good-pr

name	good-pr
description	Update the title and body of one or more pull requests.

Determining the PR(s)

When this skill is invoked, the PR(s) to update may be specified explicitly, but in the common case, the PR(s) to update will be inferred from the branch / commit that the user is currently working on. For ordinary Git usage (i.e., not Sapling as discussed below), you may have to use a combination of git branch and gh pr view <branch> --repo openai/codex --json number --jq '.number' to determine the PR associated with the current branch / commit.

PR Body Contents

When invoked, use gh to edit the pull request body and title to reflect the contents of the specified PR. Make sure to check the existing pull request body to see if there is key information that should be preserved. For example, NEVER remove an image in the existing pull request body, as the author may have no way to recover it if you remove it.

It is critically important to explain why the change is being made. If the current conversation in which this skill is invoked has discussed the motivation, be sure to capture this in the pull request body.

The body should also explain what changed, but this should appear after the why.

Limit discussion to the net change of the commit. It is generally frowned upon to discuss changes that were attempted but later undone in the course of the development of the pull request. When rewriting the pull request body, you may need to eliminate details such as these when they are no longer appropriate / of interest to future readers.

Avoid references to absolute paths on my local disk. When talking about a path that is within the repository, simply use the repo-relative path.

Do not hard break prose paragraphs in the pull request body. Each paragraph should be written as a single logical line, allowing GitHub to wrap it visually. Keep Markdown lists, tables, and fenced code blocks formatted normally.

How to Test This PR

Include a section that explains how the pull request was tested, and whenever possible, make it useful to a reviewer who wants to exercise the change manually.

Prefer step-by-step actions from a user perspective over broad verification claims. The best test instructions describe the entry point, the concrete user actions, and the expected visible result. For UI, TUI, CLI, plugin, configuration, or workflow changes, include at least one happy-path flow and one focused regression or non-happy-path check when the diff suggests one.

Keep the testing section shaped to the PR. Do not list generic repository checks that CI already covers, e.g., avoid "ran just fmt" or "ran clippy" unless that command is unusually relevant to the behavior being reviewed. It is appropriate to name targeted automated tests that were purposely added or run to verify the new behavior.

When a manual path is not practical, say so briefly and explain the closest useful verification instead. Do not imply that a smoke test was run if you only designed or recommended the steps.

Useful format:

## How to Test

1. Start Codex with ...
2. As a user, ...
3. Confirm that ...
4. Also verify that ...

Targeted tests:

- `cargo test -p ... specific_test_name`

Make use of Markdown to format the pull request professionally. Ensure "code things" appear in single backticks when referenced inline. Fenced code blocks are useful when referencing code or showing a shell transcript. Also, make use of GitHub permalinks when citing existing pieces of code that are relevant to the change.

Make sure to reference any relevant pull requests or issues, though there should be no need to reference the pull request in its own PR body.

If there is documentation that should be updated on https://developers.openai.com/codex as a result of this change, please note that in a separate section near the end of the pull request. Omit this section if there is no documentation that needs to be updated.

Working with Stacks

Sometimes a pull request is composed of a stack of commits that build on one another. In these cases, the PR body should reflect the net change introduced by the stack as a whole, rather than the individual commits that make up the stack.

Similarly, sometimes a user may be using a tool like Sapling to leverage stacked pull requests, in which case the base of the PR may be the a branch that is the head of another PR in the stack rather than main. In this case, be sure to discuss only the net change between the base and head of the PR that is being opened against that stacked base, rather than the changes relative to main.

Sapling

If .git/sl/store is present, then this Git repository is governed by Sapling SCM (https://sapling-scm.com).

In Sapling, run the following to see if there is a GitHub pull request associated with the current revision:

sl log --template '{github_pull_request_url}' -r .

Alternatively, you can run sl sl to see the current development branch and whether there is a GitHub pull request associated with the current commit. For example, if the output were:

  @  cb032b31cf  72 minutes ago  mbolin  #11412
╭─╯  tui: show non-file layer content in /debug-config
│
o  fdd0cd1de9  Today at 20:09  origin/main
│
~

• @ indicates the current commit is cb032b31cf
• it is a development branch containing a single commit branched off of origin/main
• it is associated with GitHub pull request #11412