Best use case
pr is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Creates a pull request for the current branch.
Teams using pr should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/pr/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How pr Compares
| Feature / Agent | pr | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Creates a pull request for the current branch.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
When asked to create a pull request, follow these steps: ## Phase 1: Pre-flight checks 1. Run `git status`. If any of the following conditions apply, stop and report the errors: - There are unstaged changes - There are untracked files - The current branch is the default branch (`main`) 2. Check if this is a stacked PR: - Run `git merge-base main HEAD` to find the common ancestor with main - Run `git log --oneline <merge-base>..HEAD` to see commits since diverging from main - Check if any parent commits are on another feature branch (not main) - If so, run `gh pr list --head <parent-branch>` to check if that branch has an open PR - If a parent branch has an open PR, this is a **stacked PR** 3. Run `git log main..HEAD --oneline` to see the commit history. 4. Get the diff for the review: - If this is a **stacked PR**, run `git diff <parent-branch>...HEAD` to scope the diff to only this branch's changes. - Otherwise, run `git diff main...HEAD`. ## Phase 2: Automated PR review (parallel subagents) **MANDATORY — DO NOT SKIP.** This phase must run before any PR is created, regardless of how "simple", "mechanical", or "well-tested" the changes appear. Subtle bugs (e.g., semantic mismatches in API migrations) hide in exactly the changes that seem safe to skip. The only exception is docs-only changes as described below. Before creating the PR, analyze the diff to decide **which review subagents to launch**. Not every PR needs every reviewer. ### Triage: classify the change Categorize each changed file, then pick subagents based on which categories are present. A file belongs to exactly one category — evaluate in this order (first match wins): 1. **docs**: `.md`, `.txt`, `CHANGELOG`, `LICENSE`, `docs/`, `.claude/` 2. **ci**: `.github/workflows/`, `.github/actions/` — these often contain shell scripts with non-trivial logic 3. **config**: `.json` (not `package.json`), `.yml`, `.yaml`, `.eslintrc*`, `.prettierrc*`, `tsconfig*`, `Dockerfile`, `.editorconfig`, `.gitignore`, `.gitattributes`, `.nvmrc`, `.yarnrc*` 4. **test**: files matching `*.test.ts`, `*.spec.ts`, or under `test/` directories 5. **code**: everything else (`.ts`, `.js`, `.mjs`, `.cjs`, `package.json`, etc.) Then decide which subagents to launch: - If **only docs** files changed: **skip the entire review phase** and go straight to Phase 3. - Otherwise, select subagents based on which categories are present: - **ci** present → launch **Subagent 1 (Correctness)** (review shell logic, conditional expressions, job dependency chains) - **config** or **test** present → launch **Subagent 2 (Style)** - **test** present → also launch **Subagent 4 (Tests)** - **code** present → launch **Subagent 1 (Correctness)** and **Subagent 2 (Style)** - **code** present → also launch **Subagent 4 (Tests)** - **code** present and diff touches security-sensitive areas (network/HTTP, user input, auth, crypto, `eval`/`Function`, capability passing, `harden()`/SES) → also launch **Subagent 3 (Security)** ### Subagent 1: Correctness & Logic Prompt the agent to: - Review the diff for logical errors, off-by-one mistakes, race conditions, and incorrect assumptions - Check that error handling is adequate at system boundaries - Verify that new code paths are reachable and dead code hasn't been introduced - Flag any behavior changes that aren't covered by tests ### Subagent 2: Style & Conventions Prompt the agent to: - Check adherence to the project's CLAUDE.md conventions (TypeScript types over interfaces, no `any`, no `enum`, kebab-case files, `@metamask/superstruct` for runtime types, options bags for 3+ args, `harden()` usage, etc.) - Check test conventions (no "should", `toStrictEqual` for full objects, `it.each` for parameterized tests, concise verb-form titles) - Flag unnecessary complexity, over-engineering, or missing `harden()` calls ### Subagent 3: Security & Performance Prompt the agent to: - Look for OWASP top-10 vulnerabilities (injection, XSS, etc.) - Check for capability leaks in the ocap model (unhardened objects, leaked references) - Identify performance issues (unnecessary allocations in hot paths, missing