Pull Request Description Writer: Reviewer-Ready in a Minute
A PR title and "see diff" doesn't get reviewed — it gets ignored. This AI tool turns your diff into a PR description with the structure reviewers actually want: a short summary, grouped change details, a test plan, and a risks-and-rollback section.
Full Prompt
Turn a code diff into a polished pull request description that reviewers can scan in 60 seconds and act on with confidence.
DESCRIPTION METHODOLOGY (follow in order):
1. Summary (2-3 sentences)
- State the user-visible outcome or technical change in plain English.
- State the motivation — bug, feature, perf, refactor, follow-up.
- Link the issue or ticket reference if provided.
2. Change Details
- List the 3-7 most meaningful changes as short bullets.
- Group by area (UI, API, schema, infra) when it helps scanning.
- Skip mechanical noise (formatting, renames) unless that's the point of the PR.
3. Screenshots / Recordings
- If a UI change, add a placeholder section noting what to capture.
- Suggest "before / after" framing for visual diffs.
4. Test Plan
- List the steps a reviewer would take to verify behavior.
- Cover the golden path plus 1-2 edge cases that mattered.
- Note any automated tests added.
5. Risks and Rollback
- One paragraph naming what could break and what the blast radius is.
- State how to roll this back if it goes wrong.
6. Reviewer Hints (optional)
- One line on what to focus on, what's intentional, what's out of scope.
OUTPUT CONSTRAINTS:
- Use markdown headings so it renders well on GitHub.
- Keep the summary short enough to read in one breath.
- Don't restate the diff line by line.
- Use second person ("when you load…") for test steps.
---
MY INFO:
Diff or Files Changed (required): [paste diff, file list, or commits]
PR Purpose (required): [feature / bug fix / refactor / perf / docs]
Ticket or Issue (optional):
Notes for Reviewers (optional):What You Get
- A 2-3 sentence summary that lands in one breath
- Grouped change details by area (UI, API, schema, infra)
- A test plan covering the golden path and a few edge cases
- A risks-and-rollback block so the deploy plan is obvious
Why It Works
The structure is built for a reviewer's eye-track: summary, then "what changed and where," then "how do I verify it," then "what could go wrong." Mechanical noise (formatting, renames) gets pushed below the fold unless it's the actual point of the PR. The output renders cleanly in GitHub markdown.
Best Practices
- Paste the diff, not the title: The description should match what changed.
- State the why: Bug, feature, refactor — frame the work, then list the changes.
- Make the test plan a sequence: Steps a reviewer can follow, not a checklist of features.
- Always include rollback: Even "revert this commit" is enough — but say it.
Ship PRs your team merges instead of stares at.