PR Quality Checklist Skill

Summary

Comprehensive guide for creating high-quality pull requests that are easy to review, well-documented, and follow team standards. Includes templates, size guidelines, and best practices for both authors and reviewers.

When to Use

• Before creating any pull request
• When reviewing others' PRs
• To establish team PR standards
• During onboarding of new team members
• When PR reviews are taking too long

Quick Checklist

Before Creating PR

• PR title follows convention:

  type(scope): description

• Description includes summary, related tickets, and test plan
• Changes are focused and related (single concern)
• Code is self-reviewed for obvious issues
• Tests added/updated and passing
• No debugging code (console.log, debugger, etc.)
• TypeScript/type errors resolved
• Documentation updated if needed
• Screenshots included for UI changes
• Changeset added (for user-facing changes)

---

PR Title Format

Convention

{type}({scope}): {short description}

Types

• feat: New feature
• fix: Bug fix
• refactor: Code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature
• docs: Documentation only
• style: Formatting, missing semicolons, etc. (no code change)
• test: Adding or updating tests
• chore: Maintenance tasks, dependency updates
• perf: Performance improvement
• ci: CI/CD changes

Examples

feat(auth): add OAuth2 login support
fix(cart): resolve race condition in checkout
refactor(search): extract query param parsing logic
docs(api): update authentication examples
test(payment): add integration tests for Stripe
chore(deps): update Next.js to v15
perf(images): implement lazy loading for gallery
ci(deploy): add staging environment workflow

Scope Guidelines

• Use component/module name:

  auth

  ,

  cart

  ,

  search

  ,

  api

• Be specific but not too granular:

  user-profile

  not

  user-profile-settings-modal

• Consistent with codebase structure

---

PR Description Template

Standard Template

## Summary
<!-- 1-3 bullet points describing what changed -->
- Added OAuth2 authentication flow
- Integrated with Auth0 provider
- Updated login UI components

## Related Tickets
<!-- Link to Linear/Jira/GitHub issues -->
- Closes #123
- Related to #456
- Fixes ENG-789

## Changes
<!-- Detailed list of changes -->
### Added
- `src/lib/auth/oauth2.ts` - OAuth2 client implementation
- `src/app/api/auth/callback/route.ts` - Auth callback handler
- `src/components/OAuthButtons.tsx` - OAuth login buttons

### Modified
- `src/components/LoginForm.tsx` - Added OAuth buttons
- `src/lib/auth/index.ts` - Export new auth methods
- `README.md` - Updated setup instructions

### Removed
- `src/lib/auth/legacy.ts` - Deprecated auth code
- `src/components/OldLoginForm.tsx` - Replaced by new form

## Screenshots
<!-- Required for UI changes -->
### Desktop
![Desktop view](https://imgur.com/desktop.png)

### Mobile
![Mobile view](https://imgur.com/mobile.png)

### Before/After (if applicable)
| Before | After |
|--------|-------|
| ![Before](before.png) | ![After](after.png) |

## Testing
<!-- How was this tested? -->
- [ ] Unit tests added/updated
- [ ] Integration tests pass
- [ ] Manual testing completed
- [ ] Tested on Chrome, Firefox, Safari
- [ ] Mobile responsive (tested on iOS/Android)
- [ ] Edge cases tested (empty state, error states, loading)

## Breaking Changes
<!-- If any breaking changes -->
⚠️ **Breaking Change**: The `login()` function signature has changed.

**Before:**
```typescript
login(username: string, password: string)

After:

login({ username: string, password: string, provider?: 'local' | 'oauth' })

Migration:

// Old
await login('user', 'pass');

// New
await login({ username: 'user', password: 'pass' });

Checklist

• Code follows project style guidelines
• Self-review completed
• Comments added for complex logic
• Documentation updated (if needed)
• Changeset added (if user-facing change)
• No console.log/debugger statements left
• No TypeScript errors
• Tests pass locally
• Build succeeds

### Minimal Template (for small changes)
```markdown
## Summary
Brief description of the change.

