Pull request creator
A collection of practical AI agent skills for app development and code workflows.
npx -y skills add lteawoo/skills --skill pull-request-creatorAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
- 5 stars5 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Structure reviewable Pull Request descriptions from a set of changes. Use it when you need purpose, change summary, validation, risks, and self-review checkpoints.
SKILL.md
2.9 KB, 644 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Pull Request Creator
Purpose
Create a PR body that helps reviewers understand and review a commit set or diff quickly.
Core Principles
- Lead with why, not what.
- Separate In Scope from Out of Scope.
- Include validation evidence such as commands and results.
- Document risks and rollback strategy.
- Include screenshots or behavioral evidence for UI changes.
- Link related issues using
Closes,Related, orDepends on. - Recommend or assign at least one PR label that matches release categorization rules.
PR Label Rules
Based on .github/release.yml, PR labels determine the release category.
New Features:feat,feature,enhancementBug Fixes:fix,bug,bugfixMaintenance (Chore):chore,dependencies,ci,build,refactor- Unmatched or missing labels:
Other Changes
Operating Rules:
- Recommend or assign at least one category label when creating or updating the PR.
- If the PR includes features, bug fixes, and maintenance work together, choose the representative label based on the primary change.
- Treat missing labels as a release-note quality risk and block the checklist on it.
Required Self-Review Before Opening the PR
- Confirm that the goal is met, including requirements and acceptance criteria.
- Confirm that there is no scope drift.
- Check for security issues, including OWASP-style input validation, auth, sensitive-data exposure, path manipulation, and privilege bypass.
- Confirm adherence to existing conventions such as style, architecture, naming, and commit rules.
Output Format
Title
- Prefer a Conventional Commits style title
- Example:
fix: fix deselection bug in move modal
Summary
- Problem
- Solution
- Expected effect
Related Issues
- Closes #<number>
- Related #<number>
- Depends on #<number>
Changes
- Core changes
- File or module impact scope
Scope
- In Scope
- Out of Scope
Testing and Validation
- Commands run
- Manual validation scenarios
- Result summary (PASS or FAIL)
Risks and Mitigation
- Potential regression points
- Monitoring points
- Rollback method
Review Guide
- Three to five files reviewers should inspect first
- Decision points that still need attention
Checklist
- Goal is met
- No scope drift
- OWASP-oriented security review completed
- Existing conventions confirmed
- Release-category label confirmed (
feat/feature/enhancement,fix/bug/bugfix,chore/dependencies/ci/build/refactor) - Related issue links confirmed (
Closes/Related/Depends on) - Build and tests passed
- Impact scope reviewed
- Docs updated if needed
- Breaking changes explicitly stated
When Information Is Missing
- Draft the PR first.
- Limit follow-up questions to three.