| name | create-pr |
| description | Generate a pull request title and description from the current branch's commits. Produces a concise summary, optional feature highlights, and collapsible technical details. |
Create PR Description
Generate a pull request title and description that's scannable, informative, and has just enough personality to feel human.
Instructions
1. Gather context (do ALL of these)
Run these commands to build a complete picture before writing anything:
git log main..HEAD --oneline --stat
git diff main..HEAD --stat
git diff main..HEAD
If the full diff is too large, diff individual areas (backend routes, frontend, storage, etc.) in batches. You must understand what the code actually does, not just which files were touched.
2. Write the PR file
Write the file to .pr/YYYY-MM-DD.md (using today's date). Create the .pr/ directory if it doesn't exist. If a file for today's date already exists, append a counter: YYYY-MM-DD-2.md, YYYY-MM-DD-3.md, etc.
The structure depends on whether the PR introduces user-facing features or is purely internal (refactors, bug fixes, infra).
When the PR has user-facing features:
# <Title>
<2-3 sentence summary>
### Highlights
- Highlight 1
- Highlight 2
- ...
<details>
<summary>Technical changes</summary>
- Detail 1
- Detail 2
- ...
</details>
When the PR is purely internal (no user-facing features):
# <Title>
<2-3 sentence summary>
<details>
<summary>Technical changes</summary>
- Detail 1
- Detail 2
- ...
</details>
Omit the Highlights section entirely for internal-only PRs — don't force it.
Style Rules
Title
- Imperative mood, start with a verb (Add, Fix, Refactor, etc.)
- Summarize the entire PR scope — not just one commit
Summary
- 2-3 sentences max. This is the elevator pitch, not the full story.
- Open with a touch of personality. One line that makes the reader smile — a wry observation, a lighthearted remark, a playful metaphor. Not forced, just human. Examples of the energy (don't copy these literally, invent your own each time):
- "This one's mostly about cleaning house."
- "Turns out the type checker was right to complain."
- A playful metaphor about what the code was doing wrong
- A wry observation about the state of things before this PR
- Then say what the PR does at a high level. Name the main change areas (new feature, refactor target, bug fixed) but don't enumerate every file. The personality is in how you describe the changes, not in being vague.
- Do not repeat what Highlights or Technical changes already cover. The summary is the "why" and the big picture; details live below.
Highlights (only when applicable)
- One bullet per user-facing feature, behavior change, or notable improvement.
- Write from the user's perspective — what they'll notice, not internal implementation.
- Plain language, no code references. "Schedules now respect your configured timezone" not "
SchedulerService gains a timezone attribute".
- 3-7 bullets is the sweet spot. If you can only think of 1-2, fold them into the summary and skip this section.
Technical changes (inside the accordion)
- One bullet per discrete change. Be specific — name files, classes, functions, patterns.
- Format:
backtick code references for identifiers, plain text for descriptions.
- Every meaningful change in the diff must have a bullet. If a change touches security (CORS, auth, SQL injection), error handling, accessibility, or concurrency, it gets its own bullet — do not bury these.
- Bullets should describe the mechanism, not just the intent. "Race condition in
get_or_create_chat fixed by moving creation inside the lookup session" is good. "Fix database issues" is not.
- Group related changes together (all typing fixes, all security hardening, all API changes, etc.)
General
- No test plan section. Do not include "Test plan" or "Testing".
- No mention of tests. Do not reference test files, test results, or testing.
- No emoji.
- No "Generated by" footer.
