Open pull request

Open Pull Request

This skill governs how Claude pushes a branch and opens a pull request. Pushing a feature branch and opening a PR never need permission — do both as soon as a branch has a commit, and open the PR as a draft if the work is not review-ready. A branch and a (draft) PR harm nothing: they touch no shared history and request no review, while leaving committed work unpushed risks losing it to a crashed session. See git-conventions → "Branch and PR freedom" for the underlying rule.

The one hard prohibition is upstream: never push to master/main without explicit consent (git-conventions). Most contributors cannot; on an admin account it is your guardrail to hold.

So the pre-flight below gates on quality (lint, tests, a clean tree), not on permission. When a check fails you fix it, not ask to skip it. And "not review-ready" is never a reason to withhold a PR — it is the reason to open a draft one, which has no rules (force-push, redirect, or delete it freely).

Every PR in this repo follows the same contract: Conventional-Commits title, structured body, correct base, and no manual reviewer/assignee assignment (workflows handle that).

---

Phase 1: Pre-Flight Checks

Before any push or PR creation, verify all of the following. If any check fails, stop and surface the problem to the user instead of pushing.

1.1 You are on a feature branch

git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD

Must return something like feat/dao/revoke-keys, not master or main. If on master, stop — you do not open PRs from master.

1.2 Working tree is clean

git status --porcelain

Must return empty. Uncommitted changes mean the branch is not ready. Either commit them (follow git-conventions) or surface them to the user.

1.3 Commits follow Conventional Commits

# <base> is master, or the parent feature branch for a stacked PR (see Phase 2.3):
# master there would pull in the parent's commits and validate/rewrite commits that
# aren't this branch's responsibility.
# %s emits the commit subject only — no hash prefix — so each line is directly
# comparable against the Conventional Commits grammar below.
git log <base>..HEAD --format=%s

Every line must parse as a git-conventions-compliant Conventional Commit: either <type>(<scope>): <description> or, for genuinely cross-cutting commits where scope is intentionally omitted, <type>: <description>. If any commit is malformed, fix it before the branch's first push. Use git commit --amend only when the malformed commit is the last one on the branch and unpushed; once the branch is pushed, git-conventions' "never amend a pushed commit" rule applies and the fix becomes a follow-up commit (or, for a cosmetic title fix, a PR-title adjustment the author can squash at merge time). For any earlier malformed commit — even if unpushed — ask the user before rewriting history.

1.4 Basic CI passes locally

Always run basic CI locally before pushing. CI is not a debugger: a red push wastes a CI cycle and reviewer attention. Never push expecting "CI will tell me what's wrong".

Basic CI = lint + tests + build. Scope each to what the branch changed — run the checks for the layers/languages you touched, and skip the ones your change cannot affect (no builds/ file or copied file structure touched → no image rebuild; a Go-only change → no pnpm tests).

# 1. LINT — pnpm scripts (lint/format/generate are NOT a-novel CLI verbs):
pnpm lint:go            # Go (golangci-lint); pnpm lint:proto for .proto, pnpm lint for JS/TS

# 2. TESTS — a-novel CLI, narrowest target that covers the branch's layer
#    (see implement-feature for the layer-to-target mapping):
a-novel test --type=go -y       # Go internal + pkg/go
a-novel test --type=pnpm -y     # pkg/js
a-novel test -y                 # everything (final pre-push validation)

# 3. BUILD — a-novel CLI, only the artifact kinds your change can break:
a-novel build --type=go -y      # Go binaries
a-novel build --type=pnpm -y    # pnpm build
a-novel build --type=podman -y  # images — only if you touched builds/ or what they copy

Lint is not formatting. gofmt / gofumpt / gci (and pnpm format:go) only check formatting — they do not run the linters CI enforces (goconst, usestdlibvars, errcheck, gocritic, …). A format-clean diff can still fail the lint-go check, so run the linter, not just the formatter. Where a repo exposes no local Go-lint runner (no pnpm lint:go script), invoke golangci-lint directly from the module directory:

go tool -modfile=golangci-lint.mod golangci-lint run ./...

That form resolves the version the repo pins, so local and CI run the identical linter. Pulling @latest instead invites a disagreement that is pure version drift.

If lint, tests, or build fail locally, CI will fail too. Fix before pushing.

