Three form call sites still bypass the palette. Everything else in the CLI now routes through palette (via uiform.New/NewAccessibleForm, or the search/recap local constants which alias palette.*).

Findings — 3 `huh` forms not ported to the base16 palette

All three call huh.NewForm(...) directly instead of going through uiform.New (which applies the palette-based uiform.Theme()). The PR extracted uiform specifically so any package can import it — it's a leaf (uiform → palette + huh/lipgloss only, no cycle), so all three are portable.

cmd/entire/cli/versioncheck/autoupdate.go:117 — the auto-update confirmation prompt, pinned to huh.ThemeDracula:

versioncheck can import cmd/entire/cli/uiform and use uiform.New(...).
cmd/entire/cli/strategy/manual_commit_opf_prompt.go:99 — the OPF pre-push prompt, also pinned to Dracula. Its comment (lines 88–91) is now stale: it claims Dracula is "the same theme cli.NewAccessibleForm applies," but after #1542 NewAccessibleForm → uiform.New applies the base16 palette. So this prompt now visibly diverges from every other CLI prompt. The cited reason ("Strategy can't import cli") doesn't block importing uiform — that's exactly the leaf package #1542 introduced.
cmd/entire/cli/strategy/manual_commit_rewind.go:1065 — the "overwrite local session logs?" confirm. No theme at all → falls back to huh's default (Charm) theme, so also off-palette.

Not gaps (intentional per the PR)

activity_render.go:111–120 agent brand hexes and mdrender.go chroma hexes — the two documented hex exceptions.
search_tui.go / recap/styles.go local color constants — these already alias palette.*.

Conclusion

Three forms need porting; #2 and #3 are the higher-value fixes since they're user-facing during push/rewind and #2 carries a misleading comment.

Want me to make these edits? #2 and #3 are in the strategy package (switch to uiform.New + drop the stale comment / manual WithAccessible handling, which uiform.New already does), and #1 in versioncheck. I'd verify with mise run fmt && mise run lint after.

Base directory for this skill: /Users/ninawork/.claude/skills/pr

Create Pull Request

1. Understand the Branch

Use origin/main as the comparison base for understanding branch scope. Do not use local main, a local PR target branch, or direct tree diffs such as git diff main or git diff origin/main for scope checks; those can include upstream-only changes and make this branch look like it reverted unrelated work.

Read the commit history to understand the full scope of changes on this branch.

Review the changed file list from the merge base to the current working tree and confirm every changed file belongs to the PR's stated goal:

If unrelated files or commits are present, STOP and report them. Do not create a PR that bundles unrelated work.

2. Discover Project Verification Commands

Inspect the project to determine how to build, lint, and test. Collect candidate commands from these sources, then deduplicate them before running anything:

Makefile — look for build, lint, check, test, ci, verify targets. Read the target recipes to understand what they run.
mise — check for .mise.toml or .mise/*.toml. Look for [tasks] definitions covering build, lint, test. If found, use mise run <task>.
CI workflows — read .github/workflows/*.yml (or .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) to understand required coverage. CI is the ground truth for what must pass, but CI matrix shards and CI-only wrappers are not automatically local verification commands.
README.md — look for "Development", "Contributing", "Building", or "Testing" sections that document how to run checks.
Package manager conventions — detect from project files:
- go.mod → go build ./..., go vet ./..., go test ./...; do NOT infer a lint command from Go alone
- package.json → check scripts for build, lint, test
- Cargo.toml → cargo build, cargo clippy, cargo test
- pyproject.toml / setup.py → check for configured linters, pytest

If no lint command exists after checking all sources, state that explicitly instead of assuming an unavailable linter binary.

Reuse Cached Verification Discovery

Before rediscovering commands from scratch, choose an artifact directory using the AGENTS.md temporary artifact rule with agent name pfleidi-pr:

Use ./tmp/pfleidi-pr/ only when ./tmp/ already exists and is already ignored.
If no project-local artifact directory is available, do not use a verification cache by default. Ask before using /tmp/pfleidi-pr/ or modifying ignore files.

When an artifact directory is available, check for a verification cache at <artifact-dir>/verification-<repo-name>.md. The cache is only an input-token optimization; never commit it and never trust it blindly. If no artifact directory is available, perform normal discovery and skip writing the cache.

Reuse the cache only when all of these are true:

It names the same worktree root and remote.
It lists the verification source files it was based on, such as Makefile, .mise.toml, .mise/*.toml, CI workflow files, README files, and package manifests.
Those source files still exist or are still intentionally absent.
git diff --name-only origin/main -- <source files> shows no branch changes to those source files.

If the cache is missing, stale, or incomplete, perform normal discovery. After discovery, update the cache with:

Repository root and remote.
Verification source files inspected.
Selected command plan grouped by coverage area.
Commands intentionally skipped as duplicates, aggregate/subtask overlaps, CI-only jobs, or too-slow shard matrices.
Any assumptions, such as "no documented lint task found."

Deduplicate Verification Commands

Build a command plan by coverage area, not by source. Do not run every command discovered.

Run at most one command for each coverage area: build/compile, lint/static analysis, unit/core tests, integration tests, e2e/smoke tests.
Prefer documented local developer tasks over CI-specific commands when they cover the same area.
Do not run both an aggregate task and its constituent tasks. For example, if mise run check runs lint and tests, either run mise run check alone or run the narrower lint/test tasks, not both.
Treat CI matrix shards as duplicated slices of one suite. Do not run every *:shard:* command locally when an unsharded local task covers the suite.
If CI has only sharded commands and no local equivalent, ask before running all shards. Otherwise, run the smallest representative or changed-scope test command and note that the full shard matrix remains for CI.
Do not run CI-only canary/e2e jobs locally by default. Run them only when the PR changes that surface, when the user asks, or when the project documents them as required local PR verification.

