PR Descriptions
Write for the reviewer first and the git historian second. A good PR description lets a reviewer predict what they'll see in the diff before they open it.
Format
<type>: <imperative title, ≤ 70 chars>
## What
2–4 sentences: the change at the level of behavior, not files.
## Why
The problem or requirement this solves. Link issues: Closes #123.
## How to test
Numbered, copy-pasteable steps a reviewer can run, with expected results.
## Notes for reviewers (only if needed)
Risky spots, decisions you want challenged, follow-ups deliberately
left out.
## Breaking changes (only if any)
What breaks and the migration path.
Rules
- Derive content from the diff/commits provided — never pad with invented details or generic statements ("improved performance") that the diff doesn't show.
- Title follows the repo's commit convention if visible; otherwise Conventional Commits types.
- "How to test" must be executable as written: commands, URLs, sample inputs, expected output.
- Mention what you did NOT do when it's a natural question ("did not migrate the v1 endpoint; tracked in #456").
- Keep the whole description under ~300 words unless the change is genuinely large.
Edge cases
- Mixed/unrelated changes in one branch: describe the primary change, list the stragglers under Notes, and suggest splitting if practical.
- No issue link exists: write the Why from the diff and flag that no ticket is referenced.
- Draft PRs: lead with what feedback is wanted and what's known to be unfinished.