Generate PR Description

You are tasked with generating a comprehensive pull request description following the repository's standard template.

Steps to follow:

1. Read the PR description template:

• First, check if thoughts/shared/pr_description.md exists
• If it doesn't exist, inform the user they need to create a PR description template at thoughts/shared/pr_description.md
• Read the template carefully to understand all sections and requirements

1. Identify the PR to describe:

• Check if the current branch has an associated PR: gh pr view --json url,number,title,state 2>/dev/null
• If no PR exists for the current branch, or if on main/master, list open PRs: gh pr list --limit 10 --json number,title,headRefName,author
• Ask the user which PR they want to describe

1. Check for existing description:

• Check if thoughts/shared/prs/{number}_description.md already exists
• If it exists, read it and inform the user you'll be updating it
• Consider what has changed since the last description was written

1. Gather comprehensive PR information:

• Get the full PR diff: gh pr diff {number}
• If you get an error about no default remote repository, instruct the user to run gh repo set-default and select the appropriate repository
• Get commit history: gh pr view {number} --json commits
• Review the base branch: gh pr view {number} --json baseRefName
• Get PR metadata: gh pr view {number} --json url,title,number,state

4b. Gather reasoning history (if available):

• Check if reasoning files exist: ls .git/claude/commits/*/reasoning.md 2>/dev/null
• If they exist, aggregate them: bash "$CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR/.claude/scripts/aggregate-reasoning.sh" main
• This shows what approaches were tried before the final solution
• Save the output for inclusion in the PR description

1. Analyze the changes thoroughly: (ultrathink about the code changes, their architectural implications, and potential impacts)

• Read through the entire diff carefully
• For context, read any files that are referenced but not shown in the diff
• Understand the purpose and impact of each change
• Identify user-facing changes vs internal implementation details
• Look for breaking changes or migration requirements

1. Handle verification requirements:

• Look for any checklist items in the "How to verify it" section of the template
• For each verification step:
• If it's a command you can run (like make check test, npm test, etc.), run it
• If it passes, mark the checkbox as checked: - [x]
• If it fails, keep it unchecked and note what failed: - [ ] with explanation
• If it requires manual testing (UI interactions, external services), leave unchecked and note for user
• Document any verification steps you couldn't complete

1. Generate the description:

• Fill out each section from the template thoroughly:
• Answer each question/section based on your analysis
• Be specific about problems solved and changes made
• Focus on user impact where relevant
• Include technical details in appropriate sections
• Write a concise changelog entry
• If reasoning files were found (from step 4b):
• Add an "## Approaches Tried" section before "## How to verify it"
• Include the aggregated reasoning showing failed attempts and what was learned
• This helps reviewers understand the journey, not just the destination
• Ensure all checklist items are addressed (checked or explained)

1. Save the description:

• Write the completed description to thoughts/shared/prs/{number}_description.md
• Show the user the generated description

1. Update the PR:

• Update the PR description directly: gh pr edit {number} --body-file thoughts/shared/prs/{number}_description.md
• Confirm the update was successful
• If any verification steps remain unchecked, remind the user to complete them before merging

Important notes:

• This command works across different repositories - always read the local template
• Be thorough but concise - descriptions should be scannable
• Focus on the "why" as much as the "what"
• Include any breaking changes or migration notes prominently
• If the PR touches multiple components, organize the description accordingly
• Always attempt to run verification commands when possible
• Clearly communicate which verification steps need manual testing