pr-writer-v2

---
name: pr-writer-v2
description: "PR Writer workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs Create pull requests following Sentry's engineering practices and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off."
version: "0.0.1"
category: cli-automation
tags: ["pr-writer-v2", "pr-writer", "create", "pull", "requests", "following", "sentry", "engineering"]
complexity: intermediate
risk: safe
tools: ["codex-cli", "claude-code", "cursor", "gemini-cli", "opencode"]
source: community
author: "sickn33"
date_added: "2026-04-25"
date_updated: "2026-04-25"
---

# PR Writer

## Overview

This public intake copy packages `plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills/skills/pr-writer` from `https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills` into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the `external_source` block in `metadata.json` plus `ORIGIN.md` as the provenance anchor for review.

# PR Writer Create pull requests following Sentry's engineering practices. Requires: GitHub CLI (gh) authenticated and available.

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Prerequisites, Editing Existing PRs, Limitations.

## When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

- You are ready to open a pull request and need a structured description based on the committed branch diff.
- You want the PR body to capture what changed, why it changed, and any reviewer context.
- You are using GitHub CLI and need a repeatable PR-writing workflow rather than writing the description ad hoc.
- Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: Create pull requests following Sentry's engineering practices.
- Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.
- Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.

## Operating Table

| Situation | Start here | Why it matters |
| --- | --- | --- |
| First-time use | `metadata.json` | Confirms repository, branch, commit, and imported path through the `external_source` block before touching the copied workflow |
| Provenance review | `ORIGIN.md` | Gives reviewers a plain-language audit trail for the imported source |
| Workflow execution | `SKILL.md` | Starts with the smallest copied file that materially changes execution |
| Supporting context | `SKILL.md` | Adds the next most relevant copied source file without loading the entire package |
| Handoff decision | `## Related Skills` | Helps the operator switch to a stronger native skill when the task drifts |

## Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. All changes are committed
2. Branch is up to date with remote
3. Changes are rebased on the base branch if needed
4. "Test plan" sections
5. Checkbox lists of testing steps
6. Redundant summaries of the diff
7. Clear explanation of what and why

### Imported Workflow Notes

#### Imported: Process

### Step 1: Verify Branch State

```bash
# Detect the default branch — note the output for use in subsequent commands
gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef --jq '.defaultBranchRef.name'
```

```bash
# Check current branch and status (substitute the detected branch name above for BASE)
git status
git log BASE..HEAD --oneline
```

Ensure:
- All changes are committed
- Branch is up to date with remote
- Changes are rebased on the base branch if needed

### Step 2: Analyze Changes

Review what will be included in the PR:

```bash
# See all commits that will be in the PR (substitute detected branch name for BASE)
git log BASE..HEAD

# See the full diff
git diff BASE...HEAD
```

Understand the scope and purpose of all changes before writing the description.

### Step 3: Write the PR Description

Use this structure for PR descriptions (ignoring any repository PR templates):

```markdown
<brief description of what the PR does>

<why these changes are being made - the motivation>

<alternative approaches considered, if any>

<any additional context reviewers need>
```

**Do NOT include:**
- "Test plan" sections
- Checkbox lists of testing steps
- Redundant summaries of the diff

**Do include:**
- Clear explanation of what and why
- Links to relevant issues or tickets
- Context that isn't obvious from the code
- Notes on specific areas that need careful review

### Step 4: Create the PR

```bash
gh pr create --draft --title "<type>(<scope>): <description>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
<description body here>
EOF
)"
```

**Title format** follows commit conventions:
- `feat(scope): Add new feature`
- `fix(scope): Fix the bug`
- `ref: Refactor something`

#### Imported: Prerequisites

Before creating a PR, ensure all changes are committed. If there are uncommitted changes, run the `sentry-skills:commit` skill first to commit them properly.

```bash
# Check for uncommitted changes
git status --porcelain
```

If the output shows any uncommitted changes (modified, added, or untracked files that should be included), invoke the `sentry-skills:commit` skill before proceeding.