1.5 Generated files are in sync

If the branch touches .proto files or Go interfaces that have mocks:

pnpm generate:go
git status --porcelain

Any newly-modified files under internal/handlers/protogen/, internal/handlers/mocks/, or internal/core/mocks/ belong with the source change that caused them. Before the branch's first push, amend them into the relevant commit. Once pushed, do not rewrite published history — add a follow-up chore(gen): ... commit instead (per monitor-ci). CI's generated-go job fails when these are stale.

---

Phase 2: Push the Branch

2.1 First push — set upstream

git push -u origin $(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)

-u sets the upstream so later git push / git pull need no arguments.

2.2 Subsequent push

git push

If the branch has been rebased (e.g., during backtracking — see implement-feature Phase 4), force-push with lease to avoid clobbering anyone else's work:

git push --force-with-lease

Never use plain --force. Never force-push to master or main.

2.3 Stacked branches

If this branch depends on another open PR (e.g., feat/core/jwk-revoke depends on feat/dao/jwk-revoke), the base of the PR must be the parent branch, not master. Push the parent first and make sure its PR is open.

---

Phase 3: Decide PR Status (Ready vs. Draft)

Ready for review is the default. Draft is the narrow exception, only for a reason below. Finished work with passing tests and a green tree is review-ready — open it ready. Do not default to draft "to be safe": a draft withholds the PR from the reviewer, and leaving review-ready work in draft is exactly the failure this phase exists to prevent.

Open as draft only when one of these genuinely holds:

• The developer explicitly said "draft" or "WIP"
• The branch is a non-tip link in a stack still being built — only the tip is review-ready
• The branch intentionally omits tests, docs, or a related layer landing in a later PR
• The developer wants early directional feedback before a full review

If none of these hold, open ready for review. And a draft is not a resting state — it is a standing claim that one of the reasons above still applies. It is something you own and must clear, never something you leave behind. The moment the claim stops being true, flip it to ready (Phase 6).

gh pr create --draft ...   # draft
gh pr create ...           # ready for review

---

Phase 4: Check for Existing PR

Before creating a new PR, check whether one already exists for this branch:

gh pr view --json number,state,url 2>/dev/null

• If it returns a PR in OPEN state → do not create a new one. Update it instead (see Phase 6).
• If it returns a PR in CLOSED or MERGED state → the branch was reused. Surface this to the user before doing anything else; they probably want a new branch.
• If the command exits non-zero ("no pull requests found") → proceed to Phase 5.

---

Phase 5: Create the PR

5.0 PR authoring runs as the operator — the bot can only comment

gh pr create (and every gh pr edit / gh pr ready in this skill) runs with the plain gh credential, the operator's user token. The operator authors the PR, so the auto-assign-author workflow can assign them and CODEOWNERS routing works.

Authoring a PR as the bot is impossible by construction. There is no local bot token, and the only bot entry point — a-novel core bot-comment <org> <repo> <number> --body … — does one thing: trigger the centralized dispatcher workflow, which posts a comment. So pr create|edit|ready|merge|close are always operator actions; commenting (top-level PR/issue comments and review-thread replies in resolve-pr-feedback) is the only thing that attributes to <app-slug>[bot].

If a gh pr create/edit/ready call fails with an auth/permission error, surface it to the user — there is no bot fallback to route around it.

5.1 Choose the base branch

• Default: master
• Stacked: the parent feature branch (e.g., feat/dao/jwk-revoke)

Pass the base explicitly with --base when it is not master:

gh pr create --base feat/dao/jwk-revoke ...

5.2 Title

The title is a Conventional-Commits line matching the primary commit on the branch. Under 70 characters. No period.

feat(dao): add soft-delete repository for key revocation

With multiple commits touching one scope, use the scope that best describes the branch's goal. When the commits are genuinely cross-cutting (rename across layers), omit the scope.

5.3 Body

Use this template, passed via HEREDOC to preserve formatting. Skip sections that do not apply — do not write "no changes" placeholders.

gh pr create --title "feat(dao): add soft-delete repository for key revocation" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
## Summary

- Adds `PgJwkRevoke` DAO for marking keys as revoked.
- Returns `ErrJwkRevokeNotFound` when the target is already revoked or expired.

## Layers changed

- **DAO**: new `pg.jwkRevoke.go` + test; sentinel error added.

## Breaking changes

None.

