Adopt Motivation/Solution/Docs PR description structure - #435
Conversation
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
skyrpex
added
semver: patch
docs: skip
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
anisaoshafi
left a comment
anisaoshafi
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's see if this makes PR description more readable, otherwise we can adjust it again 💯
| - Use `Closes TICKET-ID` if the PR fully resolves the issue | ||
| - Use `Towards TICKET-ID` if it's a partial contribution | ||
| - Keep bullet points concise — what changed, not how every line was modified | ||
| - The Docs section must agree with the docs label: `docs: skip` pairs with an explicit "nothing to document" explanation; `docs: needed` pairs with concrete pointers to what writers should cover. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we might as well get rid of this label, it's not currently being used
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, please and would remove the required check that fails PRs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was an attempt to apply an obsolete workflow from localstack-pro, see relevant discussion. The label was never used, and docs are now automatically handled, see relevant discusion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay, will remove that bit. Thanks for the suggestions
| ## Docs | ||
|
|
||
| <Self-merge candidate — one-line reason. Or: Human review advised — one-line reason.> | ||
| <Context for technical writers to pick up: user-facing changes, new/changed commands, flags, env vars, or behavior worth documenting. Always include this section — when nothing is user-facing, say so explicitly and why (e.g. test-only change, internal refactor), so writers can triage from the PR alone.> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps we could make this Docs section a collapsible content, for whoever wants to check further
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
3 participants
Motivation
PR descriptions served reviewers but gave technical writers nothing to triage from: the old Motivation/Changes/Tests template had no place to flag user-facing changes, so writers had to read diffs or ask around to know whether a PR needed documentation work.
Solution
Restructure the PR body template around three audiences (template in
.claude/skills/create-pr/SKILL.md, convention bullet inCLAUDE.md):First applied manually on #434; this PR's own description follows the new structure.
Docs
Nothing to document for lstk users — this changes contributor/process conventions only (repo-internal CLAUDE.md and the
/create-prskill), no CLI behavior.Review
Human review advised — small diff, but it changes a team-wide PR convention, so teammates affected by it should weigh in.
Closes DEVX-1037
Co-Authored-By: Claude noreply@anthropic.com