make-pr-easy-to-review
Skill18 starsChanged 54 days agoMITView on GitHub
Prepare PRs for review by cleaning noisy history, improving PR descriptions, and adding reviewer guidance without changing code behavior. Use for "make this easy to review", "tidy this PR", "clean up commits", or "annotate the diff".
6 other projects use a version of this, 6 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ArchitektApx/cursor-skills-for-claudeedited, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- malinskibeniamin/skillsedited, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- anis-dr/skillsedited, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- jaydubya818/MissionControledited, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- dhanji4U/skillsedited, first seen Oct 2, 2026
- ElyzeSolutions/skillsedited, first seen Aug 6, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use loop-on-ci, run-smoke-tests and 5 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
cogine-aiSkillloop-on-ci
Monitor PR checks and fix failures until green. Uses gh pr checks as the source of truth for PR-attached checks.
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillrun-smoke-tests
Run smoke tests to verify extension functionality in a real VS Code environment. Use this when checking if basic features work after changes.
Also in 3 projects that use this
ElyzeSolutionsSkillcontrol-ui
Build or adapt a local browser/CDP harness to drive and inspect a web, IDE, or Electron UI. Use for local UI verification, screenshots, accessibility snapshots, perf profiles, visual diffs, or reproducing UI bugs.
Also in 3 projects that use this
AWSSkillwizard
Generate an interactive bash wizard that walks a human through steps only they can perform. Use when provisioning infrastructure, setting up credentials or CI secrets, walking an unfamiliar third-party dashboard, or running a one-off migration or cutover. Don't invoke this for steps the agent can perform itself.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Google CloudSkilltriage
Gather context on a change or bug and plan the implementation.
Also in 3 projects that use this
GoogleSkillimprove-codebase-architecture
Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 6
- malinskibeniamin/skills★ 414% same
- anis-dr/skills★ 393% same
- dhanji4U/skills★ 290% same
- jaydubya818/MissionControl★ 286% same
- ElyzeSolutions/skills★ 199% same
- ArchitektApx/cursor-skills-for-claude★ 099% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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.
In this repository75 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- architectSkill
- arenaSkill
- automate-meSkill
- babysitSkill
- blast-radiusSkill
- broSkill
- browseSkill
- ceo-reviewSkill
- changelog-to-postSkill
- create-verification-skillSkill
- customer-lensSkill
- deslopSkill
- engineer-modeSkill
- figure-it-outSkill
- fix-ciSkill
- fix-merge-conflictsSkill
- founder-modeSkill
- founder-voiceSkill
- fstackSkill
- geo-pageSkill
- get-pr-commentsSkill
- howSkill
- inbox-triageSkill
- interrogateSkill
- lead-replySkill
- maintain-verification-skillSkill
- no-commentsSkill
- office-hoursSkill
- poteto-modeSkill
- principle-attack-the-premiseSkill
- principle-boundary-disciplineSkill
- principle-build-the-leverSkill
- principle-clear-namingSkill
- principle-encode-lessons-in-structureSkill
- principle-exhaust-the-design-spaceSkill
- principle-experience-firstSkill
- principle-fix-root-causesSkill
- principle-foundational-thinkingSkill
- principle-guard-the-context-windowSkill
- principle-laziness-protocolSkill
- principle-make-operations-idempotentSkill
- principle-migrate-callers-then-delete-legacy-apisSkill
- principle-minimize-reader-loadSkill
- principle-model-the-domainSkill
- principle-never-block-on-the-humanSkill
- principle-outcome-oriented-executionSkill
- principle-prove-it-worksSkill
- principle-redesign-from-first-principlesSkill
- principle-separate-before-serializing-shared-stateSkill
- principle-sequence-verifiable-unitsSkill
- principle-subtract-before-you-addSkill
- principle-test-behavior-not-implementationSkill
- principle-type-system-disciplineSkill
- recallSkill
- reflectSkill
- retroSkill
- setup-fstackSkill
- show-me-your-workSkill
- social-postSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 9 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
9
Common
Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
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
- Common: line 21
Only rewrite history when the user asks for it or agrees to the plan.
- Common: line 37
After rewriting, verify content identity:
- Common: line 45
Do not push if the tree changed unintentionally.
- Common: line 49
When code behavior should stay untouched, prefer PR description and review notes:
- Common: line 51
Add a TL;DR that matches the actual diff.
- Common: line 53
Call out risky behavior changes, migration order, rollout plan, and test coverage.
- Common: line 58
Never hide meaningful behavior changes inside "cleanup".
- Common: line 59
Do not bypass hooks unless the user explicitly asks.
- Common: line 60
If the PR is too large to make reviewable with notes, recommend splitting instead of polishing around the problem.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Make PR Easy to Review
Prepare a PR so a reviewer can quickly understand the intent, important files, and risk. The default goal is reviewability without behavior changes.
Workflow
- Resolve the target PR from the user-provided URL or current branch.
- Inspect commits, diff size, changed paths, generated files, and PR description.
- Identify reviewability issues: noisy commits, stale description, unrelated changes, mixed mechanical and logic changes, missing tests, or unclear reviewer entry points.
- Propose a plan before rewriting history or force-pushing.
- Apply safe improvements, then verify the tree or diff still matches the intended code.
History Cleanup
Only rewrite history when the user asks for it or agrees to the plan. Before rewriting:
gh pr view <PR> --json title,headRefName,baseRefName,state,commits
git fetch origin <headRefName> <baseRefName>
ORIGINAL_TREE=$(git rev-parse origin/<headRefName>^{tree})Good commit groupings usually follow dependency order:
- Schema/storage or generated API definitions.
- Core logic.
- Wiring and integration.
- UI or surface behavior.
- Tests.
After rewriting, verify content identity:
echo "Original tree: $ORIGINAL_TREE"
echo "Current tree: $(git rev-parse HEAD^{tree})"
git diff origin/<headRefName> --statDo not push if the tree changed unintentionally.
Reviewer Guidance
When code behavior should stay untouched, prefer PR description and review notes:
- Add a TL;DR that matches the actual diff.
- Separate core files from generated or mechanical files.
- Call out risky behavior changes, migration order, rollout plan, and test coverage.
- Link issue trackers, dashboards, or design docs when they explain intent.
Guardrails
- Never hide meaningful behavior changes inside "cleanup".
- Do not bypass hooks unless the user explicitly asks.
- If the PR is too large to make reviewable with notes, recommend splitting instead of polishing around the problem.
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
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.

