/pr-writeup/SKILL.md

pr-writeup

Skill2 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Write a clear, reviewer-friendly pull-request description from the actual branch diff. Use when the user asks to open a PR, write PR notes, or summarize a branch's changes for review.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. Pagepro/nexity★ 19same name

    How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this structure. Keep it tight — reviewers skim.

    line 17
  2. Distinctive:

    No filler ("this PR aims to…").

    line 39
  3. Distinctive:

    Don't include a "Generated by" line or emoji unless the repo's other PRs use them — match house style.

    line 40
  4. Distinctive:

    If the diff is large and does several unrelated things, say so and suggest splitting.

    line 41

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

PR write-up

Produce a PR description grounded in the real diff, not a guess. Follow these steps.

1. Gather the facts

  • Base branch: git merge-base HEAD origin/main (fall back to origin/master if there is no main).
  • Diff summary: git diff --stat <base>...HEAD for the shape of the change.
  • Full diff: git diff <base>...HEAD — read it before writing a word.
  • Commit subjects: git log --format='%s' <base>..HEAD.

2. Write the description

Use this structure. Keep it tight — reviewers skim.

## What & why
<2–4 sentences: what this changes and the problem it solves. Lead with the user-
or system-visible effect, not the file list.>

## Changes
- <the handful of load-bearing changes, each one line; group trivia like "tests,
  formatting" into a single bullet>

## Testing
- <what you ran and what passed: build, test suite, manual steps. Be specific —
  "added 3 tests covering the empty-input case; full suite green" beats "tested">

## Risk / rollout
- <anything a reviewer should worry about: migrations, config, breaking changes,
  feature-flag state. Write "none" if genuinely none — don't invent risk.>

Rules

  • Describe only what the diff actually does. If a commit message claims something the diff doesn't show, trust the diff and flag the mismatch.
  • No filler ("this PR aims to…"). Active voice. Name things the way the codebase names them.
  • Don't include a "Generated by" line or emoji unless the repo's other PRs use them — match house style.
  • If the diff is large and does several unrelated things, say so and suggest splitting; a reviewer will thank you.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free