Completes the quality pass across all 10 skills: - incident-postmortem: fix opening paragraph (blameless framing emphasis), add root cause circular check + action item specificity quality checks - pr-description-writer: add title format quality check, fix risk-appropriate reviewer guidance quality check - system-design-interview: rewrite architecture diagram instruction (system-specific not generic template), fix capacity estimates to show arithmetic, add trade-offs non-empty check - api-docs-writer: add API Version + Rate Limits inputs, clarify output format options, add error codes completeness check, fix code examples check - architecture-decision-record: add ADR Number + Team Context inputs, fix Implementation Notes + Review Date guidance, fix quality checks for context specificity and rejected option reasoning Both skills/ and plugins/pm-engineering/skills/ copies updated. https://claude.ai/code/session_01C3HwChrccJd145vJ6Z7ajF
3.7 KiB
name, description
| name | description |
|---|---|
| pr-description-writer | Write a clear, structured pull request description from a git diff, branch summary, or commit list. Use when asked to write a PR description, draft a pull request, or document code changes. Produces a description with summary, motivation, changes made, testing steps, and reviewer guidance. |
PR Description Writer Skill
Writes structured, reviewer-friendly pull request descriptions from a diff, commit list, or informal notes. Covers the what, why, and how-to-review so reviewers can start immediately.
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
- What changed (paste a git diff,
git log --oneline, or describe the changes in plain English) - Why it was changed (the problem being solved or feature being added)
- How to test it (any specific steps a reviewer needs to verify it works)
- Risk level (low / medium / high — affects how much reviewer guidance to include)
- PR type (feature / bug fix / refactor / dependency upgrade / config change / hotfix)
- Target branch (e.g. main / develop / release/2.4 — affects risk framing and reviewer guidance)
- Linked issue or ticket (e.g. JIRA-1234, GitHub #567 — or "none")
Output Format
Title
A clear, imperative-mood title under 72 characters:
[type]: [concise description of what changed]
Examples:
feat: add rate limiting to the public APIfix: resolve race condition in session expiryrefactor: extract payment logic into PaymentService
Summary
2–3 sentences covering:
- What this PR does (the change)
- Why it was needed (the problem or goal)
- The approach taken (at a high level)
Changes Made
Bullet list of specific changes — one bullet per logical change, not per file:
- Added [X] to handle [Y]
- Refactored [A] to reduce [B]
- Removed [C] as it was replaced by [D]
- Updated [E] to fix [F]
Screenshots / Demo
[If UI change: include before/after screenshots or a screen recording] [If API change: include example request/response] [If no visual change and no API contract change: omit this section entirely — do not leave it as a placeholder]
How to Test
Step-by-step instructions a reviewer can follow:
- [Setup step if needed]
- [Action to take]
- [What to verify]
- [Edge case to check]
Include any specific commands, test data, or environment flags needed.
Testing Checklist
- Unit tests added/updated
- Integration tests added/updated
- Edge cases covered
- Manual testing completed
- No regressions in existing tests
Reviewer Notes
Flag anything that warrants extra attention:
- Areas of uncertainty where a second opinion is welcome
- Deliberate trade-offs made (and why)
- Out-of-scope items noticed but not addressed
- Dependencies on other PRs (link them)
Related
- Closes #[issue number] (if applicable)
- Related to #[PR/issue number]
Quality Checks
- Title is imperative mood and under 72 characters
- Summary explains what AND why (not just what)
- Changes list describes logical changes (not file-by-file changes)
- Title starts with a valid type prefix (feat / fix / refactor / chore / deps / config / hotfix) and is under 72 characters
- Testing steps are reproducible by someone unfamiliar with the code
- For high-risk PRs, Reviewer Notes flags at least one specific area of concern or deliberate trade-off; for low-risk PRs, Reviewer Notes is either omitted or kept to one line
Usage Examples
- "Write a PR description for these changes" + [paste diff or description]
- "Draft a pull request for [feature]"
- "I need a PR description — here's what I changed"
- "Summarise these commits into a PR description"
- "Write the PR body for this branch"