This skill should be used when the user asks to "create a PR", "open a pull request", "ship it", "submit for review", "push and create PR", or wants to finalize changes into a pull request with Linear integration, Copilot review, and Slack notification.
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
This skill should be used when the user asks to "create a PR", "open a pull request", "ship it", "submit for review", "push and create PR", or wants to finalize changes into a pull request with Linear integration, Copilot review, and Slack notification.
Create PR Workflow
Follow these steps in order. If a step fails, inform the user and stop unless noted otherwise.
Step 1: Branch and Base Branch Detection
Detect the current branch and the repository's default base branch:
git branch --show-current
git remote show origin 2>/dev/null | sed -n 's/.*HEAD branch: //p'
If the base branch detection fails, fall back to checking which of main or master exists on the remote.
If currently on the base branch, ask the user what this PR is about and which Linear ticket it relates to (or none). Then create a branch named {git-username}/{TICKET-ID}-short-description if a ticket is provided (e.g., dgang/CPDO-123-add-auth-flow), or {git-username}/short-description if no ticket (e.g., dgang/add-auth-flow). Remember the ticket for Step 4.
Step 2: Rebase on Latest Base Branch
Before rebasing, check for uncommitted changes using git status --porcelain.
If the working tree is dirty, stash before rebasing:
If the working tree is clean, skip stashing entirely.
Then fetch and rebase:
git fetch origin
git rebase origin/{base-branch}
If rebase conflicts occur, stop immediately. Inform the user and let them resolve manually. Do NOT force-resolve or abort the rebase.
After a successful rebase, pop the stash only if you stashed earlier. If you did not stash, do NOT run git stash pop — it could apply an unrelated stash. If stash pop produces conflicts, stop and inform the user.
Step 3: Squash and Clean Up Commits
Check how many commits exist on the branch ahead of the base branch:
git log origin/{base-branch}..HEAD --oneline
If 0 commits: Skip this step (nothing to squash).
If 1 commit: Skip this step (nothing to squash). The existing commit message will be reviewed during Step 6 (Stage and Commit) if needed.
If 2+ commits: Analyze all commit messages and the combined diff to decide how to proceed.
Classifying commits
Read all commit messages and the full diff (git diff origin/{base-branch}..HEAD). Classify each commit message as either meaningful or noise.
Noise commits are those that don't describe a distinct, intentional unit of work. Examples:
Generic fixups: fix, fixes, fix typo, small fix, quick fix
Work-in-progress: wip, continue, continue work, more work, progress
Gibberish or placeholders: aaa, bbb, ccc, kuku, test, asdf, tmp
Iteration markers: round, round 2, another round, try again, retry
Vague one-worders: update, changes, stuff, done, ok
Repeated or near-duplicate messages of another commit with the same or overlapping changes (if multiple commits share the same meaningful message but each introduces different, non-overlapping work, treat them as meaningful)
Meaningful commits describe a distinct piece of work that someone would reasonably want as a separate commit in the final repo. Examples:
feat: add claude.md configuration
fix: handle null pointer in auth middleware
refactor: extract validation into shared module
add terraform handling of cloudflare rate limit
Decision logic
Auto-squash (no user prompt): If there is only one meaningful commit message (or zero — all noise), squash everything into a single commit. Craft the commit message by analyzing the full diff and incorporating any useful context from the meaningful message. Briefly inform the user what you did (e.g., "Squashed 5 commits into one").
Ask the user: If there are 2+ semantically distinct meaningful commits, present them to the user and ask:
Option A: Squash all into one commit — combine everything into a single well-crafted commit message.
Option B: Keep separate — consolidate noise into their nearest meaningful commit, resulting in N clean commits.
How to squash
Before rewriting any history, ensure the working tree is clean. If there are uncommitted changes (e.g., from a stash pop in Step 2), stash them first:
If anything goes wrong during the rewrite, the backup branch preserves the original state. After your Step 7 push succeeds, clean up the backup branch: git branch -D {backup-branch-name}.
For full squash (all into one commit):
git reset --soft origin/{base-branch}
git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
feat: short summary of the change
Detailed body explaining what changed and why.