Log which sources you used, which duplicate/CI-only commands you skipped, and what commands you will run. If the deduplication rules require asking before slow CI-only coverage, STOP for confirmation; otherwise immediately proceed to step 3.

3. Run Verification and Auto-Fix

Run the deduplicated command plan in the fewest safe batches. Prefer background processing for independent validation tasks instead of running everything sequentially.

The commands should cover, at minimum:

Build — the project compiles without errors
Lint / static analysis — no lint warnings or static analysis failures
Tests — the selected local test coverage passes without duplicating CI shards or aggregate/subtask combinations

Use the exact commands, flags, and build tags found in step 2 for the commands you selected. Do not invent your own flags.

Parallel Verification Rules

Partition the selected commands into dependency-safe batches before running them:

Run mutating commands alone and before validators that depend on their output. This includes formatters, generators, codegen, migrations, package installation, or commands known to update snapshots, lockfiles, generated files, caches in the repo, or test fixtures.
Run dependent commands after their prerequisite batch passes. For example, do not start tests that require generated code until generation succeeds.
Run independent read-only validation commands concurrently in the same background batch. Build, lint/static analysis, typecheck/vet, and unit tests can usually share a batch when they do not mutate the working tree and do not require the same exclusive service, port, database, or fixture directory.
Keep integration, e2e, or service-backed commands separate unless the project documents that they are parallel-safe.
If unsure whether two commands are independent, run them sequentially. Correctness of validation beats speed.

For each background batch:

Start every command from the same working-tree state.
Run each selected validator directly, for example mise run lint, go test ..., or npm test -- .... Do not wrap validators in sh -c, shell redirection, tee, command separators, or pipelines solely to capture logs; that defeats command-prefix approvals and causes extra permission prompts.
Capture each command's stdout, stderr, exit status, and command line from the tool output separately.
While the batch is running, do not edit files, start auto-fixes, or treat partial output as a result.
Wait for every command in the batch to finish, then show verification as a compact table:

Command Exit Relevant output
go test ./pkg/foo -run TestBar -count=1 0 Short success excerpt.
For failures or short outputs, show complete output in the relevant-output column or immediately below the table. For long successful outputs, show the relevant excerpt and state that the rest was truncated.
If any command in the batch fails, treat the whole batch as failed for the fix loop. Results from other commands in that stale batch may help diagnose, but they do not count as passing verification after files change.

Command	Exit	Relevant output
`go test ./pkg/foo -run TestBar -count=1`	0	Short success excerpt.

On Failure: Fix and Re-verify

If any command fails, do NOT stop. Instead:

Read the error output and identify every failure
Fix all issues — apply the minimal changes needed to make the failing command pass
Re-run the deduplicated verification plan from the top, using the same safe batching rules (not just the previously failing command — fixes can introduce new issues)
Show the updated verification table again, including complete failure output for any command that still fails

Repeat this cycle until all commands pass. Cap at 3 fix attempts. If verification still fails after 3 rounds, STOP and present the remaining failures to the user with full failure output — do not keep looping.

4. Prompt for Commit

After all verification passes, check for uncommitted changes:

If there are uncommitted changes (from auto-fixes in step 3):

Show the diff of all uncommitted changes
Propose a semantically correct commit message using the subject-plus-context style from AGENTS.md. The message must describe the net fix (e.g., "fix lint warnings in config parser" not "fix issues found during PR prep").
STOP and wait for user approval. The user may edit the message, split the changes, or commit themselves.

If the user approves the commit, do not rerun the full verification suite before committing unless files changed after step 3. If another sanity check is needed, use the commit-time verification scope from AGENTS.md: lint tasks, a fast compile/build check, and tests directly related to the changed code only.

If there are no uncommitted changes, proceed directly to step 5.

5. Push the Branch

If the branch has no upstream yet, use git push -u origin HEAD.

6. Create the PR

Determine a concise PR title (under 70 characters) from the commit history and diff.

Use the same branch-only comparison from step 1 ($MERGE_BASE to the current working tree) when deriving the title, PR body, changed-file list, and mostly-Markdown detection. Do not use local main or direct git diff origin/main output for PR description decisions.

Write the PR body with:

What this PR does and why
How it was implemented (brief, not exhaustive)
Any migration, deployment, or reviewer notes if applicable
For mostly Markdown PRs, a Rendered Markdown section linking to the changed Markdown files rendered on GitHub

Create the PR:

Create a ready-for-review PR only when the user explicitly asks for it with wording such as "non-draft", "ready for review", or "publish it as ready". In that case, omit --draft.

Show the PR URL and STOP.

Rules

Do NOT add "Generated with Claude Code" or any AI attribution anywhere
Do NOT summarize what you just did after showing the URL
Treat a PR as "mostly Markdown" when more than half of changed files are Markdown (.md, .mdx, .markdown) or the main review target is Markdown documentation. In that case, include GitHub rendered links for the changed Markdown files using the pushed branch, e.g. https://github.com/<owner>/<repo>/blob/<branch>/<path>.md. Link all changed Markdown files when the list is short; for large docs PRs, link the main entry points or most important changed files.
If the user provides a title or description, use it verbatim instead of generating one, but append rendered Markdown links for mostly Markdown PRs unless the user explicitly says not to modify the description.
If the PR description contains checklist items (- [ ]), check them (- [x]) if and only if the corresponding step was actually verified during this workflow (e.g., build passed, tests passed, lint passed). Do NOT check items that were not verified. Do NOT leave items unchecked if they were verified.