本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

pr-authoring

Author pull requests with intent-separated commits, blast-radius disclosure, and verification evidence. Load when opening a PR, writing a PR description, separating refactor from feature commits, or summarizing a change set for review. Also triggers on "write the PR", "PR body", "intent-separated commits", "split refactor from feature", "pr summary", or after safe-change cycles complete. Extends git-workflow-and-versioning — does not replace it.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(3)

  • SKILL.md3.9 KB
  • references/examples.md1.0 KB
  • references/PR-CONVENTIONS.md1.4 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

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:

IntentCommit types
Behavior changefeat, fix
Structure onlyrefactor
Hygienechore, 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

ExcuseReality
"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]

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Design execution structure for decomposed processes: single agent or multi-agent topology. Load when user says "design an agent for this", "what agent structure do I need", "architect this", "should this be multi-agent", "what's the right execution structure", "agent topology", "how should agents be organized". Takes process-decomposer output as primary input. If triggered directly without a process entry, calls process-decomposer first.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Internal skill. Called by setup-evaluation after a PASS. Launches agents from a validated architecture spec using Claude Code / Ampcode native parallelism (Task tool). Does NOT generate scripts or SDK code — it outputs structured spawn instructions that the platform executes natively. Never invoked directly by the user. Never launches without a setup-evaluation PASS.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Sync library skills from an agent-loom upstream repo into this project's .agents/skills while preserving project-local and forked skills. Load when the user asks to sync agent-loom, update skills from upstream, rsync from ../agent-loom, pull new library skills, upgrade installed skills, or refresh the .agents folder without losing custom project skills. Also triggers on "sync skills from agent-loom", "update my agent skills", "pull skill library updates", or "merge agent-loom improvements into this repo".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Instrument a shipped product's AI agents with tracing and observability so you can see what they did, why outputs happened, and what each run cost. Plain-language primer plus free-tier-first backend selection (Langfuse, Phoenix, LangSmith, Braintrust) and OpenTelemetry/OpenInference instrumentation. Load when the user asks to add observability, add tracing, instrument my agents, see what my agent is doing in production, set up Langfuse or Phoenix or LangSmith, debug why my agent gave a bad answer, or track LLM cost per request. Also fires when agent-system-architecture or setup-evaluation requires an observability plan for an agent-chain product. NOT for tracing the coding agent itself — that is run-trace. Precondition for runtime-learning-loop.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Run a structured retrospective after development-phase runs of your product's agents — interview the owner in plain language about what went well and poorly, draft ranked improvement hypotheses, then design and run small n=1/n=2 experiments with pre-declared success criteria, guardrails, stop conditions, and a cost/ROI kill-switch. Load when the user says how did that run go, retro this run, the agent output was bad, what should we improve, draft hypotheses, run a small experiment, or after repeated dev runs of an agentic system produce uneven quality. Priority: output quality over performance over cost, each with diminishing-returns stops. NOT a product A/B test (experimentation), NOT coding-agent harness repair (harness-evolution), NOT production-scale learning (runtime-learning-loop).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

dvy1987 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する