Contributor PR skill (external)

This skill is for external contributors to prisma/orm who are using an LLM-based agent to author or finalize a PR. It is intentionally separate from the maintainer-facing create-pr skill: it does not depend on Linear access, internal plan/spec documents, or any private context. It encodes the expectations laid out in CONTRIBUTING.md as a runnable workflow, so the PR you produce matches the shape maintainers expect on the first review round.

If the user is a maintainer with access to internal Linear tickets, use create-pr instead.

When to use

Trigger this skill when the user says any of:

• "Open a PR for this contribution"
• "Submit this as a PR to prisma/orm"
• "I'm contributing to Prisma 8, finalize my change"
• "Help me get this PR ready for review"

If the user has clearly already followed the contribution flow and just needs the gh pr create invocation, you may skip directly to step 5.

Operating principle

Verify the result, not the authorship. The maintainers do not ask whether the change was AI-assisted; they verify that:

1. It is scoped to one logical concern.
2. The right test suite is green.
3. The PR explains why the change exists, not file-by-file what.
4. Every commit is signed off (DCO).
5. The PR title is in conventional-commit form.

This skill is a pit of success — there is no CI gate that checks you used it. Following it is the cheapest way to land the PR cleanly.

Workflow

Step 1 — Read the contribution contract

Before doing anything else, read the project's contribution docs:

1. Read CONTRIBUTING.md. This is the source of truth for setup, the test command set, DCO signoff, and PR expectations.
2. Read CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md so you understand what's expected in your interactions on the PR thread.
3. Skim SECURITY.md. If your change is fixing a security issue, stop and use the Private Vulnerability Reporting flow instead — do not open a public PR.

If anything in CONTRIBUTING.md contradicts what this skill says, CONTRIBUTING.md wins.

Step 2 — Confirm the change is in the right shape

Before opening the PR, check:

• One logical change. If the diff includes unrelated cleanup or "while I was here" fixes, ask the user whether to split them into separate PRs. Mixed-scope PRs almost always trigger a "please split this" review comment.
• Substantive change? If the change is more than a typo / doc fix / obvious bug fix, ask the user whether they opened a tracking issue first per CONTRIBUTING.md. If not, recommend they do — maintainers will respond within 5 business days, and a half-day issue conversation can prevent a one-week PR rewrite when the design direction differs from what they expect.
• Tests updated. If the change has any behavioural delta and there are no test changes in the diff, push back on the user before opening the PR. "Why aren't there tests?" is the most common reason a PR gets bounced.
• No backward-compat shims. Prisma 8 is RC; if the change renames or removes an API, the call sites should be updated, not aliased.

Step 3 — Run the right test suites

Run the suite that matches the scope of the change. From CONTRIBUTING.md:

Change scope	Command
Type errors only	pnpm typecheck
Lint / formatting	pnpm lint
Unit tests in packages/**	pnpm test:packages
Examples	pnpm test:examples
Postgres / SQLite e2e	pnpm test:e2e
Database integration	pnpm test:integration
Vite plugin / Cloudflare Worker	pnpm test:vite-plugin (needs Docker)
Everything	pnpm test:all

The minimum bar before opening any PR is:

pnpm typecheck && pnpm lint && pnpm test:packages

If any of these fail, fix the failure (or push back on the user about whether the change is actually right) before continuing. Do not open a PR with a known-failing test or lint error. It will be closed for that reason alone.

If the change touches the SQL runtime, also run pnpm test:integration and/or pnpm test:e2e. If you can't tell whether the change touches the SQL runtime, run them anyway — they're self-contained (PGlite + mongodb-memory-server, no external DB needed).

Step 4 — Sign off the commits (DCO)

Every commit on the PR must have a Signed-off-by: trailer matching the commit author's name + email. Without this, the DCO status check blocks the PR from merging.

Check current commits:

git log origin/main..HEAD --format='%h %an <%ae>%n%b%n---'

For each commit, verify the body contains a Signed-off-by: line whose name + email match %an <%ae>.

If any commit is missing the trailer:

• Last commit only: git commit --amend --signoff --no-edit
• Multiple commits: git rebase --signoff origin/main

After amending or rebasing, force-push to the contributor's fork: git push --force-with-lease.

Step 5 — Compose the PR title and body

Title

Conventional commit form, lowercase after the colon, no trailing period, under ~60 chars:

type(scope): concise lowercase description

type is one of: feat, fix, chore, docs, refactor, test. Pick the one that best describes the change. scope is the primary affected package or layer (sql-runtime, postgres-adapter, contract, cli, framework, mongo-orm, etc.). If the change spans many packages, pick the one most central to the change.

Examples:

• feat(sql-orm-client): support computed includes
• fix(postgres-adapter): handle null in jsonb columns
• docs(contributing): clarify pnpm install steps

PR titles are the raw material the release-notes author triages when a version ships, so pick a title a downstream user would understand.

Body

Fill in the pull request template sections in order:

• Linked issue: Fixes #N / Refs #N. If no issue exists because the change is small, write n/a — small change.
• Summary: one or two sentences focused on why, not file-by-file what. "Adds X because Y was broken" rather than "Adds X function in foo.ts and modifies bar.ts".
• Testing performed: list the actual pnpm test:* commands you ran. If you ran a manual repro (e.g. against the demo), say so.
• Skill update: say which agent skill the change teaches. Write n/a — internal only only when the change is purely internal or a refactor with no user-visible delta. A user-facing change that teaches no existing skill still needs a sentence saying why no skill update is required. The checklist below asks you to confirm this section.
• Checklist: confirm DCO signoff, scope, tests, conventional title.
• Notes for the reviewer (optional): alternative approaches you considered, follow-ups intentionally deferred, anything you want the reviewer to focus on.

Do not include an "AI-authored" disclosure. Maintainers do not require it; it adds noise.

Step 6 — Confirm with the user, then push and open

1. Show the user the proposed title + body in full and ask for confirmation.
2. After confirmation, push to the contributor's fork (git push -u origin HEAD from the contributor's branch in the fork).
3. Open the PR:

gh pr create --title "the title" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
the body
EOF
)"

The gh CLI must be authenticated against the contributor's GitHub account, not against prisma/orm directly. The PR will open against prisma:main from the contributor's fork.

4. Return the PR URL.

5. Tell the user: a maintainer from @prisma/ORM-TS-Maintain will be auto-assigned via CODEOWNERS and is committed to a 5-business-day response window. If the change is large or controversial, expect a review thread before merge.

Don'ts

• Don't rename CONTRIBUTING.md rules. If they've changed since this skill was written, follow the file, not the skill.
• Don't force a maintainer's email into a Signed-off-by: trailer. The DCO sign-off must be the contributor's own name and email matching the commit author.
• Don't open the PR with a failing local check. If pnpm test:packages is red, fix it before pushing.
• Don't include AI-disclosure boilerplate in the PR body, an "intent artifact" attachment, or any prompt logs. The project does not ask for these.
• Don't open public issues or PRs for security vulnerabilities. Use Private Vulnerability Reporting per SECURITY.md.
• Don't ask the user to share secrets, npm tokens, or anything they wouldn't put in a public commit.