post-pr-for-review

name	post-pr-for-review
description	Generates a contextual Slack message for posting a PR to the team's review channel. Pulls context from PR diff, Linear ticket, session conversation, and related PRs to write a concise, informative review request. Use when sharing a PR for review, posting to the review channel, or preparing a review request message.
argument-hint	<PR number or URL> [repo-name]
disable-model-invocation	true
allowed-tools	["Bash","Read","Glob","Grep","AskUserQuestion","mcp__claude_ai_Linear__get_issue","mcp__claude_ai_Linear__list_issues","mcp__claude_ai_Linear__list_comments"]

Post PR for Review

Generate a contextual Slack message for posting a PR to the team's review channel.

Preferences

Read ~/.claude/skills/post-pr-for-review/preferences.md using the Read tool. If not found, no preferences are set — using defaults.

Context

On startup, use Bash to detect: current git branch, repo name, org (gh repo view --json owner -q .owner.login), and your open PRs (gh pr list --author @me --state open --limit 5). Skip any that fail.

Command Routing

Check $ARGUMENTS:

• help → display help then stop
• config → interactive setup then stop
• reset → delete preferences, confirm, stop
• anything else → generate the Slack message

Help

If $ARGUMENTS is "help" (case-insensitive), display:

Post PR for Review

Generate a Slack message for posting a PR to the team's review channel.

Usage:
  /post-pr-for-review 393                    PR in current repo
  /post-pr-for-review 393 ai-assemble        PR in specific repo
  /post-pr-for-review <github-url>           PR from full URL
  /post-pr-for-review config                 Configure defaults
  /post-pr-for-review reset                  Clear preferences
  /post-pr-for-review help                   Show this help

Context sources:
  PR          Title, description, diff, files changed
  Linear      Linked ticket objective, project, status
  Session     Current conversation, decisions made, files discussed
  Related     Other open PRs in the same project/initiative

Configurable:
  Detail level    Minimal (1 line) | Standard (1-3 lines) | Detailed (with context)
  Tone            Neutral | Conversational
  Extras          Reviewer tags, related PRs, testing notes, side effects

Then stop.

Config

If $ARGUMENTS is "config" or "configure" (case-insensitive), use AskUserQuestion:

Q1 — "Default detail level?" (multiSelect: false)

• Standard (1-3 sentences) (Recommended)
• Minimal (1 sentence)
• Detailed (with testing notes, side effects, related PRs)

Q2 — "Default tone?" (multiSelect: false)

• Conversational (Recommended) — natural, like talking to a teammate
• Neutral — factual, no personality

Q3 — "What to include by default?" (multiSelect: true)

• Linear ticket link (Recommended)
• Related/dependent PRs
• Reviewer tags
• Testing notes
• Side effects / migration notes

Q4 — "Default GitHub org?" (multiSelect: false)

• A-Teams-Network (Recommended)
• Detect from git remote
• Always ask

Save to ~/.claude/skills/post-pr-for-review/preferences.md.

Then stop.

Reset

If $ARGUMENTS is "reset" (case-insensitive), delete ~/.claude/skills/post-pr-for-review/preferences.md, confirm deletion, stop.

Default

If $ARGUMENTS is anything else, proceed below.

Step 1: Parse Input

Extract from $ARGUMENTS:

• PR number: Numeric ID
• Repository: Second argument, URL, or detect from current git remote

If only a number is given, detect the repo from gh repo view --json nameWithOwner. If a full GitHub URL, parse org/repo/number from it. If no number given but current branch has an open PR, use that PR automatically.

Step 2: Gather Context (parallel where possible)

PR Context

gh pr view <number> --repo <org/repo> --json title,body,headRefName,baseRefName,url,files,commits,reviewRequests,labels

Linear Context

Extract issue ID from branch name (pattern: ais-NNN or AIS-NNN). If found, fetch via get_issue with identifier AIS-NNN:

• Issue title and objective
• Project name
• Current status
• Related/blocking issues

Session Context

Review the current conversation for:

• What was discussed about this PR or related work
• Decisions made, trade-offs considered
• Side effects or caveats mentioned
• Testing done or testing notes
• Other PRs that depend on or relate to this one

Related PRs

If the Linear ticket has related issues, check if any have open PRs:

gh pr list --state open --limit 10 --json number,title,headRefName,url

Filter for PRs whose branch contains a related ticket ID.

