Writing pull requests

Writing pull requests

Standards for PR titles and descriptions in tldraw/tldraw.

Write for the reviewer (read this first)

This is the governing rule; everything below serves it. Write the description for a reviewer who knows the codebase architecture but has not read your code or the diff. Their time is the scarce resource. The description's job is to give them the framing they can't get from the code, then get out of the way.

Default to short. A few sentences of framing is the norm, not the exception. Match length to the change: a one-line fix needs a sentence; a new system needs the fuller treatment. A description that looks long and structured is not more valuable — often it's less, because it buries the framing under scaffolding. If a reviewer would need their own AI to interpret yours, it has failed.

Order it coarse to granular. Structure the description as an inverted pyramid, most important first. A reader should be able to stop at any point and leave with a correct, coherent understanding: a skimmer gets the goal and motivation from the opening lines; someone weighing the approach reads into the design and decisions; a close reviewer continues to the specifics. Never make someone read to the end to find out what the PR is for.

Cover the following, roughly in this order — each layer more detailed than the last, and each optional once the change no longer warrants it:

• Goal, motivation, and use case. Why this change, why now, what it's for. What was wrong or missing before. This comes first, always.
• The higher-level change. The shape of the solution — behavior and structure, not a line-by-line restatement of the diff.
• API design and decisions. New or changed public surface, the approach you picked, what you ruled out and why, and anything you're unsure about. A decision you don't surface is one the reviewer can't catch.
• Example snippets and fine detail. For anything touching an API, data shape, or usage pattern, a few lines of before/after say more than a paragraph. Keep them minimal.

Do not:

• Restate the diff. No file-by-file walkthrough, no narrating what a function does, no describing how the code works step by step. Reviewers can read code.
• Generate tables or lists that mirror the code — a Method | Description table that just re-says the signatures, an inventory of every changed file, a term glossary of self-explanatory names.
• Pad with ceremony. Structure that exists to look thorough is noise.

Never invent the why. The motivation and trade-offs must come from real intent — the commits, the linked issue, or the author. If you don't know why a change was made or what was considered, ask the user; do not guess. A confident but fabricated rationale is worse than useless: it's misleading, and it's the thing reviewers most need to trust.

PR title

Use semantic PR titles (Conventional Commits format):

<type>(<scope>): <description>

Types

• feat - New feature
• fix - Bug fix
• docs - Documentation only