early returns, O(n^2) patterns) - Verify that lockdown/SES compatibility isn't broken (no ambient authority, no forbidden globals) ### Subagent 4: Test Coverage Prompt the agent to: - Identify new or changed logic that lacks corresponding test coverage - Check that edge cases and error paths are tested - Verify tests are co-located correctly per project conventions - Flag any test anti-patterns (global state, missing cleanup, overly broad mocks) ## Phase 3: Review summary If the review phase was skipped (docs-only), proceed directly to Phase 4. Otherwise, after all launched subagents complete: 1. Compile findings into a **Review Summary** with sections for each subagent that ran. 2. Classify each finding as one of: - **blocker** - Must fix before merging - **suggestion** - Should consider fixing - **nit** - Minor, optional improvement 3. If there are **blockers**, present them to the user and ask whether to: - Fix the blockers automatically, then re-review - Proceed with PR creation anyway - Abort 4. If there are no blockers, briefly summarize the findings and proceed. ## Phase 4: Create the PR 1. Run `gh pr create` to create a pull request. The PR body should include: - A brief narrative description of the PR - A summary of the changes (bullet points) - A brief description of how the code is tested (narrative, not a checklist) **If this is a stacked PR**, add `--draft` to create it as a draft PR. 2. Note the PR number from the created PR URL — it is needed for changelog entries. Proceed to Phase 5 before presenting results to the user. ## Phase 5: Update changelogs **MANDATORY — DO NOT SKIP.** Analyze the diff and determine whether any changes are consumer-facing (i.e., affect the behavior or API of a published or private package). - **If there are NO consumer-facing changes** (e.g., docs-only, CI, tooling, skill definitions, dev scripts): add the `no-changelog` label to the PR via `gh pr edit <number> --add-label no-changelog` and skip the rest of this phase. - **If there ARE consumer-facing changes**: update changelogs as described below. Read the instructions in [`docs/contributing/updating-changelogs.md`](../../../docs/contributing/updating-changelogs.md) and follow them **to the letter**. In particular: - **Think from the consumer's perspective.** A changelog is not a git history. For each affected package, ask: "What changed for someone who depends on this package?" Describe changes in natural language; do not simply reuse commit messages. - **Combine like changes.** If multiple commits contribute to a single logical change within one package, write one changelog entry — not one per commit. - **Split disparate changes.** If one commit touches unrelated concerns in a single package, write separate entries. - **Link the PR.** Use the PR number from Phase 4 in each entry (e.g. `([#123](https://github.com/.../pull/123))`). Commit the changelog updates to the current branch with the message "docs: Update changelogs" and push. ## Done Present the PR URL and any relevant information to the user. If a review was performed, include the review summary.
Related Skills
wallet
Use the wallet tools for all balance, send, and sign operations. Supports both ETH and ERC-20 tokens. The away wallet operates autonomously after setup — the home device does not need to be online.
metamask
Use the MetaMask tools to request and interact with wallet capabilities from the MetaMask capability vendor.
discovery
Use the discovery tools to find and use services through a service matcher. Do not rely on prior knowledge of services, providers, or APIs.
update-changelogs
Updates changelogs for all packages with consumer-facing changes.
push
Pushes the current branch to the remote repository.
lint-build-test
How to check code by linting, building, and testing.
glossary
How to add entries to the glossary
evm-wallet-docker-e2e
Run the evm-wallet Docker e2e tests (build, start stack, wait for healthy, test, diagnose failures).
create-package
Create a new monorepo package using the create-package CLI
commit
Optionally checks, then commits code to the current or a new feature branch.
code-review
How to review code; a pull request, feature branch, local changes etc.
workspace-surface-audit
Audit the active repo, MCP servers, plugins, connectors, env surfaces, and harness setup, then recommend the highest-value ECC-native skills, hooks, agents, and operator workflows. Use when the user wants help setting up Claude Code or understanding what capabilities are actually available in their environment.