Case study

Pull Request Generator

Loading experience…

0%

The real problem

Pull Request Generator

I built this after seeing the same issue at work: no consistent pull request format across the team.

The problem

The reviewer's view

You open a pull request to review code. Before the diff, you need context: what changed, why it matters, how to test it, and what ticket it closes.

Instead you get a vague title, no description, or a description that looks nothing like the last PR. You chase the author for details, then review anyway and hope nothing breaks.

PR after PR, it wears on you. Inconsistent formats do not just slow reviews down. They stress the reviewer out.

I kept thinking: there has to be a way to make this less painful for whoever is on the other side of the review.

Mood
Still patient
Waiting7s

adibomar / habo-chain

fix #18

adibomar wants to merge 9 commits into main from adibomar/wip-chain

Conversation
Commits 9
Checks
Files changed 11

adibomar commented

No description provided.

  • wip

adibomar · requested changes · 3h ago

What changed here? Add a short summary and how you tested it before I approve.
MergeReview required

adibomar / habo-planner

planner updates #42

adibomar wants to merge 5 commits into main from adibomar/planner-tweaks

Conversation
Commits 5
Checks
Files changed 7

adibomar commented

changed some stuff in the planner should be fine

  • update planner

adibomar · requested changes · 2h ago

This title does not tell me anything. Use the PR template and add test steps before I look at the diff.
MergeReview required

adibomar / habo-gencards

gencards misc #7

adibomar wants to merge 12 commits into main from adibomar/gencards-misc

Conversation
Commits 12
Checks
Files changed 19

adibomar commented

  • update card templates
  • tested???
  • link ticket
  • card gen fix

adibomar · requested changes · 1h ago

I still do not know what I am reviewing. Empty checklist, vague commits. Please rewrite the description.
MergeReview required

adibomar / gym-website

homepage stuff #23

adibomar wants to merge 8 commits into main from adibomar/hero-tweaks

Conversation
Commits 8
Checks
Files changed 16

adibomar commented

## Summary

updated hero
  • hero

adibomar · requested changes · 18m ago

Fourth PR today with no real context. I am blocking review until you add summary, ticket link, and how you tested.
MergeReview required

Your call

Which PR would you approve?

The code is identical. Toggle the description below, then choose which version you would approve faster.

Same 30 commitsSame files changedSame diff

adibomar / product-app

Add planner export flow #142

adibomar wants to merge 30 commits into main from adibomar/feature-branch

Commits (30) · unchanged

  • fix
  • wip
  • more fixes
  • updates
  • ok now
  • … and 25 more

adibomar commented

fixed some stuff should be fine

Which description would you approve?

Choose the description you would approve

Implementation

Two versions, one workflow

I shipped v1 to lock the format, then v2 to stay relevant as AI became normal in how people write code.

  1. v1 · Live

    Manual PR forms

    Guided form → markdown you paste into GitHub

  2. v2 · Beta

    AI Summarize

    Short note → AI fills the same template

  3. Both versions

    Same output

    One PR template reviewers can scan before the diff

    What changed?How to testChecklist

Same structured PR at the end. v2 is how the product stays worth opening when AI is expected in the loop.

Prioritization

What I chose vs what I skipped

I had limited time on a side project. Here is what I optimized for and what I left out on purpose.

I chose

  • Guided PR form aligned to a consistent template
  • Markdown output you copy into GitHub
  • Ship v1 first, then v2 with AI Summarize to stay relevant as AI becomes the norm
  • Productivity over platform: help authors write faster, not rebuild GitHub

I skipped

  • GitHub integration (OAuth, webhooks, auto-opening PRs)
  • Built-in or hosted AI
  • Multi-agent flows (auto-review, commit bots, AI does the PR for you)
  • Commit or diff-aware generation before the form workflow was solid
  • Heavy infrastructure on day one

The impact

0%less time drafting PR descriptions

The win is on both sides of the PR: authors draft faster, reviewers get context before the diff.

2

versions shipped

Manual forms, then AI Summarize beta

75%

less drafting time

Estimated from blank page vs generator

1

template every PR

Same markdown structure, every repo

Time to write a pull request description

Before: blank page, hunt for a templateAfter: form or AI → paste markdown
  • 1

    Same PR structure every time instead of one-off formats

  • 2

    Less back-and-forth asking authors to rewrite vague descriptions

  • 3

    v2 shortens the path when you already know what changed

  • 4

    Shipped and used on my own repos, not just a case study demo

For authors

  • Start from a guided form instead of a blank description box
  • Paste ready markdown into GitHub in one step
  • Optional AI pass when you only have a rough note

For reviewers

  • See what changed, why, and how to test before the diff
  • Fewer "what is this PR?" comments on vague titles
  • Same checklist and sections on every PR you open
The goal was never to replace GitHub. It was to make every PR worth opening before the diff.