ship-pr

name

ship-pr

description

Use when the user wants to open a pull request for the current branch — phrases like "open a PR", "ship this", "submit PR", "let's send it", "提 PR", "提个 MR". Walks through the canonical post-edit flow: push → open PR → wait for CI → review the diff → triage findings (self-fix small issues, escalate decisions to the user, merge directly when clean) → local cleanup. Trigger any time the user signals they're done editing and want the change on its way to main; do NOT trigger for `gh pr view` / status checks on existing PRs.

Ship a PR for openboot

This is the canonical way to move a finished change from a feature branch into main. The branch protection rules defined in docs/MERGE_POLICY.md define the mechanical gate (6 required checks). This skill adds the inferential gate on top: after CI is green, the diff gets reviewed, findings are surfaced, and merge only happens after the user confirms.

Auto-merge is intentionally not used. gh pr merge --auto skips the review step entirely — that defeats the purpose of having a review gate. The merge command is run from this session, after the user OKs it.

When to use

Trigger when the user says they're done with a change and want a PR. Do not use this for:

• Draft PRs / WIP work the user wants reviewed but not merged. Use plain gh pr create --draft and stop.
• Changes to .github/workflows/ or branch protection rules. Those need a human to also poke the GitHub UI.
• Release tags (v*.*.*). Releases follow make test-vm first (see CONTRIBUTING.md "VM E2E setup").

The flow

Step 1 — Confirm the branch is shippable

git status -sb                       # clean except expected diff?
git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD      # not on main
git log --oneline main..HEAD         # commits actually exist

If the branch is main, stop — make a feature branch first. If there are no commits ahead of main, stop — nothing to ship.

Step 2 — Push

git push -u origin "$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)"

The pre-push hook (installed via make install-hooks) runs L1 here automatically — no need to run make test-unit separately. If the hook is not installed, that's the user's choice; CI will still gate.

Step 3 — Open the PR

gh pr create --title "<conventional commit subject>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
## Summary

- <bullet 1>
- <bullet 2>

## Test plan

- [ ] <how you verified>
EOF
)"

Title rules (from CLAUDE.md):

• Conventional Commits prefix: feat: / fix: / docs: / refactor: / test: / chore: / ci: / perf:.
• Keep under 70 chars. Detail goes in the body.

Step 4 — Wait for CI

gh pr checks --watch

This blocks until every check finishes. Typical wall time is 3–10 min depending on which jobs run. The required checks per docs/MERGE_POLICY.md:

• lint, unit (L1), contract schema (L2), curl|bash smoke, old-cli compat

If any required check fails:

• Stop. Do not proceed to review or merge.
• Read the failure (gh run view --log-failed), explain it to the user, and ask whether to fix it now.
• Drift sensors (govulncheck, deadcode, etc.) failing is informational — flag them but do not block.

Step 5 — Review the diff

Once CI is green, invoke the architecture-review skill on the full PR diff (git diff main...HEAD). CI catches mechanical violations; this catches the rest — behaviour, design, test coverage, risk, rollback.

Step 6 — Triage the findings

Every finding goes into one of two buckets. Get this right or the gate fails open.

Self-fixable — fix in this session, then loop back to Step 4. Anything where the correction is mechanical and clearly inside the PR's stated scope:

• typos, formatting, doc rewording for clarity,
• dead code that this PR introduced,
• missing imports, missing test cases for branches this PR adds,
• bug fixes that don't change observable behaviour,
• following through on a rule the user has already stated in this session (this is the recursive case).

Fix it, push to the same branch, return to Step 4 to wait for CI again, then come back to Step 5. Do not prompt the user. The point of this branch is to keep the human's attention budget for decisions that actually need it.

Needs user judgment — surface and stop. Anything with a real choice or scope question:

• design decisions, API shape, behaviour changes,
• anything that touches a deliberate prior decision (e.g. an explicit user instruction or an existing convention in CLAUDE.md),
• anything that would expand the PR beyond its stated scope,
• anything you'd ask a teammate about before pushing.

Surface the finding with the question made explicit; stop the flow.

Clean — proceed straight to merge. If CI is green AND the diff review found nothing self-fixable AND nothing that needs user judgment, skip the "ask the user" step and merge directly. Asking when there is nothing to decide just burns the user's attention.

Rule of thumb: would a thoughtful junior engineer file this as a question, push a follow-up commit, or just merge it? Escalate / fix / merge accordingly.

Step 7 — Merge

Reached when Step 6 ended in "clean", OR when the user has explicitly approved a merge after an escalation.

gh pr merge --squash --delete-branch

No --auto. No --admin. The branch-protection rules still apply — if something flipped red between Step 4 and now, GitHub will refuse and we'll loop back to Step 4.

Report the merge to the user as a one-liner ("PR #N merged, branch deleted, local cleaned up"). Do not ask for confirmation before merging on a clean review — the harness loop is supposed to close itself when there is nothing to decide.

Step 8 — Local cleanup

After merge succeeds, the remote branch was deleted by --delete-branch. Bring local in sync:

git checkout main && git pull --quiet
git branch -d "$(git symbolic-ref --quiet --short @{-1} 2>/dev/null)"

(@{-1} refers to the previously checked-out branch — the one we just merged.)

This step is part of the loop, not optional. Because merges are synchronous now (no --auto), there is no scenario where a feature branch should be left checked out after a successful merge.

What NOT to do

• Do not use --auto. It skips Step 5 (review) entirely, which is the whole reason this skill exists.
• Do not use --admin. That bypasses branch protection.
• Do not merge before CI completes. Even if the diff looks trivial, let gh pr checks --watch finish — drift detection sometimes catches surprising things.
• Do not amend / force-push after gh pr create unless the user asks — it invalidates in-flight reviews and re-runs CI from scratch.
• Do not push directly to main. Branch protection will reject it.
• Do not auto-fix findings that need user judgment. Anything that could change behaviour, expand scope, or touches a prior deliberate choice gets surfaced in Step 6 — not silently committed. Self-fixable items (typos, missing tests, doc tweaks following a stated rule) are the exception, not the default.

Why this is encoded as a skill

Per docs/HARNESS.md, repeated guidance becomes a control. The merge gate has two layers:

• Mechanical (branch protection / required checks) — already enforced by GitHub. Catches what CI knows how to check.
• Inferential (review of the diff) — was previously oral tradition. Encoding the order here ("CI green THEN review THEN ask THEN merge") is the harness; without it, the easy thing is auto-merge, which is cheap and wrong.

If the recipe changes (new required check, different review tool), this is the one place to edit; AGENTS.md points here.