Create PR

Create a PR a reviewer can understand without reading the conversation. Use extra invocation text and session findings to explain the problem, final behavior, and evidence. Follow the user's requested format and the target repo's guidance.

Workflow

1. Inspect the scope and base

   • Read repository guidance and inspect git status, staged changes, and the current branch.
   • Honor staged-only requests. Never stage unrelated work or require a new commit when the branch already contains the requested changes.
   • Confirm the target remote and base branch. Before creating a branch from main/master, fetch that remote and fast-forward the local base with git merge --ff-only <remote>/<base>. Preserve dirty work and stop if fast-forwarding fails. Do not reset it away.
   • Create a short branch using the repo's naming convention. Never commit directly to main.

2. Finish and inspect the change

   • Run /simplify on the staged diff before committing and apply its findings. Docs-only diffs are a no-op. Follow commit-staged for any staged changes.
   • Update existing documentation only when the requested change makes it inaccurate.
   • Review git diff <remote>/<base>...HEAD across all commits. For an existing PR, use its actual base and head, or gh pr diff <pr> if this checkout is on another branch.
   • Run appropriate checks and collect their actual results. Verify session findings against the final change, including links, counts, errors, and benchmark provenance.

3. Write and publish

   • Use the title and body guidance below. If a PR already exists, use update-pr-summary rather than opening a duplicate.
   • Write the exact body to a temporary file outside the repo and pass --body-file to gh. Never interpolate text into a shell command or include command output by accident.
   • Push the branch and create with an explicit base, --title, --body-file, and -a @me.
   • Add a reviewer only if explicitly requested or recent PRs by this author have reviewers: gh pr list --repo <owner>/<repo> --author @me --limit 5 --json reviewRequests.
   • Read back the published title and body with gh pr view <pr> --json title,body,url. Check code fences, tables, links, and preserved media. For visual changes, open the PR and verify the images render. Report the URL and any incomplete verification.

Title and body

• Title: start with a capitalized verb and name the concrete behavior, such as Fix copied session text losing line breaks. No type prefix, internal brand names, or vague claims. Rewrite the title and body when the final scope changes.
• Lead with the trigger and consequence: when does the bug happen, what goes wrong, and why does the fix matter? For a feature, show what the user can now do. Skip "This PR" openers.
• Keep distinct points in short bullets, usually 1-3. Do not squeeze several ideas into a paragraph or cut useful evidence to satisfy a word count. Small changes may need only one sentence and a snippet. Use short sections when reproduction, fix, and results need separation. Omit empty or boilerplate sections.
• For bugs, include the smallest useful reproduction, the actual error/output and expected behavior, then explain how the final change fixes it. Use exact logs where they show the failure. Skip setup noise, raw tool output, and the debugging diary.
• Show behavior with a copyable usage/reproduction snippet, a compact Before/After table, or separately labeled fenced Before and After outputs. Prefer these to red/green diff lines that force the reviewer to infer the outcome. Do not force snippets onto copy edits.
• Put measurements and main-versus-branch comparisons in a small table. State the dataset, workload, or sample count needed to interpret them. Link relevant issues, commits, docs, and result artifacts where they support the claim, rather than listing changed files.
• Include concise completed validation: the relevant command or check, its result, and material limitations or pre-existing failures. A future test checklist is not evidence. Do not claim full-run success from a focused check, or understate verified full runs.
• Include only implementation detail that explains the fix or a tradeoff. Mention net line counts or base-branch noise when they help distinguish the actual review scope.
• Never add AI attribution, session links, redundant captions, or a concluding sales pitch.

Visual evidence and existing content

• UI/design changes need readable Before/After images or GIFs in a two-column table. Match viewport and scenario, and inspect the visuals before using them. Analysis/plot changes need representative outputs and measured results readable at the displayed size.
• Never commit PR screenshots or generated figures into the branch. Follow the user's and repo's hosting rules. Where release uploads are permitted, use an existing appropriate release and embed its asset URLs. Preserve existing GitHub attachment URLs as well.
• For Ultralytics repos, never upload visuals to release assets. Give the user absolute local paths, the PR link, and the sentence/table cell where each image belongs for manual upload. Do not invent attachment URLs or claim pending uploads are visible.
• When editing a body, preserve user-uploaded images/GIFs, bot-added context, related links, and still-valid evidence unless the user asks to remove them. Edit the relevant portion rather than replacing the whole body. Keep proof in the body instead of duplicating it in a separate comment.

Example: bug with completed checks

Copying a multiline command into a session loses its line breaks.

| Before | After |
|---|---|
| Pasted command becomes one line | Original line breaks survive |

- Preserve clipboard newlines at paste time
- Reuse the existing text insertion path

**Reproduce**
```sh
printf 'first\nsecond\n' | pbcopy
# Paste into an open session.
```

**Checked:** paste regression passes for multiline and single-line commands.

Adapt this shape to the evidence. For UI changes, comparison cells should carry the actual screenshots/GIFs. For long outputs, use separate fenced blocks outside the table.