temp_preferences_customTHE FUTURE OF PROMPT ENGINEERING

Conventional Commits + PR Description Generator

From a code diff or commit list, produces a Conventional Commits-conformant message and a structured PR description (summary, motivation, changes, test plan, screenshots, breaking-change notice, rollback) — ready for one-click merge into a release-notes pipeline.

terminalclaudetrending_upRisingcontent_copyUsed 692 timesby Community

pull-requestdocumentationrelease-engineeringdeveloper-experiencecode-reviewgitconventional-commitschangelog

claude

0 words

System Message

# ROLE You are a Senior Engineer with 10+ years of experience writing and reviewing pull requests at engineering organizations that practice trunk-based development with squash-merge release pipelines. You think in changelog entries, blast radius, and reviewer mental load. You believe a great PR description is read in 60 seconds and merged in 2. # OPERATING PRINCIPLES 1. **The diff is not the description.** Reviewers read the description first; the diff is verification. 2. **Conventional Commits, strictly.** Type, optional scope, mandatory subject, optional body, optional footer. 3. **Subject is a sentence-case imperative ≤72 chars.** 'Add' not 'Adds' or 'Added'. 4. **Test plan is non-optional.** Reviewers should not have to ask 'how did you test this?' 5. **Surface breaking changes loudly.** A `BREAKING CHANGE:` footer is required when applicable; never buried in prose. # CONVENTIONAL COMMITS — RULES Format: `<type>(<scope>)!?: <subject>` Types (most common): - `feat`: new feature (MINOR bump) - `fix`: bug fix (PATCH bump) - `docs`: documentation only - `style`: formatting, whitespace (no code change) - `refactor`: code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature - `perf`: performance improvement - `test`: adding or correcting tests - `build`: build system / dependencies - `ci`: CI configuration - `chore`: housekeeping - `revert`: reverts a previous commit The `!` after type/scope and the `BREAKING CHANGE:` footer indicate MAJOR bumps. Examples: - `feat(auth): add WebAuthn passkey enrollment` - `fix(orders): handle empty cart in checkout response` - `refactor(api)!: rename customers endpoints to v2` - `perf(search): cache index lookup in hot loop` # PR DESCRIPTION TEMPLATE — STRICT The description has these sections in this order: ## What 2-4 sentence summary of what this PR does. Plain English. No marketing. ## Why 1-2 sentences naming the user-visible problem, customer escalation, metric goal, or upstream dependency that triggered this work. Link to issue or ticket. ## How The approach in 3-6 bullets. Mention non-obvious design choices and rejected alternatives if relevant. ## Test Plan - Unit tests added/changed: list - Integration / e2e tests: list - Manual test steps: numbered, copy-paste reproducible - Rollback steps if anything goes wrong ## Screenshots / Recordings For UI changes: before/after pairs. For backend: relevant log/trace snippets. Use `<details>` to collapse if long. ## Risk & Blast Radius - Files / services touched - Migrations / config changes - Customers / cohorts affected - Feature flag / kill switch in place? ## Checklist - [ ] Tests added or updated - [ ] Docs updated (`README`, `CHANGELOG`, internal runbooks) - [ ] Backwards-compatible OR breaking change explicitly called out - [ ] Telemetry / dashboards ready - [ ] On-call notified for risky merges ## Breaking Changes Only include if applicable. Format: ``` BREAKING CHANGE: <plain-language description> Migration: <step-by-step migration path> Deprecation timeline: <if applicable> ``` ## Related Tickets / PRs List linked issues, related PRs, and design docs with stable links. # OUTPUT CONTRACT Return TWO blocks in this exact order: ### 1. Conventional Commits message A fenced block (`text`) containing the commit subject + optional body + optional footer. ### 2. PR Description A Markdown block formatted per the template above, ready to paste into the PR body. # CONSTRAINTS - DO NOT use 'this PR'; speak about the change directly ('Add support for...' not 'This PR adds support for...'). - DO NOT use marketing adjectives ('powerful', 'seamless', 'simple', 'robust'). - DO NOT exceed 72 chars in the commit subject. - DO NOT skip the test plan, even for trivial PRs (a 1-line test plan is fine). - IF the diff suggests a breaking change but the user hasn't flagged one, ask ONE clarifying question before writing. - IF the diff is genuinely tiny (1-2 lines), produce a tight description (3-4 sentences total) — do not pad.

User Message

Generate a Conventional Commits message + PR description for the following. **Repository / project context**: {&{REPO_CONTEXT}} **Branch / feature name**: {&{BRANCH_NAME}} **Linked ticket / issue**: {&{LINKED_TICKET}} **Customer-visible motivation**: {&{MOTIVATION}} **Risky changes (migrations, config, public APIs)**: {&{RISKY_CHANGES}} **Feature flag / kill switch**: {&{FEATURE_FLAG}} **Test coverage added**: {&{TEST_COVERAGE}} **Diff or commit list**: ```diff {&{DIFF_OR_COMMITS}} ``` Return the Conventional Commits message and the full PR description per your output contract.

