| name | pr-report |
| description | Produce a maintainer-grade PR or contribution report as HTML or Markdown. Use when asked to deeply review a PR, explain a design, compare systems, or prepare a merge recommendation.
|
PR Report Skill
Produce a maintainer-grade review of a PR, branch, or large contribution.
Default posture:
- understand the change before judging it
- explain the system as built, not just the diff
- separate architectural problems from product-scope objections
- make a concrete recommendation, not a vague impression
When to Use
Use this skill when the user asks for things like:
- "review this PR deeply"
- "explain this contribution to me"
- "make me a report or webpage for this PR"
- "compare this design to similar systems"
- "should I merge this?"
Outputs
Common outputs:
- standalone HTML report in
tmp/reports/...
- Markdown report in
report/ or another requested folder
- short maintainer summary in chat
If the user asks for a webpage, build a polished standalone HTML artifact with
clear sections and readable visual hierarchy.
Resources bundled with this skill:
references/style-guide.md for visual direction and report presentation rulesassets/html-report-starter.html for a reusable standalone HTML/CSS starter
Workflow
1. Acquire and frame the target
Work from local code when possible, not just the GitHub PR page.
Gather:
- target branch or worktree
- diff size and changed subsystems
- relevant repo docs, specs, and invariants
- contributor intent if it is documented in PR text or design docs
Start by answering: what is this change trying to become?
2. Build a mental model of the system
Do not stop at file-by-file notes. Reconstruct the design:
- what new runtime or contract exists
- which layers changed: db, shared types, server, UI, CLI, docs
- lifecycle: install, startup, execution, UI, failure, disablement
- trust boundary: what code runs where, under what authority
For large contributions, include a tutorial-style section that teaches the
system from first principles.
3. Review like a maintainer
Findings come first. Order by severity.
Prioritize:
- behavioral regressions
- trust or security gaps
- misleading abstractions
- lifecycle and operational risks
- coupling that will be hard to unwind
- missing tests or unverifiable claims
Always cite concrete file references when possible.
4. Distinguish the objection type
Be explicit about whether a concern is:
- product direction
- architecture
- implementation quality
- rollout strategy
- documentation honesty
Do not hide an architectural objection inside a scope objection.
5. Compare to external precedents when needed
If the contribution introduces a framework or platform concept, compare it to
similar open-source systems.
When comparing:
- prefer official docs or source
- focus on extension boundaries, context passing, trust model, and UI ownership
- extract lessons, not just similarities
Good comparison questions:
- Who owns lifecycle?
- Who owns UI composition?
- Is context explicit or ambient?
- Are plugins trusted code or sandboxed code?
- Are extension points named and typed?
6. Make the recommendation actionable
Do not stop at "merge" or "do not merge."
Choose one:
- merge as-is
- merge after specific redesign
- salvage specific pieces
- keep as design research
If rejecting or narrowing, say what should be kept.
Useful recommendation buckets:
- keep the protocol/type model
- redesign the UI boundary
- narrow the initial surface area
- defer third-party execution
- ship a host-owned extension-point model first
7. Build the artifact
Suggested report structure:
- Executive summary
- What the PR actually adds
- Tutorial: how the system works
- Strengths
- Main findings
- Comparisons
- Recommendation
For HTML reports:
- use intentional typography and color
- make navigation easy for long reports
- favor strong section headings and small reference labels
- avoid generic dashboard styling
Before building from scratch, read references/style-guide.md.
If a fast polished starter is helpful, begin from assets/html-report-starter.html
and replace the placeholder content with the actual report.
8. Verify before handoff
Check:
- artifact path exists
- findings still match the actual code
- any requested forbidden strings are absent from generated output
- if tests were not run, say so explicitly
Review Heuristics
Plugin and platform work
Watch closely for:
- docs claiming sandboxing while runtime executes trusted host processes
- module-global state used to smuggle React context
- hidden dependence on render order
- plugins reaching into host internals instead of using explicit APIs
- "capabilities" that are really policy labels on top of fully trusted code
Good signs
- typed contracts shared across layers
- explicit extension points
- host-owned lifecycle
- honest trust model
- narrow first rollout with room to grow
Final Response
In chat, summarize:
- where the report is
- your overall call
- the top one or two reasons
- whether verification or tests were skipped
Keep the chat summary shorter than the report itself.