## Test plan

- [x] `a-novel test --type=go -y` passes
- [ ] CI green
EOF
)"

Rules:

• Summary is 1–3 bullets describing what changed and why. Readers see the diff; they need the intent.
• Linked issues — close a planning issue with the FULL cross-repo ref. A PR implementing a planning issue must close it in the body so merging advances the board. Planning issues (Epic / Feature / Task) live in the org .github repos (a-novel-kit/.github, a-novel/.github), so from another repo a bare Closes #<n> resolves to this repo and links nothing — the issue then freezes on the board (a Feature stuck at Backlog though its PR merged). Use Closes a-novel-kit/.github#<n> (or a-novel/.github#<n>): only that form lands in the PR's closingIssuesReferences, the sole signal derive-status reads to move the issue's board Status. A Task filed in this same repo keeps the bare Closes #<n>.
• Layers changed lists only the layers actually touched. Omit the section entirely if only one layer is affected and the title already conveys it.
• Breaking changes is either None. or an itemized list with migration steps. Never leave it "TBD" or blank — reviewers should not have to hunt.
• Test plan is a checklist. Check the boxes you have already verified locally; leave CI green unchecked (monitor-ci will mark it).

Writing style — rationale-dense, zero filler. The body's job is what the diff cannot say: why the change, what tradeoff was taken, what a reviewer should scrutinize. Never narrate the diff — file lists, mechanical renames, and "updated X to Y" bullets restate what review tooling already shows. Exhaustive on decisions, silent on mechanics. The same bar applies to PR thread comments (resolve-pr-feedback), where prose may lean more technical.

5.4 Do NOT pass these flags

• --assignee / --reviewer — the auto-assign-author workflow handles assignees; the repo decides reviewers via its CODEOWNERS file (at repo root) or team routing. Manual assignment duplicates or conflicts with that automation, so set reviewers only when the user asks for a specific person.
• --label — downstream automation derives labels from the title's Conventional-Commits type. Add one manually only when the user requests it.
• --milestone / project board / Priority / Size / tracking labels — not left to humans: a ready PR mirrors the milestone, project board, its board fields (Priority, Size), and labels of the issue it closes. See Tracking metadata.

5.5 Tracking metadata — match the linked issue

A PR that is ready for review should be as trackable as the planning issue it closes: add it to the org "Tasks" board and give it the same milestone, the same board fields (Priority, Size), and the relevant tracking labels as that issue — so a glance at the board shows the work whether you look at the issue or its PR. A draft skips this; apply it when opening ready, or at the draft → ready flip (Phase 6).

gh pr edit <n> --repo <org>/<repo> --add-label <label> --milestone "<milestone-title>"
gh project item-add <project-number> --owner <org> --url <pr-url>
# then mirror the issue's Priority and Size (single-select board fields — discover ids with
# `gh project field-list <num> --owner <org>`):
gh project item-edit --id <pr-item-id> --project-id <proj-id> --field-id <priority-field> --single-select-option-id <opt>
gh project item-edit --id <pr-item-id> --project-id <proj-id> --field-id <size-field>     --single-select-option-id <opt>

This is tracking metadata mirroring the issue — distinct from the type label automation derives from the title, and from assignee/reviewer (still automation's job, see 5.4).

5.6 Capture the PR URL

gh pr create prints the PR URL on success. Surface it in the final message so the user can jump to it.

---

Phase 6: Updating an Existing PR

When a PR is already open for this branch and you need to change its metadata (not code):

# Change the title
gh pr edit --title "feat(dao): add revoke repository with soft-delete"

# Replace the body (use HEREDOC as in Phase 5.3)
gh pr edit --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
...
EOF
)"

# Flip from draft to ready — then apply tracking metadata (5.5): board + milestone + labels
gh pr ready

# Flip from ready back to draft
gh pr ready --undo

When the change is code, push new commits instead — the PR updates automatically. Never close and re-open a PR to change its code; that loses review comments and CI history.

6.1 Flip a draft to ready the moment it qualifies (mandatory)

A draft exists for a Phase 3 reason. Every time you push to a draft PR, re-check whether that reason still holds — status is not decided once at creation and forgotten. When the latest work makes the branch review-ready — the stacked parent merged, the omitted tests/docs/layer landed, the requested directional feedback incorporated, the WIP finished — flip it in the same turn:

gh pr ready   # then apply Phase 5.5 tracking metadata: board + milestone + labels

Never end a turn with review-ready work sitting in a draft PR. If the branch is done and green and no Phase 3 reason still applies, the PR is ready — say so and run gh pr ready. Silently leaving it draft withholds it from the reviewer and stalls the task; waiting for the user to say "flip it" is the failure, not the courtesy.

