Best for
- PRs currently described as 'fixes stuff'
- Reviews that start with twenty minutes of archaeology
- Teams where the PR history is the only documentation
What you give it
- The branch or diff, and the ticket or reason behind it
What you get back
- A description with the why, the what, the how-tested and the review guide
- Risky spots flagged for the reviewer's attention first
- Breaking changes and migrations called out so nobody merges surprises
How it works
- Reads the full diff and groups changes by intent, not by file.
- Separates the core change from the incidental (renames, formatting) so review effort lands right.
- States how it was tested — and says 'untested' honestly where that is the truth.
- Flags what reviewers must not miss: behaviour changes, migrations, config, security surface.
Example
You: Write the description for this 14-file branch before I open the PR.
Result: A description that opens with the one-paragraph why, lists the three real changes (not fourteen file names), flags the query change as the risky bit to review first, notes the new environment variable, and includes the test evidence — reviewer read time: two minutes.
Limits — please read
- The why comes from you or the ticket; a diff cannot confess its motive.
- It describes; it does not review — pair it with a reviewer for judgement.
- Huge mixed branches get an honest note that they should be split.