Step 3: Understand the Changes

Build understanding from richest to thinnest source:

1. Session context — if we discussed this PR in the current conversation, use that understanding first (it's the most accurate)
2. PR description — if it has a good summary, use it
3. Linear ticket — objective and deliverables
4. Diff — if description is thin and no session context, scan the diff:

   gh pr diff <number> --repo <org/repo> | head -200
   

5. Files changed — infer scope from file paths (e.g., "touches bot tools", "updates service layer")

Step 4: Write the Slack Message

Apply preferences (or defaults: standard detail, conversational tone).

Format by Detail Level

Minimal:

[1 sentence: what changed]
<PR URL>

Standard (default):

[1-3 sentences: what changed, why it matters, notable detail]
<PR URL>

Detailed:

[1-3 sentences: what changed, why it matters]

[Optional: side effects, testing notes, or reviewer guidance — 1-2 lines]
[Optional: Related: PR #NNN (description)]
[Optional: Linear: AIS-NNN link]

<PR URL>

Writing Rules

• Lead with the what, not the ticket ID or PR number
• Use plain language — describe the change as you'd explain it to a teammate
• Mention business impact or user-facing effect when relevant
• Include technical details only if they help reviewers understand scope or risk
• If there are specific reviewers to tag (from preferences or PR reviewRequests), add @name naturally
• End with the bare PR URL (Slack will unfurl it)
• Plain text only — no markdown headers, bold, or bullet points (Slack mrkdwn is OK: *bold*, _italic_, <url|text>)
• No emoji unless preferences say otherwise

Contextual Extras (when preferences enable them)

Related PRs: If there are dependent PRs or PRs in the same project, mention them:

This is the second of two PRs — first one is #393 (shared service layer).

Testing notes: If session context includes testing information:

Checked Vercel logs on pilot, looks good. Full e2e testing once in prod.

Side effects: If session context mentions caveats:

Note: artifacts created before this week show null for meeting title/date — only affects old data.

Reviewer guidance: If specific reviewers are relevant:

@Anibal — would appreciate a look at the bot tool changes, no functional changes to responses.

Good Examples

Deprecates the meetings Supabase table — all meeting data now comes from artifacts API via a shared service layer. Zero blob fetches for meeting insights.
https://github.com/A-Teams-Network/ai-assemble/pull/393

Refactors Teams bot MPR tools to use the shared meetings service. Removes raw fetch() with hardcoded API keys, reads metadata from artifact instead of blob. Backward compatible — tool input/output shapes unchanged.
https://github.com/A-Teams-Network/ai-assemble/pull/395

Adds fast signals metrics (impressions, CPM, clicks) via Clickhouse integration.
https://github.com/A-Teams-Network/ai-assemble/pull/307

Detailed example:

Deprecates the meetings Supabase table — all meeting data now comes from artifacts API via a shared service layer. Zero blob fetches for meeting insights.

Builds on Dade's artifact metadata PR (#318). Artifacts before that PR show null for title/date — low priority, can backfill.
Related: #395 (Teams bot refactor using same service layer)
Linear: https://linear.app/ateam-ai/issue/AIS-921

https://github.com/A-Teams-Network/ai-assemble/pull/393

Bad Examples (avoid these)

# PR Review Request
**Ticket:** AIS-921
**Summary:** This PR updates the meeting insights handler...

Too formatted, leads with ticket ID, uses markdown headers.

Please review this PR when you get a chance. It makes some changes to the meetings code.

Too vague, no useful information.

Step 5: Output

Display the generated message in a copyable code block:

[generated message here]

Then use AskUserQuestion to offer:

• "Looks good" — done
• "Shorter" — trim to minimal (1 sentence + URL)
• "More detail" — expand with testing notes, side effects, related PRs
• "Add reviewer tags" — ask who to tag
• "Regenerate" — rewrite with different angle

If the user picks "Looks good", confirm and stop. For other options, apply the adjustment, show the updated message, and offer the same choices again.