---

Phase 7: Hand-Off to monitor-ci (mandatory — gates task completion)

After gh pr create or git push succeeds, CI starts. Opening the PR does not finish the task. Invoke monitor-ci and follow it to a terminal state. The task is complete only once you have reported one of:

• CI green — every gating check completed + success, reported to the user, OR
• A blocked/escalated state — monitor-ci's retry budget exhausted or an escalate condition hit, with the failing job(s), root-cause hypothesis, and what was tried surfaced to the user (per monitor-ci Phase 4).

Never end the turn at "PR opened, CI running" — that leaves the result unverified. Carry the CI watch to a reported conclusion before closing out.

While CI runs, use the wait windows for a self-review of the branch's diff (see monitor-ci Phase 1.2). Surface anything it turns up alongside the CI result.

Do not merge — merges are a developer decision unless explicitly delegated.

---

Phase 8: Close With a Session Recap Table (mandatory)

Whenever you finish a stretch of code or issue work, end your reply with a recap table so the operator can jump straight to whatever needs their attention. This is not optional and not limited to what changed since the last prompt: list every item from this whole session that still needs attention — PRs awaiting review or merge, issues to act on, branches pushed, CI still running — even ones you reported turns ago, until they are actually resolved.

Each row's identifier is an inline markdown link to the PR or issue, so the target is one click away. A minimal shape:

| Item                                    | State              | Needs                     |
| --------------------------------------- | ------------------ | ------------------------- |
| [#321](https://github.com/…/321)        | Draft PR, CI green | Your review → mark ready  |
| [.github#432](https://github.com/…/432) | Task, blocked      | Decide ownership boundary |

Drop the table only when the turn touched no code or issues at all (a pure question). If nothing is outstanding, say so in one line instead of an empty table. This rule is session-global — its authoritative statement lives in memory (session-recap-table) so it fires even on turns where this skill never loads (e.g. issue-only work under triage-issues).

---

Common Mistakes

• Asking permission to push a branch or open a PR. Neither ever needs it — do both once a branch has a commit (open a draft if not review-ready). The only push that needs consent is to master/main.
• Sitting on committed-but-unpushed work. Committed and not pushed is one crashed session from gone. Push and open a (draft) PR so it is tracked.
• Ending a code/issue turn without the recap table. Close with the Phase 8 table linking everything still outstanding this session.
• Trying to author a PR as the bot. There is no bot path — a-novel core bot-comment only posts comments (5.0).
• Treating "PR opened" as task-done. Carry monitor-ci through to CI green or an escalated/blocked state (Phase 7).
• Pushing before basic CI passes locally. Run lint + tests + build first, scoped to what you changed; the formatter is not the linter (1.4).
• Opening a PR from master. Branch first, then PR.
• Closing and re-creating a PR to "fix" the title. Use gh pr edit --title instead.
• Manual reviewer/assignee flags. Automation handles these (5.4); tracking metadata is the exception a ready PR carries (5.5).
• --force without --lease. Always --force-with-lease after a rebase.
• Missing BREAKING CHANGE: footer. If any commit on the branch is breaking, the PR body's Breaking Changes section must list it. Mismatches between commits and PR body are bugs — readers trust the body.
• Bare Closes #<n> for a planning issue in a .github repo. It links nothing, so the issue freezes on the board. Use Closes a-novel-kit/.github#<n> (5.3).
• PR title that does not match the primary commit scope. If the branch is feat/dao/*, the PR title scope should be dao, not services.
• Linking the wrong base branch on a stacked PR. If the parent is already merged, rebase onto master and change the base to master before pushing.

---

Quick Reference

Situation	Command
Pre-flight: lint (scoped)	pnpm lint:go / go tool -modfile=golangci-lint.mod golangci-lint run ./...
Pre-flight: tests (scoped)	a-novel test --type=go -y / a-novel test -y
Pre-flight: build (scoped)	a-novel build --type=go -y (--type= matches changes)
First push	git push -u origin <branch>
Push after rebase	git push --force-with-lease
Check for existing PR	gh pr view --json number,state,url
Create ready PR	gh pr create --title "..." --body "$(cat <<'EOF' ... )"
Create draft PR	gh pr create --draft --title ...
Close a cross-repo planning issue	PR body: Closes a-novel-kit/.github#<n> (see 5.3)
Stacked PR (base is another branch)	gh pr create --base feat/<parent-area>/... ...
Update title on existing PR	gh pr edit --title "..."
Flip draft → ready	gh pr ready
Flip ready → draft	gh pr ready --undo