@biw/detailed-pr-description
Assess test coverage or draft/update GitHub PR descriptions with self-contained context, risks, follow-up work, focused code references, and validation results.
| name | detailed-pr-description |
| description | Assess test coverage or draft/update GitHub PR descriptions with self-contained context, risks, follow-up work, focused code references, and validation results. |
Detailed PR Description
Resolve the outcome
- Assessment: judge whether branch tests are strong enough; do not draft or update a PR body.
- Draft: produce a proposed body locally or in the response; do not mutate GitHub.
- Update/post: draft and update GitHub only when explicitly asked to update, edit, post, or publish.
Perform each requested outcome when combined. CLI access is never authorization to mutate a PR.
Workflow
- Identify the PR and base. Prefer
gh pr view --json number,title,body,baseRefName,headRefName,url; without a PR, compare against the user-provided or repository default base. Fetch before relying on stale refs. - Establish evidence from
git status --short, diff stats and names, relevant commits, changed files, tests, docs, migrations, config, and generated artifacts. Treat.context/as scratch and restate any useful fact because it is untracked. Do not rely on chat or memory for behavioral claims. - Determine the problem, approach, outcome, deliberate exclusions, risk, compatibility, edge cases, operational gotchas, migrations, flags, cleanup, and reviewer focus. For close-review items, give a precise file/line reference and explanation. Every PR body must include one fenced excerpt of actual changed code, configuration, or documentation from the most review-critical hunk, capped at 15 lines; a link-only review section is insufficient.
- Inventory affected and added tests. Run the narrowest reliable checks, then documented broader validation when feasible. Classify coverage as sufficient, partially sufficient, or insufficient; name regressions it catches, important gaps, and concrete follow-up tests. Never claim confidence from unrun or irrelevant tests.
- Deliver only the authorized outcome:
- Assessment: report evidence and coverage judgment without creating a body.
- Draft: return the body or write
.context/pr-description.md; never callgh pr edit. - Update/post: write
.context/pr-description.md, then usegh pr edit <number> --body-file .context/pr-description.md. If posting fails, preserve the draft and explain why.
PR body
For draft/update work, load assets/pr-body.md.tmpl unless the repository has a stronger template. The body must stand alone without chat or local notes. Prefer high-signal context; add screenshots, rollout, migrations, flags, performance, accessibility, security, or release notes only when relevant. Remove an empty section only when it genuinely does not apply; use Not applicable when omitting it could hide an important review dimension.
Quality bar
- Ground claims in code, tests, docs, commits, or command output; distinguish facts from assumptions and judgment.
- Preserve the existing title and useful body content unless replacement is clearer.
- Name behavior instead of saying “various fixes” or “improves behavior.”
- Cite precise file/line references for close-review items. Include one actual changed excerpt in a fenced code block; it must be materially helpful and at most 15 lines.
- Include failed, skipped, and unavailable validation with reasons.
- Do not make unrelated code changes unless explicitly asked.
Final response
Report the PR URL when one exists, whether the outcome was an assessment, local draft, or posted update, validation commands/results, and the bottom-line coverage assessment. If an authorized post failed, report the draft path.
Loading...
Select a file to preview
Analyzing security...
Checking scan reports and verification data.
Bill of Materials
Everything this skill can do — files, network, commands, and more.