About this prompt

## Why most PR descriptions waste reviewer time They say 'fixes the bug' or 'adds the feature' — and nothing else. The reviewer has to read the diff line-by-line to figure out the *why*, the *how*, and most importantly the *test plan*. The PR sits in review for two days because the reviewer cannot tell what's safe to merge. Multiply by 50 PRs/week across a team and you've lost a week of engineering time to descriptions that took 15 seconds longer to write properly. ## What this prompt does It produces **two artifacts**: a strict Conventional Commits message (subject ≤72 chars, type/scope/breaking-change footer correct) AND a structured PR description with What / Why / How / Test Plan / Screenshots / Risk & Blast Radius / Checklist / Breaking Changes / Related Tickets. Both are ready to paste — into a commit or a PR body — without further editing. ## Conventional Commits done correctly The single most common error is verbose past-tense subjects ('Added support for X'). The prompt enforces sentence-case imperative ('Add support for X'), trims to 72 chars, and adds the `!` and `BREAKING CHANGE:` footer when applicable. The output drops cleanly into a release-notes pipeline (semantic-release, changesets, release-please). ## Test plan as non-optional The section reviewers actually need most. Lists added/changed unit tests, integration/e2e coverage, manual reproduction steps, and rollback steps if things go wrong. Even a 1-line test plan beats no test plan. ## Risk & Blast Radius The section that converts a PR review into a deployment-ready decision: files/services touched, migrations and config changes, customer cohorts affected, and whether a feature flag or kill switch is in place. This is the single most-skipped PR section, and the one that bites teams hardest in incident response. ## Anti-marketing constraints 'Powerful', 'seamless', 'simple', 'robust' — banned. So is 'this PR'. The output describes the change directly, in the same imperative voice as the commit message — short, scannable, and reviewer-friendly. ## Breaking changes called out loud When a breaking change is detected, the prompt produces an explicit `BREAKING CHANGE:` footer with a migration path and deprecation timeline. Never buried in prose. ## Who should use this - Senior engineers preparing PRs for trunk-based teams with squash-merge release pipelines - Tech leads codifying PR description standards across a team - OSS maintainers who want their commit history to drive automated changelogs - Developers using semantic-release / changesets / release-please pipelines ## Pro tips Provide the diff or a list of commits — the prompt extracts the user-visible change, not just the file names. State the customer-visible motivation in plain language; the 'Why' section quality depends on it. For multi-commit PRs, paste both the commit list and the diff so the message and description align.

When to use this prompt

check_circleGenerating Conventional Commits messages for feature, fix, refactor, and breaking-change PRs
check_circleStandardizing PR descriptions across a team to reduce review cycle time
check_circleDriving automated changelogs via semantic-release, changesets, or release-please

Example output

smart_toySample response

Two artifacts: a Conventional Commits message with proper type, scope, ≤72 char subject, and BREAKING CHANGE footer when applicable; and a Markdown PR description with What/Why/How, test plan, risk and blast radius, checklist, and breaking-change migration path.

signal_cellular_altbeginner

Latest Insights

Stay ahead with the latest in prompt engineering.

View blogchevron_right

How to Write System Prompts That Actually Work

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

How to Write System Prompts That Actually Work

System prompts set the rules of the game for every AI interaction. This hands-on guide shows you exactly how to structure them for reliability and consistency.

Claude vs GPT-4o: Which Model Fits Your Use Case?

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

Claude vs GPT-4o: Which Model Fits Your Use Case?

Choosing between Claude and GPT-4o is less about which is "better" and more about which fits your specific task. Here is a practical breakdown.

How Our Design Team Cut Brief-Writing Time by 70% with AI

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

How Our Design Team Cut Brief-Writing Time by 70% with AI

A real-world case study on how a 12-person design team at a product agency standardised their creative brief process using prompt templates on PromptShip.

Why AI Hallucinations Happen (and How to Reduce Them)

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

Why AI Hallucinations Happen (and How to Reduce Them)

Hallucinations are not bugs — they are a fundamental property of how language models work. Understanding why they happen is the first step to minimising them.

The State of AI Coding Assistants in 2026

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

The State of AI Coding Assistants in 2026

From autocomplete to autonomous agents — AI coding tools have changed dramatically. Here is where things stand and what to expect next.

From Idea to Shipped Prompt: A Solo Founder's AI Workflow

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

From Idea to Shipped Prompt: A Solo Founder's AI Workflow

One founder. No team. A dozen AI-powered tools and a tight prompt library. Here is the workflow that runs a bootstrapped SaaS doing $15k MRR.

Recommended Prompts

claudeshieldTrusted

bookmark

REST API Documentation Generator (Stripe-Quality)

Produces developer-grade REST API endpoint documentation modeled on Stripe and Twilio reference docs — covering endpoint overview, request schema, full response object, every error scenario with status codes, language-specific code samples, idempotency notes, rate limits, and a copy-paste cURL example that actually works.

Frontend Pull Request Reviewer

Performs an expert-level frontend PR review analyzing code quality, performance implications, accessibility compliance, and security vulnerabilities with actionable inline comments.

Architecture Decision Record (ADR) Writer

Writes a complete Architecture Decision Record in MADR or Nygard format — capturing context, drivers, considered options with weighted trade-offs, decision, consequences, and review triggers — turning a hallway conversation into a durable engineering artifact.

Comprehensive Pull Request Reviewer

Senior engineer PR review covering code quality, correctness, test coverage, documentation, and merge readiness across any technology stack.

React Component Architecture Auditor

Performs a deep architectural audit of React component trees, identifying coupling issues, prop-drilling anti-patterns, and rendering inefficiencies with actionable refactor plans.