Publisher: Sentry · Editorial profile by AI Tools Ratings · Review method
What task is this skill designed for?
Connect a PR to the issue it implements. Useful when issue metadata is spread across GitHub discussion and Linear references, and the team needs a clear review trail.
What input and output should you expect?
Input: Provide the exact repository, PR and intended issue. Include relevant issue comments and clarify whether the change resolves the issue or merely relates to it.
Output: An issue-link section or proposed body update; the executing workflow can write the updated PR body through GitHub CLI.
What does it need to run?
Authenticated gh for remote reads and writes. A draft-only trial can use copied sample metadata without accessing the live repository.
Publisher documents Claude Code installation and skills.sh support for compatible agents including Cursor, Cline and GitHub Copilot. Host permissions and invocation behavior still require validation.
How should you approach installation?
- Read the pinned SKILL.md and repository LICENSE; compare project-specific conventions with your own instructions.
- Follow the publisher installation guidance for your host, retaining the full skill folder and references; begin in a disposable repository with minimal permissions.
- Run the suggested draft or read-only trial, review its acceptance checklist, and grant write or remote permissions only for the intended task.
Installation guide: discovery, dependencies and runtime checks
What files, accounts or data can it access?
Reads issue discussion and PR content, then can update a remote PR. Closing keywords may affect issue state when the PR merges; treat that effect as part of the requested action.
What does the skill cost?
No separate Skill purchase price is stated in the reviewed repository. The host agent subscription or model usage is separate; repository services and any authorized CI jobs may add costs. A local drafting trial does not require paid remote execution.
What are its limits and alternatives?
The first matching Linear reference may not be the correct one when discussion contains several tickets. Bare issue numbers are ambiguous across repositories. Re-read the body before updating to avoid overwriting collaborator edits.
Add explicit manually verified links when metadata is ambiguous, or use Sentry PR Writer when the entire description needs restructuring.
What could you ask in a small trial?
Try this with a small sample:
Using this mock PR body and two issue comments, propose an Issues section for the explicitly named repository and ticket. Preserve existing sections, flag conflicting Linear references, and omit unresolved identifiers. Do not update GitHub or add a closing keyword without justification.
How would you verify the result?
- Issue identity is verified with repository context, not guessed from a number.
- Existing PR text remains intact and conflicting references are surfaced.
- Closing semantics match the intended scope and no remote write occurs in the trial.
Use a baseline and record acceptance evidence before treating a successful task as a reliable workflow.
Which source and license were checked?
Read the reviewed SKILL.md at its pinned commit · Complete reviewed folder
Repository and current publisher guidance
Checked:
Apache-2.0 — repository LICENSE at the reviewed commit. License evidence
Version details and review scope
Source: getsentry/skills/skills/pr-link-issue
Reviewed commit: d12f250460ffd961f549dbebf7eeb0cf4afd4c2e
SKILL.md SHA-256: ae3fff3e5bec03c993ca8059669c785f675982e6bd71c8f09bcc095230f6535b
Source-document review. This profile covers the source workflow, stated dependencies and license evidence. See our editorial methodology for how we distinguish source reviews and hands-on evaluations.