## Examples

### Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

```text
Use @pr-writer-v2 to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.
```

**Explanation:** This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

### Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

```text
Review @pr-writer-v2 against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.
```

**Explanation:** Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

### Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

```text
Use @pr-writer-v2 for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.
```

**Explanation:** This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

### Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

```text
Review @pr-writer-v2 using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.
```

**Explanation:** This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

### Imported Usage Notes

#### Imported: PR Description Examples

### Feature PR

```markdown
Add Slack thread replies for alert notifications

When an alert is updated or resolved, we now post a reply to the original
Slack thread instead of creating a new message. This keeps related
notifications grouped and reduces channel noise.

Previously considered posting edits to the original message, but threading
better preserves the timeline of events and works when the original message
is older than Slack's edit window.

Refs SENTRY-1234
```

### Bug Fix PR

```markdown
Handle null response in user API endpoint

The user endpoint could return null for soft-deleted accounts, causing
dashboard crashes when accessing user properties. This adds a null check
and returns a proper 404 response.

Found while investigating SENTRY-5678.

Fixes SENTRY-5678
```

### Refactor PR

```markdown
Extract validation logic to shared module

Moves duplicate validation code from the alerts, issues, and projects
endpoints into a shared validator class. No behavior change.

This prepares for adding new validation rules in SENTRY-9999 without
duplicating logic across endpoints.
```

## Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

- One PR per feature/fix - Don't bundle unrelated changes
- Keep PRs reviewable - Smaller PRs get faster, better reviews
- Explain the why - Code shows what; description explains why
- Mark WIP early - Use draft PRs for early feedback
- Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
- Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
- Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.

### Imported Operating Notes

#### Imported: Guidelines

- **One PR per feature/fix** - Don't bundle unrelated changes
- **Keep PRs reviewable** - Smaller PRs get faster, better reviews
- **Explain the why** - Code shows what; description explains why
- **Mark WIP early** - Use draft PRs for early feedback

## Troubleshooting

### Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

**Symptoms:** The result ignores the upstream workflow in `plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills/skills/pr-writer`, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all.
**Solution:** Re-open `metadata.json`, `ORIGIN.md`, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the `external_source` block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.

### Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

**Symptoms:** Reviewers can see the generated `SKILL.md`, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task.
**Solution:** Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

### Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

**Symptoms:** The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better.
**Solution:** Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.



## Related Skills

- `@00-andruia-consultant` - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
- `@00-andruia-consultant-v2` - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
- `@10-andruia-skill-smith` - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
- `@10-andruia-skill-smith-v2` - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

## Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

| Resource family | What it gives the reviewer | Example path |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `references` | copied reference notes, guides, or background material from upstream | `references/n/a` |
| `examples` | worked examples or reusable prompts copied from upstream | `examples/n/a` |
| `scripts` | upstream helper scripts that change execution or validation | `scripts/n/a` |
| `agents` | routing or delegation notes that are genuinely part of the imported package | `agents/n/a` |
| `assets` | supporting assets or schemas copied from the source package | `assets/n/a` |



### Imported Reference Notes

#### Imported: Issue References

Reference issues in the PR body:

| Syntax | Effect |
|--------|--------|
| `Fixes #1234` | Closes GitHub issue on merge |
| `Fixes SENTRY-1234` | Closes Sentry issue |
| `Refs GH-1234` | Links without closing |
| `Refs LINEAR-ABC-123` | Links Linear issue |

#### Imported: References

- [Sentry Code Review Guidelines](https://develop.sentry.dev/engineering-practices/code-review/)
- [Sentry Commit Messages](https://develop.sentry.dev/engineering-practices/commit-messages/)

#### Imported: Editing Existing PRs

If you need to update a PR after creation, use `gh api` instead of `gh pr edit`:

```bash
# Update PR description
gh api -X PATCH repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/PR_NUMBER -f body="$(cat <<'EOF'
Updated description here
EOF
)"

# Update PR title
gh api -X PATCH repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/PR_NUMBER -f title='new: Title here'

# Update both
gh api -X PATCH repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/PR_NUMBER \
  -f title='new: Title' \
  -f body='New description'
```

Note: `gh pr edit` is currently broken due to GitHub's Projects (classic) deprecation.

#### Imported: Limitations

- Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
- Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
- Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.