SkillVaultskills Browse all 1,000+ skills

Writing · Version 1.0.0 · Reviewed 2026-08-02

Pull Request Description Writer

Make the reader act on PR title drafting and change and risk summary with evidence, explicit trade-offs, and a verification plan.

4 method steps 4 documented failure modes 4 diagnostic checks 7 quality gates

Builds an accurate pull request title and description from the diff, issue context, validation results, rollout risk, screenshots, and repository template without inventing outcomes.

₹199 one-time

Get this skill archive

Install in your AI coding tool

SkillVault packages this skill in the open Agent Skills format for five leading coding tools.

What this skill helps you do

  • PR title drafting
  • Change and risk summary
  • Validation evidence formatting

How Pull Request Description Writer works

You provide

Source material, audience, and the decision it supports

It inspects

Facts, gaps, and unstated assumptions for PR title drafting

It decides

A change and risk summary draft organized around the next action

You verify

Every claim traced back to the supplied source

What it checks first

Pull Request Description Writer builds an accurate pull request title and description from the diff, issue context, validation results, rollout risk, screenshots, and repository template without inventing outcomes. Use it when the work involves PR title drafting, Change and risk summary, Validation evidence formatting.

  1. The decision the reader must make and whether the document leads with it.
  2. Which claims are measured, which are derived, and which are assumed.
  3. Whether the structure follows the reader path or the author research order.
  4. Whether every assertion traces back to something in the source material.

Failure modes it recognizes

  • A recommendation buried after the analysis, so the reader never reaches the decision.
  • Invented specifics introduced while smoothing prose, which destroy credibility on discovery.
  • Precision implied by confident tone where the underlying evidence is thin.
  • Documentation mirroring product structure while readers arrive with tasks.

Answers it will reject

  • Producing a balanced list of considerations instead of a recommendation.
  • Restating the question with more words as though it were analysis.
  • Writing for the approver rather than for the person who must act.

Decision rules it applies

  • Lead with the decision and the confidence, then supply the evidence beneath it.
  • Label evidence quality so a reader can calibrate rather than assume everything is measured.
  • Cut anything that does not change the reader decision or action.

Evidence it asks for

  • Check every claim against the supplied source and mark unverifiable ones explicitly.
  • Have someone outside the work state the decision after reading only the opening.
  • Verify the document answers the question that was actually asked.

The method inside

  1. Identify the reader decision before drafting
  2. Lead with the conclusion and strongest evidence
  3. Remove unsupported claims and background that does not change action
  4. Check traceability, ambiguity, and the explicit ask

Deliverables

  • PR title drafting revised draft
  • Change and risk summary source and logic check
  • Validation evidence formatting approval-ready version

Evidence requirements

  • Source analysis, facts, decisions, and approved claims
  • Named audience, decision, and desired action
  • Format, length, tone, and review constraints

Quality gates

  • Every material claim traces to supplied evidence or is labeled as a hypothesis.
  • The response follows the declared deliverable contract.
  • No execution, access, measurement, or verification is invented.
  • Secrets and personal data are redacted rather than repeated.
  • The user receives a concrete independent verification step.
  • The relevant failure modes in this domain were considered rather than only the reported symptom.
  • No listed anti-pattern was recommended as a solution.

Example task

Input

Draft the pull request description for my current branch using the repository template and the actual tests I ran.

Expected output

Read the base comparison rather than the working tree alone, identify the user-visible and operational effects, and distinguish tests run from tests merely recommended. The description names migration or rollback concerns, links the issue when provided, and leaves unsupported claims out...

Boundaries and compatibility

Ideal for

  • PR title drafting: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Change and risk summary: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Validation evidence formatting: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.

Out of scope

  • Inventing facts, quotations, or approvals
  • Hiding uncertainty or material bad news

Agent compatibility

  • GitHub Copilot Agent Skills
  • Cursor Agent Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • OpenAI Codex Skills
  • JetBrains Junie Skills

Tool policy: Advisory by default. No tools are assumed. If the host provides tools, use read-only evidence gathering unless the user explicitly approves a scoped write or execution action.