docs: add reviewer evidence checklist (#542)

README.md

@@ -311,3 +311,6 @@ Before submitting code, review the [Low-Effort Contribution Examples Guide](docs
 
 ## Local Deployment Verification
 To build, deploy, initialize, and smoke-test PocketPay contracts locally, follow the [Local Deployment Verification Flow](docs/LOCAL_DEPLOYMENT_VERIFICATION.md).
+
+## PR Reviewer Evidence
+Maintainers reviewing pull requests must verify submissions against the [Reviewer Evidence Checklist](docs/REVIEWER_EVIDENCE_CHECKLIST.md) to ensure scope, test coverage, CI green status, and documentation quality.

docs/REVIEWER_EVIDENCE_CHECKLIST.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+# PocketPay Contracts — Reviewer Evidence Checklist
+
+This guide provides comprehensive evidence Checklists for maintainers and reviewers evaluating incoming PR contributions to `PocketPay Contracts`.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Implementation Scope & Quality
+
+- [ ]  **Scope Alignment:** Does this PR directly address the assigned issue without unnecessary out-of-scope changes?
+- [ ]  **Code Quality:**Is the implementation fully completed (no `TODO` or shortcut hacks) following Rust / Soroban best practices?
+
+---
+
+## 2. Test Evidence
+
+- [ ]  **Coverage:**Are new or modified contract functions covered by associated unit/integration tests?
+- [ ]  **Edge Cases: ** Do tests verify both success paths and expected error/revert conditions?
+
+---
+
+## 3. CI Status
+
+- [ ]  **Green CI:** Are all GIBhub Actions checks (`cargo check `, `cargo clippy`, `cargo test`) passing 100%?
+- [ ]  **Formatting:** Ic `cargo fmt --check` passing without warnings?
+
+---
+
+## 4. Acceptance Criteria & Documentation
+
+- [ ]  **Cat Checklist:** Have all acceptance criteria in the associated issue been met and checked off?
+- [ ]  **Documentation:** Are `README.md` or attached guides updated to reflect any new features or workflows?