CPDO-123
EOF
)"
For partial consolidation (keep N meaningful commits):
Use a non-interactive, cherry-pick-based approach (since this skill is executed by an AI agent, not a human with an editor):
Identify the N meaningful commits and group surrounding noise commits with their nearest meaningful commit. Record these as ordered groups of SHAs.
The result should be N clean commits, each with a good message, with all noise commits absorbed into the meaningful commit they followed.
Fallback: If cherry-pick produces conflicts that cannot be resolved automatically (e.g., heavily interleaved changes across the same files), abort the replay, switch back to the original branch, and fall back to a full squash into one commit. Inform the user why.
git cherry-pick --abort
git checkout {current-branch}
git reset --hard {backup-branch-name} # restore from the exact backup branch created earlier
git branch -D {current-branch}-replay # clean up failed replay
After any successful rewrite (squash or consolidation), pop the pre-squash stash if one was created. If there was no stash, do not pop.
Crafting the squashed message
Use conventional commits format (feat:, fix:, chore:, refactor:, docs:, test:)
Base the message on the actual diff, not just the old commit messages
Incorporate substance from any meaningful commit messages
If a Linear ticket ID is visible in the branch name (e.g., CPDO-123), include it on its own line at the end of the commit message body (matching the format in Step 6). Otherwise, if a ticket is detected later (Step 4), amend the commit to add it in the same format
The message should read as if a thoughtful developer wrote it in one shot
Step 4: Linear Ticket Detection
Determine the associated Linear ticket:
Check the branch name for a pattern matching [A-Z]+-\d+ (e.g., CPDO-123, MLPD-456).
If not found in the branch name, check recent commit messages for the same pattern.
If still not found, ask the user which Linear ticket this relates to, or whether there is none.
If a ticket ID is found, fetch its details using mcp__linear__get_issue to get the title and context. This context informs the PR title, body, and commit message.
Step 5: Check for Changes
Check for uncommitted changes and unpushed commits:
git status
git diff HEAD
git log origin/{base-branch}..HEAD --oneline
If there are no uncommitted changes AND git log origin/{base-branch}..HEAD shows no commits, inform the user there is nothing to submit and stop.
If git log origin/{base-branch}..HEAD shows at least one commit and there are no additional uncommitted changes, skip Step 6 and proceed directly to Step 7 (push).
Step 6: Stage and Commit
This step handles any remaining uncommitted changes that were not already included in the squash (Step 3).
If Step 3 already produced a clean squashed commit and there are no additional changes, skip this step.
Otherwise, review changes with git status and git diff HEAD.
Compose a commit message using conventional commits format:
feat: — new feature or capability
fix: — bug fix
chore: — maintenance, config, dependency updates
refactor: — code restructuring without behavior change
docs: — documentation only
test: — adding or updating tests
If a Linear ticket is associated, include the ticket ID on its own line at the end of the commit message body. Example:
feat: add OAuth2 authentication flow
Implement login with JWT token refresh and session management.
CPDO-123
Stage relevant files. Avoid staging .env, credentials, secrets, or large binaries. Create the commit.
Note: Only if Step 3 resulted in a single squashed commit (not if it intentionally preserved multiple meaningful commits): if there are now two commits on the branch (the squashed one + this new one) and the new changes are part of the same logical unit of work, amend the previous commit instead of creating a separate one.
Step 7: Push and Create PR
Push the branch. If Step 3 rewrote commit history (squash or consolidation), a force push is required. Always use --force-with-lease to avoid overwriting someone else's work on the same branch:
git push -u origin {branch-name} # if no history rewrite
git push --force-with-lease -u origin {branch-name} # if Step 3 rewrote history
Construct the PR title: use the conventional commit subject line, optionally prefixed with the ticket ID (e.g., CPDO-123: feat: add OAuth2 authentication flow).
Create the PR with gh pr create. Use this body template:
## Summary
- [1-3 bullet points describing what changed and why]
## Linear Ticket
[TICKET-ID]({ticket URL from mcp__linear__get_issue}) — {ticket title}
## Test Plan
- [ ] [Steps to verify the changes work correctly]
If no Linear ticket, omit the Linear Ticket section.
Step 8: Copilot Review (Optional Iterative Loop)
Ask the user: "Do you want to run the Copilot review loop?"
If no: request a single Copilot review (see below) and continue to Step 9.
