Non-negotiable rules:

1. Read the full diff against the real base branch before drafting the PR.
2. Block on protected-branch usage, empty branch state, or conflict markers.
3. If uncommitted changes exist, invoke commit first instead of creating a misleading PR.
4. Push the branch before creating the PR.
5. Keep PR creation user-driven. If title, scope, base, or reviewer intent is ambiguous, ask first.

Create PR

Inputs

• $request: Optional PR guidance such as draft intent, reviewer hints, base branch, labels, or title direction

Goal

Create a PR that matches the actual branch changes and leaves the user with:

• a correct base branch
• an accurate title
• a useful body
• a pushed branch
• a verified PR URL and state

Step 0: Confirm this is an explicit PR request

This skill is user-only.

Use it only when the user explicitly asks to create or open a PR.

If the request is really:

• code review only, route to a review skill
• commit creation only, route to commit
• planning only, route to the planner

If reviewer assignment, labels, milestone, or base branch are ambiguous and matter to the request, use AskUserQuestion.

Success criteria: PR creation is explicitly requested and the intended PR shape is clear enough to proceed.

Step 1: Gather real branch context

Inspect the current branch before drafting anything:

• current branch name
• branch tracking state
• uncommitted changes
• base branch candidates
• commits ahead of base
• full diff against base

Rules:

• read the actual diff, not just commit messages
• determine the real base branch before classifying the PR
• use Read on changed files when the diff summary is not enough to understand the change

Load references/pr-conventions.md for base-branch selection and PR classification heuristics when needed.

Success criteria: You know the branch, base, diff shape, and whether the branch is actually PR-ready.

Step 2: Validate branch readiness

Blockers:

• on main, master, or develop
• no commits relative to base
• conflict markers in changed files

If uncommitted changes exist:

• invoke the commit skill
• then re-run branch context gathering before continuing

Warnings:

• type or lint failures are warnings unless the user wants to stop and fix them first
• breaking changes are not blockers, but they must be documented

Success criteria: The branch is in a state where a PR can be created honestly.

Step 3: Classify the PR from the actual diff

Determine:

• type
• scope
• size
• risk
• whether breaking changes exist

Use:

• branch name as a hint, not truth
• changed paths and modules
• commit messages only as supporting context
• the full diff as the source of truth

Document breaking changes if any of these exist:

• removed or renamed public exports
• route or API contract changes
• schema or migration changes
• env var changes
• major dependency changes

Load references/pr-conventions.md for:

• classification heuristics
• title rules
• option flag mapping
• blocking versus warning behavior

Success criteria: The PR is classified from the real code changes, not just branch naming.

Step 4: Run the narrowest relevant quality checks

Run checks that fit the changed surface and project tooling.

Typical checks:

• typecheck
• lint
• conflict-marker scan

Rules:

• conflict markers always block
• other failures should be surfaced honestly to the user
• do not fabricate passing status in the PR body
• if the user asks to proceed with known non-blocking issues, say so explicitly in the final report

Success criteria: The PR reflects the actual readiness state of the branch.

Step 5: Draft the PR title and body

Create:

• a Conventional Commit-style PR title
• a body that explains what changed and how to review it

The body should cover:

• summary
• grouped change areas
• breaking changes when present
• specific test plan
• optional notes for deployment, config, or dependency changes

Use:

• references/pr-conventions.md for title and readiness rules
• references/pr-body-examples.md only when you need example body shape

If the user explicitly provided title guidance, use it if it still matches the actual diff.

Success criteria: The title and body describe the full branch accurately and are reviewable.

Step 6: Push the branch and create the PR

Before creation:

• ensure the branch is pushed
• ensure upstream is set if needed

Then create the PR with gh pr create.

Support request-driven options such as:

• draft
• reviewer
• assignee
• label
• milestone

Rules:

• do not create the PR before the branch exists on remote
• prefer gh over manual API calls
• if gh is unavailable, stop and provide the user with the prepared title, body, and compare URL

Success criteria: The PR exists remotely or the user has the exact fallback material needed to create it manually.

Step 7: Verify and report

After creation, verify:

• PR number
• URL
• title
• state
• draft status
• base branch

Also report:

• whether uncommitted changes remain
• whether the branch is ahead of remote
• whether any warnings were carried into the PR process

Success criteria: The user knows exactly what PR was created and any remaining branch caveats.

Guardrails

• Do not create PRs proactively.
• Do not let the model invoke this skill through SkillTool; this workflow is intentionally user-only.
• Do not add paths:. This is a generic workflow skill.
• Do not add context: fork. PR state must stay in the active workspace.
• Do not keep giant readiness checklists, scorecards, or failure catalogs inline in SKILL.md.
• Do not fabricate test status, branch status, or breaking-change absence.

When To Load References

• references/pr-conventions.md Use for base-branch selection, classification heuristics, option parsing, and blocking rules.
• references/pr-body-examples.md Use only when you need an example PR body shape for a similar request.

Output Contract

Report:

1. PR number, URL, title, base, and state
2. whether commit had to be invoked first
3. the checks run and any warnings that remained
4. any breaking changes documented
5. remaining working-tree or branch state