open-pr

Open a pull request against pascalorg/editor from the current branch.

1. Pre-flight

git status                # confirm working tree state
git branch --show-current # confirm we're on a feature branch, not main
git log --oneline main..HEAD

Stop if:

• The current branch is main. Ask the user to create a feature branch first.
• The branch has no commits ahead of main. Nothing to open a PR for.
• There are uncommitted changes the user hasn't asked to commit.

Run a build sanity check if the change is non-trivial:

bun typecheck
bun build

Don't open the PR with a broken build.

2. Read the PR template

The template is at .github/pull_request_template.md. Read it before composing the body — the section headings and checklist items are the source of truth, not your memory of them.

cat .github/pull_request_template.md

Mirror the template exactly:

• ## What does this PR do? — one paragraph or a short bullet list. Link related issues with Fixes #123 when applicable.
• ## How to test — numbered, concrete reviewer steps (commands to run, what to click, expected outcome).
• ## Screenshots / screen recording — if the change is visual, paste a recording link or note that one will be added. If purely non-visual (refactor, internal API), say so explicitly so the reviewer knows nothing is missing.
• ## Checklist — copy the boxes verbatim, ticking the ones already verified.

3. Push and open

git push -u origin HEAD

Check for an existing PR first:

gh pr view --json number,url,title,body 2>/dev/null

3a. No existing PR → create one

Pass the body via HEREDOC to preserve markdown formatting:

gh pr create --title "short, scope-prefixed title" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
## What does this PR do?

<one-paragraph description; link issues>

## How to test

1. <step>
2. <step>
3. <step>

## Screenshots / screen recording

<link or "N/A — non-visual change">

## Checklist

- [x] I've tested this locally with `bun dev`
- [x] My code follows the existing code style (run `bun check` to verify)
- [ ] I've updated relevant documentation (if applicable)
- [x] This PR targets the `main` branch
EOF
)"

Keep the title under ~70 characters. Use a scope prefix when there's an obvious one (viewer:, core:, editor:, mcp:).

3b. PR already exists → update its description

Do not recreate the PR. Refresh the existing body so it reflects everything currently on the branch, while keeping the template structure and any reviewer-meaningful state the user already set.

1. Capture the existing body and the full branch history:

   gh pr view --json number,body -q '.number, .body' > /tmp/existing-pr.txt
   git log --oneline main..HEAD
   git diff --stat main..HEAD
   

2. Reconstruct the body section-by-section. Keep the four template headings in the same order (## What does this PR do?, ## How to test, ## Screenshots / screen recording, ## Checklist). For each section:

   • What does this PR do? — rewrite from the current commits and diff on the branch, not from memory. Preserve any Fixes #123 / Refs #123 lines from the old body.
   • How to test — regenerate concrete steps for the current behaviour. If a previous step is still valid, keep its wording; drop steps that no longer apply; add steps for new commits.
   • Screenshots / screen recording — preserve the existing content verbatim (links, embedded images, "N/A — …"). Do not blank it out. Only change it if the user explicitly provided a new recording.
   • Checklist — preserve the user's tick state ([x] vs [ ]) for every item that still exists in the template. Add any new template items as unchecked.

   If the old body contains extra sections the template doesn't have (e.g. a manual "Notes" block), keep them at the end.

3. Apply the update:

   gh pr edit <number> --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
   ## What does this PR do?
   …
   EOF
   )"
   

   Use gh pr edit --title only if the branch's scope has clearly changed; otherwise leave the title alone.

4. Print the PR URL so the user can confirm the edit.

4. Report

Return:

• PR URL
• Title used
• Local typecheck/build status (if you ran them)
• A note for the reviewer if anything in the checklist is left unchecked