If yes: run the iterative review loop described below.
Requesting a Copilot review
Extract the owner, repo, and PR number. Then request a review using the GitHub API directly:
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/requested_reviewers \
-f "reviewers[]=copilot-pull-request-reviewer[bot]"
IMPORTANT: The reviewer name MUST be exactly copilot-pull-request-reviewer[bot] with the [bot] suffix. Do NOT use gh pr edit --add-reviewer — it will silently fail for bot accounts.
If this request fails, warn the user but continue with the remaining steps.
Iterative review loop
Repeat the following cycle until diminishing returns are reached:
1. Request Copilot review using the API call above.
2. Wait for results. Before polling, capture the current commit SHA:
git rev-parse HEAD
Then poll for a review that matches this exact commit SHA:
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/reviews \
--jq '[.[] | select(.user.login=="copilot-pull-request-reviewer[bot]" and .commit_id=="{current_sha}") | {id: .id, commit: .commit_id}] | sort_by(.id) | last'
Poll every 60 seconds, up to 10 attempts (~10 minutes total). If no review appears after all attempts, inform the user "Copilot didn't respond — continuing without it" and proceed to Step 9.
Once a review appears for the current commit SHA, extract the review ID (a number) and fetch its comments:
Replace 1234567890 with the actual numeric review ID from the previous query.
3. Analyze and classify each comment. For each comment, decide:
Accept: the comment identifies a real issue (incorrect behavior, misleading wording, missing edge case, actual bug). Worth fixing.
Skip: the comment is a nitpick, repeats a previously addressed concern, suggests over-engineering, or doesn't apply (e.g., suggesting interactive tools for an AI agent, adding error handling the AI naturally handles).
4. Present to the user. Show a numbered summary of all comments with your recommendation (accept/skip) and a brief explanation for each. Ask the user to confirm or override.
5. Apply accepted fixes. Edit the files, then commit and push:
If the branch has a single commit (from a full squash), amend it (git commit --amend --no-edit) and force push with --force-with-lease.
If the branch has multiple meaningful commits (from partial consolidation or no squash), amend only HEAD or create a small fix commit, and push normally.
6. Assess diminishing returns. After each round, evaluate whether to continue:
Continue if the round produced 2+ accepted fixes that improved the PR.
Stop if most comments were skipped, comments are repeating from prior rounds, or the fixes are purely cosmetic. Inform the user: "Copilot's feedback is getting repetitive — I think we're good."
When the loop ends (either by diminishing returns or user decision), proceed to Step 9.
Step 9: Comment on Linear Ticket
If a Linear ticket was identified, post a comment on it using mcp__linear__create_comment with:
The PR title
The PR URL
A one-line summary of the changes
Step 10: Update Linear Ticket Status
Ask the user if they want to move the Linear ticket status from "In Progress" to "In Review".
If yes:
Use mcp__linear__list_issue_statuses to find the correct "In Review" status ID for the ticket's team.
Use mcp__linear__update_issue to update the status.
If the user declines or there is no ticket, skip this step.
Step 11: Slack Notification
Ask the user if they want to post a review request to Slack.
Channel selection: Before asking which channel, check if a preferred Slack channel is already saved in your auto memory files for this repo.
If a saved channel is found, use it as the default (confirm with the user: "Posting to #channel — ok?"). If not found, ask which channel to post to, then save the choice to your auto memory for this repo.
Do NOT modify repo files (e.g., CLAUDE.md) to store the channel preference unless the user explicitly asks you to.
Find the channel ID using mcp__plugin_slack_slack__slack_search_channels. IMPORTANT: Always search with channel_types: "public_channel,private_channel" since team channels are often private.
Send a message using mcp__plugin_slack_slack__slack_send_message. IMPORTANT: Do NOT wrap URLs in angle brackets in any form — no <URL|text> and no <URL>. Both trigger broken rendering or "Double-check this link" security warnings for bot-sent messages. Instead, paste URLs as plain text on their own line so Slack auto-unfurls them with a rich preview.
*{PR title}*
{one-line summary}
Already reviewed by Copilot ✅
{PR_URL}
Linear: {TICKET_URL from mcp__linear__get_issue response}
May someone please review it? 🙏
