Imported from paulpas/agent-skill-router (
skills/agent/pr-writer/SKILL.md). Install upstream withnpx skills add paulpas/agent-skill-router --skill pr-writer. Copyright stays with the author (MIT).
Pr Writer
Orchestrates intelligent skill selection and execution for pr writer workflows. Applies the 5 Laws of Elegant Defense to guide data naturally through the orchestration pipeline, preventing errors before they occur. Selects optimal skills based on multi-factor scoring including text similarity, historical performance, and system availability.
TL;DR Checklist
- Parse all inputs at boundary before processing (Law 2)
- Handle edge cases with early returns at function top (Law 1)
- Fail immediately with descriptive errors on invalid states (Law 4)
- Return new data structures, never mutate inputs (Law 3)
- Implement minimum 2-level fallback chain for all skill executions
- Log all skill selections with context for full audit trail
- Validate skill metadata and dependencies before selection
- Update confidence scores after each execution for learning
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Orchestration Flow │ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
User Request ↓ ┌─────────────────┐ │ Parse Request │ │ & Extract │ │ Features │ └────────┬────────┘ ↓ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Evaluate Available Skills │ │ │ │ ┌──────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ │ │ │ Skill A │ │ Skill B │ │ Skill C │ │ │ │ - Match Score│ │ - Match Score│ │ - Match Score│ │ │ │ - Confidence │ │ - Confidence │ │ - Confidence │ │ │ │ - History │ │ - History │ │ - History │ │ │ └──────┬───────┘ └──────┬───────┘ └──────┬───────┘ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────┘ │ │ ↓ │ │ Select Best Skill │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ↓ ┌─────────────────┐ │ Execute Skill │ └────────┬────────┘ ↓ ┌─────────────────┐ │ Handle Result │ └────────┬────────┘ ↓ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Error Handling & Fallback │ │ │ │ Success? ────────► Return Result │ │ │ │ Fail? ────────┐ │ │ ↓ │ │ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Fallback Chain │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 1. Retry with adjusted parameters │ │ │ │ 2. Try Alternative Skill (if available) │ │ │ │ 3. Defer to Human Operator (if critical) │ │ │ │ 4. Log & Return Error │ │ │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
When to Use
Use this skill when:
- Orchestrating multi-step workflows that require skill delegation
- Implementing adaptive skill routing based on confidence scores
- Building fallback mechanisms for failed skill executions
- Creating intelligent task decomposition and parallel execution
- Designing skill dependency graphs with automatic resolution
- Implementing skill selection with historical performance weighting
- Building agent systems that need to self-organize around tasks
When NOT to Use
Avoid this skill for:
- Direct task execution without orchestration needs - use individual skills instead
- High-frequency trading scenarios where latency must be minimized - the selection overhead may be prohibitive
- Simple linear workflows without branching or fallback requirements
- Cases where skill metadata is unavailable or unreliable
Core Workflow
-
Parse and Analyze Request - Extract intent, entities, and constraints from user input. Checkpoint: All required parameters must be present and in valid format before proceeding.
-
Score Available Skills - Calculate match scores using multi-factor algorithm:
- Text similarity between request and skill triggers
- Historical success rate for similar tasks
- Skill availability and health status
- Required dependencies and their availability
Checkpoint: Skip to fallback if no skill scores above threshold.
-
Select Optimal Skill - Choose skill with highest score that meets minimum confidence. Checkpoint: Verify skill has not been disabled or deprecated.
-
Execute with Fallback - Run skill execution wrapped in retry and fallback logic. Checkpoint: Log all execution attempts for audit trail.
-
Return or Fallback - Either return successful result or apply fallback chain:
- Retry with adjusted parameters
- Try alternative skill from
related-skills - Defer to human operator for critical tasks
Checkpoint: Record outcome with timing and confidence metadata.
Implementation Patterns
Pattern 1: Skill Selection Logic
def analyze_changes_and_generate_pr_content(
diff_content: str,
commit_history: List[str],
pr_template: Dict[str, Any]
) -> Dict[str, Any]:
"""Analyze git diff and commit history to generate structured PR content.
Extracts changed files, categorizes changes by type (feat/fix/refactor),
and maps them to the PR template sections. Implements Law 2 by
validating diff format before parsing.
Args:
diff_content: Raw git diff output
commit_history: List of commit messages
pr_template: Template dict with sections like '## Changes', '## Testing'
Returns:
Dict containing categorized changes, generated markdown, and metadata
"""
# Law 1: Early exit on invalid input
if not diff_content or not commit_history:
raise ValueError("Diff content and commit history are required")
# Law 2: Parse and validate diff structure
changed_files = _extract_changed_files(diff_content)
if not changed_files:
return {"status": "empty_diff", "content": pr_template.get("empty_template", "")}
# Categorize changes based on commit messages and file paths
categorized = _categorize_changes(changed_files, commit_history)
# Law 3: Return new structure, never mutate template
generated_pr = dict(pr_template)
generated_pr["## Changes"] = _format_changes(categorized)
generated_pr["## Files Changed"] = "\n".join(changed_files)
generated_pr["metadata"] = {
"files_count": len(changed_files),
"categories": list(categorized.keys()),
"generated_at": time.time()
}
return generated_pr
Pattern 2: Execution with Fallback
def execute_pr_generation_with_fallback(
repo_context: Dict,
pr_template: Dict,
max_attempts: int = 2
) -> Dict:
"""Generate PR description with fallback chain for resilience.