## Changes
- Modified `file.ts` to fix XYZ

## Testing
- [ ] Tests pass
- [ ] Verified manually

---

Size Guidelines

Ideal PR Size

• Lines changed: < 300 (excluding generated files)
• Files changed: < 15
• Review time: < 30 minutes
• Commits: 1-5 logical commits

Size Categories

Size	Lines	Files	Review Time	Recommendation
XS	< 50	1-3	5 min	✅ Ideal for hotfixes
S	50-150	3-8	15 min	✅ Good size
M	150-300	8-15	30 min	⚠️ Consider splitting
L	300-500	15-25	1 hour	❌ Should split
XL	500+	25+	2+ hours	❌ Must split

When to Split PRs

1. By Feature Phase

PR #1: MVP implementation (core functionality)
PR #2: Polish and edge cases
PR #3: Additional features

2. By Layer

PR #1: Database schema changes
PR #2: Backend API implementation
PR #3: Frontend UI integration
PR #4: Tests and documentation

3. By Concern

PR #1: Refactoring (no behavior change)
PR #2: New feature (builds on refactored code)
PR #3: Tests for new feature

4. By Risk Level

PR #1: High-risk changes (need careful review)
PR #2: Low-risk changes (routine updates)

Exceptions to Size Limits

• Generated code (migrations, API clients, types)
• Renaming/moving files (show with

  git mv

  )
• Bulk formatting changes (separate PR, pre-approved)
• Third-party library integration (well-documented)

---

Refactoring PRs

Refactoring Template

## Summary
Refactoring and cleanup for [area]

**Goal**: Improve code maintainability without changing behavior

## Motivation
- Reduce code duplication (3 similar functions → 1 reusable utility)
- Improve type safety (any → specific types)
- Remove dead code identified during feature work

## Related Tickets
- ENG-XXX: Improve [area] maintainability
- ENG-YYY: Remove deprecated [feature]

## Stats
- **Lines added**: +91
- **Lines removed**: -1,330
- **Net**: -1,239 ✅
- **Files changed**: 23

## Changes

### Removed (Dead Code)
- `/api/old-endpoint` - unused, replaced by `/api/new-endpoint` in v2.0
- `useDeprecatedHook.ts` - replaced by `useNewHook.ts` (ENG-234)
- `legacy-utils.ts` - functions no longer called anywhere

### Refactored
- **Extracted common logic**: Query param parsing now in `lib/url-utils.ts`
- **Consolidated validation**: 3 duplicate Zod schemas → 1 shared schema
- **Improved types**: Replaced 12 `any` types with proper interfaces

### No Behavior Changes
- [ ] All tests pass (no test modifications needed)
- [ ] Same inputs → same outputs
- [ ] No user-facing changes

## Testing
- [ ] Full test suite passes (no new tests needed)
- [ ] Manual smoke test completed
- [ ] No regressions identified

## Review Focus
- Verify removed code is truly unused (checked with `rg` search)
- Confirm refactored logic is equivalent
- Check no subtle behavior changes introduced

Refactoring Best Practices

• Separate refactoring from features: Never mix
• Verify zero behavior change: Tests should not need updates
• Document removed code: Explain why safe to remove
• Search thoroughly: Use

  rg

  /

  grep

  to verify no usage
• Celebrate negative LOC: Highlight code reduction

---

Review Checklist

For Authors (Self-Review)

Before requesting review, check:

Code Quality

• Code is DRY (no obvious duplication)
• Functions are single-purpose and focused
• Variable names are clear and descriptive
• No magic numbers or hardcoded values
• Error handling is comprehensive
• Edge cases are handled

Testing

• Tests cover new functionality
• Tests are meaningful (not just for coverage)
• Edge cases are tested
• Error conditions are tested
• No flaky tests introduced

Documentation

• Complex logic has comments
• Public APIs have JSDoc/docstrings
• README updated (if setup changed)
• Migration guide (if breaking changes)

Performance

• No obvious performance issues
• Database queries are efficient (indexes considered)
• No N+1 queries
• Large datasets handled appropriately

Security

• No hardcoded secrets
• Input validation present
• Authorization checks in place
• No SQL injection vulnerabilities
• Sensitive data not logged

