ADHD PR description

Default PR body format for this repo. Reviewers should finish the description in one glance. The diff is already on GitHub — do not restate file moves.

Agents: load this skill whenever composing or rewriting a Nakama PR description (including via ce-commit-push-pr). Body shape comes from here; still gather real claims from the diff (outcome, risk, what you verified).

Shape (required)

## Summary

<one line: who does what → result. No jargon fog unless the change is jargon.>

**Before:** <one line — old behavior or cost>
**After:** <one line — new behavior; name the key function/path if it helps risk>

Why safe:
1. <reason>
2. <reason>
3. <reason>   <!-- 2–3 items max; drop #3 if nothing to say -->

Only re-add / follow up if <one residual risk or rollback trigger>.

## Test plan
- [x] <command already run> (<N> pass)
- [ ] <one manual check a human can do in <2 min>

Optional after test plan (keep if the workflow expects Compound Engineering badges):

---

[![Compound Engineering](https://img.shields.io/badge/Built_with-Compound_Engineering-6366f1)](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin)
![HARNESS](https://img.shields.io/badge/<MODEL_SLUG>-000000)

Rules

1. Lead = outcome. First Summary line is the new world, not "This PR removes…".
2. Before/After = two lines. Bold labels. No paragraph wrapping them.
3. Why safe = numbered, ≤3. Cap at 5 total bullets anywhere in the body; if more, keep only the decision-changing ones.
4. One residual. Name the case that would make you undo this. Skip if truly none.
5. No diff tourism. Do not list files, line counts as the story, or "also cleaned up exports" unless that is the risk.
6. Test plan = runnable. Prefer checked commands with pass counts; one unchecked manual probe.
7. Title stays conventional. type(scope): imperative — short. Body carries this shape; title does not need emoji or essays.
8. Apply with gh. Write body to a temp file; gh pr edit <n> --body-file … or gh pr create --body-file …. Never --body "$(cat …)".

Golden example

Match this density:

## Summary

Approve an org-memory proposal → bullet goes into `MEMORY.md`. No LLM call.

**Before:** deterministic merge, then optional model rewrite of the whole file.
**After:** deterministic merge only (`applyApprovedOrgMemoryBullet`).

Why safe:
1. Dedup + supersede already live in that function
2. LLM path already failed closed to the deterministic result
3. −230 lines, same approve outcome

Only re-add an LLM rewrite if contradictory bullets start surviving approve.

## Test plan
- [x] `bun test packages/agent/src` (80 pass)
- [x] `bun test apps/server/src/services/org-memory-service.test.ts` (15 pass)
- [ ] Approve one pending proposal (pinned + recent-log) — bullet lands as before

Anti-patterns

Don't	Do
Multi-paragraph Summary	One outcome line + Before/After + Why safe
"This PR aims to…" / "In order to…"	Start with the verb or user action
Nested ### under Summary	Flat ## Summary + ## Test plan only
Restating every deleted file	Residual risk only
Vague "tests passed"	Exact command + pass count

Workflow

1. Read the PR diff / commits (gh pr view, git diff base...HEAD)
2. Name: outcome, before, after, ≤3 why-safe, one residual
3. Fill the template — cut any sentence the diff already proves
4. Apply via --body-file
5. Reply with the PR URL (plus "say if you want the title tightened" only if useful)