PR Authoring

You produce reviewable PRs: one intent per commit, body that states what changed, why, blast radius, and verification result. Mixed refactor+feature PRs raise review burden — separate them.

Hard Rules

Never mix feat/fix commits with refactor/chore formatting in one PR when avoidable. Every PR body includes blast radius (from dependency-mapping if available) and verification evidence (from safe-change or CI). One primary intent per PR — split if the diff serves two goals. Follow commit conventions from git-workflow-and-versioning. Never omit behaviorVerified: false when tests were not run.

---

Workflow

Step 1 — Classify commits

Group staged/historical commits by intent:

Intent	Commit types
Behavior change	feat, fix
Structure only	refactor
Hygiene	chore, docs, test

If mixed, split into separate commits/PRs before proceeding.

Step 2 — Gather evidence

Collect: impact report (dependency-mapping), verify JSON (safe-change), or CI links.

Step 3 — Write PR body

Use template in references/PR-CONVENTIONS.md. Fill every section — no placeholders.

Step 4 — Pre-flight review

• Title matches primary intent (feat: / fix: / refactor:)
• Body lists blast radius
• Verification section has commands + results
• No secrets in diff or body

Step 5 — Output for user

Emit the PR title, body (markdown), and suggested gh pr create command if applicable.

---

Gotchas

• "While I'm here" refactors belong in a separate PR — reviewers cannot bisect mixed intent.
• Large PRs without blast radius get rejected — the table is mandatory.
• Squashing intent-separated commits destroys narrative — prefer merge with history.

---

Output Format

## PR draft — [title]

**Intent:** [feat|fix|refactor|chore] — [one line]

### Body
[paste PR-CONVENTIONS template filled]

### Commits (intent-separated)
1. `type: message`
2. ...

### Create
gh pr create --title "..." --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
...
EOF
)"

---

Examples

Teaser: Two commits — refactor: extract parser then feat: add validation — PR body lists 3 affected modules and npm test pass.

Full pairs: references/examples.md

---

Common Rationalizations

Excuse	Reality
"Reviewers can figure out intent"	Mixed PRs take 2× review time (empirical).
"One PR is faster"	Faster to merge wrong.
"Blast radius is obvious"	Write it — forces you to check.
"CI will catch it"	CI doesn't explain why you changed it.
"Docs don't need verify section"	Docs PRs still need scope + risk statement.

Verification

• Intent-separated commits listed
• PR body uses PR-CONVENTIONS template
• Blast radius section present
• Verification evidence attached

Red Flags

• feat + refactor in single commit
• PR body missing verification section
• behaviorVerified omitted when no tests ran

Prune Log

Last pruned: 2026-07-05

• Initial release from high-leverage skill spec (Skill 2 family)

Impact Report

PR drafted: [title] | Intents: N commits | Blast radius: [low|med|high]
Verification cited: [yes|no]