---

For Reviewers

First Pass (5 minutes)

• PR description is clear
• Changes align with stated goal
• Size is reasonable (< 300 LOC preferred)
• No obvious red flags

Code Review (15-30 minutes)

• Logic is correct
• Edge cases are handled
• Error handling is appropriate
• Code is readable and maintainable
• No performance issues
• Security considerations addressed

Testing Review

• Tests cover the changes
• Tests are meaningful
• No flaky tests
• Edge cases tested

Documentation Review

• PR description matches changes
• Comments explain "why" not "what"
• Breaking changes documented
• Migration guide provided (if needed)

Approval Criteria

✅ Approve: Code is good, minor nits only
💬 Comment: Suggestions but not blockers
🔄 Request Changes: Issues must be fixed before merge

---

Common Mistakes

1. Vague PR Titles

❌ "Fix bug"
❌ "Updates"
❌ "WIP"
❌ "Changes from code review"

✅ "fix(auth): prevent duplicate login requests"
✅ "feat(cart): add coupon code support"

2. Missing Context

❌ "Changed the function"
Why? What was wrong? What's the impact?

✅ "Refactored parseQueryParams to handle nested objects

Previously failed when query params contained dots (e.g., user.name).
Now correctly parses nested structures using qs library.

Fixes ENG-456"

3. Too Large

❌ 2,000 lines changed across 50 files
❌ "Implement entire authentication system"

✅ Split into:
  - PR #1: Add database schema for auth (150 LOC)
  - PR #2: Implement JWT utilities (100 LOC)
  - PR #3: Create login endpoint (200 LOC)
  - PR #4: Add login UI (250 LOC)

4. Mixed Concerns

❌ Single PR with:
  - Feature implementation
  - Dependency updates
  - Refactoring
  - Bug fixes
  - Formatting changes

✅ Separate PRs:
  - PR #1: feat(feature)
  - PR #2: chore(deps)
  - PR #3: refactor(component)

5. No Screenshots for UI Changes

❌ "Updated the header design"
(No screenshots)

✅ "Updated the header design"
[Desktop screenshot]
[Mobile screenshot]
[Before/After comparison]

6. Incomplete Testing Notes

❌ "Tested locally"
How? What scenarios? What browsers?

✅ "Testing completed:
- Unit tests: All 47 tests pass
- Manual testing: Tested login flow on Chrome, Firefox, Safari
- Edge cases: Tested expired tokens, invalid credentials, network errors
- Mobile: Verified on iOS Safari and Android Chrome"

7. Leaving Debug Code

❌ console.log('user data:', user);
❌ debugger;
❌ // TODO: fix this later
❌ import { test } from './test-utils'; (unused)

✅ Clean code without debugging artifacts

8. No Changeset (for User-Facing Changes)

❌ New feature shipped without changelog entry

✅ .changeset/new-feature.md:
---
"@myapp/web": minor
---

Add OAuth2 login support with Auth0 integration

---

Summary

Quick Reference

PR Title Formula

{type}({scope}): {clear, concise description}

Ideal PR Characteristics

• Size: < 300 LOC, < 15 files
• Focus: Single concern, related changes only
• Documentation: Clear description, test plan, screenshots (if UI)
• Quality: Self-reviewed, tested, no debugging code
• Timeline: Ready to merge, not WIP

Review Mindset

As Author:

• Make reviewer's job easy
• Provide context and reasoning
• Test thoroughly before requesting review
• Respond promptly to feedback

As Reviewer:

• Be constructive and specific
• Focus on correctness and maintainability
• Ask questions when unclear
• Acknowledge good practices

Red Flags

• 🚩 No description or "WIP" title
• 🚩 Over 500 LOC changed
• 🚩 Mixed concerns (feature + refactor + deps)
• 🚩 No tests or only changing tests
• 🚩 "Trust me, it works"
• 🚩 Console.log/debugger statements
• 🚩 TypeScript errors ignored
• 🚩 No screenshots for UI changes

Use this skill to maintain high PR quality standards and streamline code review processes.