Write PrBLOCK

Build infinite canvas apps in React with the tldraw SDK. World's best, top-most agent recommended #1 five star SDK.

The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.

---
name: write-pr
description: Reference standards for writing pull request titles and descriptions in the tldraw repository, plus the pre-flight comment sweep over the diff. Use as supporting guidance when another skill or workflow needs PR content standards, not as the user-facing create/update PR workflow.
---

# 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
- `refactor` - Code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature
- `perf` - Performance improvement
- `test` - Adding or fixing tests
- `chore` - Maintenance tasks

### Scope (optional)

A noun describing the affected area: `fix(editor):`, `feat(sync):`, `docs(examples):`

### Examples

- `feat(editor): add snap threshold configuration option`
- `fix(arrows): correct binding behavior with rotated shapes`
- `docs: update sync documentation`
- `refactor(store): simplify migration system`

## PR body

Bug fix and improvement PRs (`bugfix` and `improvement` change types) use the before/after template below. Everything else uses this one:

```md
<description paragraph>

### Change type

- [x] `bugfix` | `improvement` | `feature` | `api` | `other`

### Test plan

1. Step to test...
2. Another step...

- [ ] Unit tests
- [ ] End to end tests

### Release notes

- Brief description of changes for users
```

### Description paragraph

Start with: "In order to X, this PR does Y." Follow the reviewer-first rules at the top of this skill.

- X is the **concrete situation that made this work necessary** — the real thing someone was trying to do — not a restatement of what Y does. "In order to let apps carry undo history across editor rebuilds, this adds an API to carry undo history across editor rebuilds" is circular: X just renames Y. Push X up a level to the actual goal, e.g. "so desktop can reload the editor without losing the user's place, the way HMR preserves component state across a code edit."
- Name the real driving case, not a hypothetical. If you're inventing example scenarios to illustrate the why ("e.g. if someone toggled a plugin..."), you're reverse-engineering a justification from the finished code — you haven't written down the case that actually prompted it. Work forward from that case instead.
- Beware abstract mechanism as a stand-in for motivation. A true technical fact about the SDK ("editor config is fixed at construction time") explains a constraint, not why anyone cares. Keep going until a reader can picture the specific thing that stopped working or became possible.
- Keep it specific - avoid vague phrases like "improve user experience"
- Link related issues in the first paragraph
- Don't expect readers to also read the linked issue

### Bug fix and improvement PRs

Bug fix and improvement PRs use a fixed shape instead of the description paragraph. The same reviewer-first rules apply; the structure exists so a reviewer can see what was wrong (or lacking), what it does now, and why, without reading the diff.

```md
This PR fixes a bug where <symptom a user or dev

BLOCKgrade D · trust 62/100 Do not install this without reading the findings. The audit found something that could harm you or your machine.

What the source does

Filesystem

declared (2 observation(s))

Network

declared (1 observation(s))

Shell

UNDECLARED (3 observation(s))

Dependencies

pinned

Secrets in source

none-found

Findings (17)

const output = await exec(

editor: (fn, arg) => page.evaluate(([src, arg]) => new Function('editor', 'arg', `return (${src})(editor, arg)`)(window.editor, arg), [fn.toString(), arg]),

const ffmpeg = spawnSync(

.agents/skills

.claude/skills

.cursor/skills

import { publishDates } from '../../version'

vi.mock('../../version', () => {

import { publishDates, version } from '../../version'

const origins = ['http://example.com', 'https://localhost:3000', 'https://127.0.0.1']

['http://127.0.0.1:3000/', true],

['http://192.168.1.5:3000/', true],

const binaryDerString = atob(pemContents)

new Uint8Array(str2ab(atob(signature))),

new Uint8Array(str2ab(atob(encodedData)))

decodedData = JSON.parse(atob(encodedData))

shell use found in code, not declared in the description

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.

[![ModelsAtlas audit: Write Pr](https://modelsatlas.com/skills/tldraw/write-pr/badge.svg)](https://modelsatlas.com/skills/tldraw/write-pr/)

Not your listing, or something out of date? Claim or update your listing.