pr

Create a pull request

Turn the current request's change into one ready-for-review pull request against the named base, or the remote's advertised default branch when none is named. Complete the necessary local Git work instead of requiring other skills to be installed.

Preserve unrelated work while committing the request's changes as logical Conventional Commits. Keep credentials and other sensitive files out of the history, honor repository checks, and move work on a detached or protected checkout to a suitably named branch.

Base the branch on the fetched target and publish it without overwriting unexpected remote work. Reuse an existing pull request for the same head and base; when the change is already represented on that remote base, report the state instead of duplicating it.

Create the pull request ready for review with a title and body describing the actual change. When the repository's AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md carries an ## Issue tracker section, read it and its linked detailed convention when present; legacy inline conventions also work without the setup skill installed. Without the section, skip every issue step below and leave the body unchanged.

Link each spec folder to one issue

With a tracker configured, gather the spec folders this PR carries before creating it: every docs/specs/<slug>/ folder the branch adds or changes, and every folder named by a Spec-Folder: docs/specs/<slug>/ commit trailer, that still exists at the head. Skip folders the branch deletes. A folder's spec.md names its issue with an Issue: <tracker>:<id> line; use that ID and create nothing.

For each gathered folder without that line, create one issue through the convention's create operation: the title is the first heading of spec.md with no prefix, the body is one spec section rendered from spec.md between the convention's spec section markers, and the issue carries the convention's review signal so general triage leaves it alone before the PR links it. The section holds the first section's text, the remaining section headings, the folder path, and the issues of folders its Blocked by: docs/specs/<other>/ lines name, read from their own Issue: lines; report a blocker folder that has none. Then write Issue: <tracker>:<id> in the convention's ID form beside the spec's other links, commit it on the same branch, and only then publish and open the PR. Never search the tracker by title to find or reuse an issue. If the issue was created but the line could not be committed, stop before opening the PR and report the created ID so a rerun records it instead of creating another.

Put an Issue: <tracker>:<id> line in the PR body for each linked issue, so a later pass can find the PR after the branch is gone. A PR with no spec folder that fixes a known issue directly carries the same line. Put the convention's closing reference in the body only when the PR actually delivers that issue's implementation, as established by the diff and verification; a trailer or Issue: line alone does not establish delivery. A spec-only PR links its issue without a closing reference. When reusing an existing PR, apply the same steps and bring its body in line. Leave merging, required reviews, and release decisions outside this skill's authority.

If a linked convention cannot be read, report the missing information rather than guessing issue operations or claiming that the issue was linked or closed.

Make the body understandable

Write for a reviewer without the conversation history: explain the problem, concrete before-and-after behavior, why it changed, and what verification establishes. Scale the explanation to the change; a typo fix needs only a brief description and relevant validation. Include mechanisms, a diagram for complex flows, actual alternatives and trade-offs, affected users or integrations, and specific unresolved judgments when they help assess the change. Keep the whole change understandable beyond those highlighted judgments; omit empty sections and invented alternatives or questions.

For screen changes, let the reviewer watch the behavior they are judging. Record the actual base and head running the same flow at matching viewport, data, and state, or reuse evidence verified to match those revisions, and embed the before-and-after videos with a short explanation of the difference and its reason. When motion adds nothing to the judgment, as with copy, styling, or static layout, compare screenshots side by side instead; when such fine visual detail accompanies a behavior change, add that still comparison to the videos. A screen with no before state gets the head video alone. If video cannot be recorded, made safe, or kept within the attachment limit after trimming to the judged behavior, compare screenshots and say why video is missing. Video takes no alt text, so label each one with its revision, flow, and conditions, and identify unavoidable differences between the captures. Separate observed results from source inference and unverified states; a prototype is not runtime evidence. When updating an existing PR, bring its explanation and evidence into line with the final change, replacing outdated visual claims.

Before uploading, inspect screenshots and videos for credentials, personal data, and private information. Use safe seeded data or redact those details throughout the media, keeping comparison conditions and the relevant change visible. Upload only the inspected, safe media as GitHub attachments, using a supported mechanism in the current environment. For GitHub CLI, check attachment support: gh pr create and gh pr edit accept repeatable --attach on supported versions and rewrite matching local media references in --body-file to uploaded URLs. A Markdown table can place two images side by side. Reference each video as ![](path) alone in its own blank-line-separated paragraph so it renders as a player; a reference inside other text renders as a link, and an unreferenced attachment lands at the end of the body. Keep review captures outside repository history; no separate media host is needed.

If baseline execution, capture, or upload is unavailable, state the exact limit and present only the evidence obtained. Inspect the resulting remote body and attachments before reporting them as available to reviewers; a local path is not a published attachment. A partial upload may still create the PR: inspect and repair that PR instead of duplicating it. Carry successful attachment URLs from the remote body into its replacement, and replace unusable local references with an honest limitation if recovery fails.

Finish

Finish when the remote pull request exists in ready state and the user has its URL, base, head branch, and any checks or evidence that remain outstanding.