Implements Law 4 (Fail Fast) by validating repo state upfront.
Fallback chain:
1. Generate from full diff
2. Generate from summary of changed directories
3. Fall back to default template with manual review flag
Args:
repo_context: Dict with 'diff', 'commits', 'branch', 'base_branch'
pr_template: PR markdown template
max_attempts: Retry limit for diff parsing
Returns:
Final PR content dict with generation strategy and confidence
"""
# Law 1: Validate repo context immediately
required_keys = {"diff", "commits", "branch"}
if not required_keys.issubset(repo_context.keys()):
raise ValueError(f"Missing required repo context keys: {required_keys - set(repo_context.keys())}")
strategy = "full_diff"
pr_content = None
for attempt in range(max_attempts + 1):
try:
if strategy == "full_diff":
pr_content = analyze_changes_and_generate_pr_content(
repo_context["diff"], repo_context["commits"], pr_template
)
elif strategy == "directory_summary":
pr_content = _generate_directory_summary(repo_context, pr_template)
else:
pr_content = _apply_default_template(repo_context, pr_template)
if pr_content.get("status") != "empty_diff":
pr_content["generation_strategy"] = strategy
pr_content["confidence"] = 0.9 if strategy == "full_diff" else 0.6
return pr_content
except DiffParseError as e:
# Law 4: Fail fast on corrupt diff, move to fallback
if attempt == max_attempts:
strategy = "default_template"
continue
strategy = "directory_summary"
# All strategies exhausted - return with manual review flag
return {
"status": "fallback_applied",
"content": pr_content,
"requires_manual_review": True,
"fallback_reason": "Diff parsing failed after all strategies"
}
MUST DO
- Always validate skill metadata before selection (Early Exit)
- Implement fallback chain with at least 2 levels (Fallback Skill + Human)
- Log all skill selections with full context for auditability
- Return new data structures instead of mutating inputs (Atomic Predictability)
- Fail immediately with descriptive errors on invalid states
- Update confidence scores after each execution for adaptive routing
- Reference
code-philosophy(5 Laws of Elegant Defense) in all logic
MUST NOT DO
- Select skills based on a single factor (e.g., only confidence score)
- Disable fallback mechanisms "temporarily" - this creates fragile systems
- Skip validation of skill dependencies before execution
- Return partial results - either complete success or clear failure
- Use magic numbers for confidence thresholds - make them configurable
- Cache skill selections without considering context changes
TL;DR Checklist
- Parse all inputs at boundary before processing (Law 2)
- Handle edge cases with early returns at function top (Law 1)
- Fail immediately with descriptive errors on invalid states (Law 4)
- Return new data structures, never mutate inputs (Law 3)
- Implement minimum 2-level fallback chain for all skill executions
- Log all skill selections with context for full audit trail
- Validate skill metadata and dependencies before selection
- Update confidence scores after each execution for learning
TL;DR for Code Generation
- Use guard clauses - return early on invalid input before doing work
- Return simple types (dict, str, int, bool, list) - avoid complex nested objects
- Cyclomatic complexity < 10 per function - split anything larger
- Handle null/empty cases explicitly at function top (Early Exit)
- Never mutate input parameters - return new dicts/objects
- Fail fast with descriptive errors - don't try to "patch" bad data
- Reference code-philosophy laws in comments for complex logic
- Include timing and confidence metadata in all return values
Output Template
When applying this skill, produce:
- Selected Skills - List of skill names with confidence scores
- Selection Rationale - Why each skill was chosen (match score, history, availability)
- Execution Plan - Order of execution with dependencies
- Fallback Strategy - Which fallback skills will be tried and in what order
- Risk Assessment - Any potential failure points and their impact
- Timing Estimates - Expected latency including fallback scenarios
Related Skills
| Skill | Purpose |
|---|---|
requesting-code-review |
The counterpart skill — use this when writing PRs, load requesting to learn how to frame them for review |
code-review |
Provides the review methodology that PR writers should anticipate and align their submissions toward |
Constraints
MUST DO
- Define clear input/output contracts for every step in the orchestration flow with explicit validation
- Implement structured logging at each stage capturing context, inputs, outputs, timing, and errors
- Build in fallback paths: if the primary strategy fails, degrade gracefully to a simpler approach
- Validate all preconditions before starting — do not proceed if required resources or permissions are missing
MUST NOT DO
- Do not create deep nesting of orchestration steps (>5 levels) — flatten workflows where possible
- Avoid silent failure modes: every step must either succeed, fail explicitly, or escalate to a higher handler
- Never use shared mutable state between parallel workflow branches — communicate via immutable messages only
- Do not hardcode execution order when the dependency graph naturally determines it; derive order from explicit dependencies
Live References
Authoritative documentation links for this domain. The model follows markdown links at load time to resolve external references and inline content.
- GitHub: Creating a Pull Request — Official GitHub documentation on creating and writing PR descriptions
- CONTRIBUTING.md Best Practices (GitHub Guides) — Guide to effective contribution workflows including PR writing standards
- Open Source PR Templates (GitHub Docs) — Best practices for structuring PR templates and descriptions
- Writing Good Commit Messages and PR Descriptions (Atlassian) — Atlassian's guide on writing clear, actionable pull request documentation
- What We've Learned from Reviewing 1,000+ Pull Requests (Stripe) — Engineering blog post with lessons from large-scale code review processes