chore: align pull request template

[hannesrudolph]

What Problem This Solves

Resolves inconsistent pull request descriptions across OpenClaw-owned repositories, which makes cross-repository review and evidence collection less predictable.

Why This Change Was Made

Copies the canonical PR body template from openclaw/openclaw at pinned commit 2ac723282c84286ad3f38aabbd2e70699aafb3c3 (blob e902c4789b21765ea16dfb75e436db5801b6450b, SHA-256 38845d7f2cfc96402062408ac8a87b1e3f5f81dd80924785b0547b64a0c914b6) to standardize problem, rationale, impact, and evidence.

User Impact

Contributors and maintainers get the same PR submission structure; no runtime behavior changes.

Evidence

• Pinned source commit: 2ac723282c84286ad3f38aabbd2e70699aafb3c3.
• Canonical blob: e902c4789b21765ea16dfb75e436db5801b6450b.
• Template SHA-256: 38845d7f2cfc96402062408ac8a87b1e3f5f81dd80924785b0547b64a0c914b6.
• Metadata-only change; no runtime tests were run.
• AI-assisted batch maintenance change.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed July 13, 2026, 1:16 PM ET / 17:16 UTC.

Summary
Adds a 65-line .github/pull_request_template.md that standardizes PR titles, problem and rationale sections, user-impact descriptions, maintainer-edit guidance, and evidence reporting.

Reproducibility: not applicable. This PR adds repository submission metadata rather than fixing a reproducible runtime defect.

Review metrics: 2 noteworthy metrics.

• Repository surface: 1 file added. The proposal is isolated to the GitHub pull request submission experience.
• Diff size: 65 added, 0 changed, 0 removed. The focused additive patch is straightforward to inspect and does not replace existing repository behavior.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🦞 diamond lobster
Proof: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Patch quality: 🦞 diamond lobster
Result: ready for maintainer review.

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality, so missing proof can cap an otherwise strong patch.

Next step before merge

• No automated repair is needed; a human should make the ordinary repository-policy merge decision for this correct member-authored PR.

Maintainer decision needed

• Question: Should mcporter adopt this pinned OpenClaw canonical pull request template as its repository submission format?
• Rationale: The patch is technically sound, but repository contribution-process policy and member-authored changes require an explicit human merge decision.
• Likely owner: steipete — The available history identifies this person as the strongest repository and release stewardship contact for a contribution-policy decision.
• Options:
  • Adopt the canonical template (recommended): Merge the focused metadata change so mcporter uses the same PR evidence and description structure as the broader OpenClaw organization.
  • Keep repository-specific intake: Decline the template if mcporter intentionally needs a shorter or different contribution format.

Security
Cleared: The diff adds Markdown-only repository guidance and introduces no executable code, dependency, workflow permission, secret handling, or supply-chain change.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Adopt the pinned canonical template through normal maintainer review, then keep future organization-wide template updates synchronized intentionally rather than allowing repository-specific copies to drift.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Not applicable; this PR adds repository submission metadata rather than fixing a reproducible runtime defect.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes; adding the canonical template at GitHub's supported .github/pull_request_template.md path is the narrowest maintainable way to standardize PR descriptions without affecting runtime behavior.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 710840fb7dd0.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add rating: 🦞 diamond lobster: Overall readiness is 🦞 diamond lobster; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🦞 diamond lobster.
• remove rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Current PR rating is rating: 🦞 diamond lobster, so this older rating label is no longer current.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is low-risk repository-process alignment with no runtime or user-product behavior change.
• rating: 🦞 diamond lobster: Overall readiness is 🦞 diamond lobster; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🦞 diamond lobster.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: This member-authored metadata-only PR has no runtime behavior requiring live proof; the pinned source commit, blob, checksum, and visible diff provide appropriate verification.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Current-main gap: GitHub reports .github/pull_request_template.md as a newly added file against current base 710840fb7dd0d1f7400d543409b660acd77b149e, so the requested repository template is not already implemented on main. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, 710840fb7dd0)
• Focused patch: The branch adds one metadata file with 65 additions and no deletions; it does not change runtime code, dependencies, workflows, or package behavior. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, b57c675a45c7)
• Canonical provenance: The PR body pins the source to openclaw/openclaw commit 2ac723282c84286ad3f38aabbd2e70699aafb3c3, records the canonical blob and SHA-256, and the submitted content follows that stated structure. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, b57c675a45c7)
• Validation state: All three reported build checks succeeded on macOS, Ubuntu, and Windows; runtime testing is not material for this repository-metadata-only change. (b57c675a45c7)
• Review continuity: The prior ClawSweeper cycle found no actionable defects at the same head SHA, and no new commit or newly available evidence changes that conclusion. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, b57c675a45c7)

Likely related people:

• steipete: Published and signed mcporter releases, including repository-level release artifacts, and is the strongest available routing candidate for adopting organization-wide repository policy in this project. (role: repository and release stewardship; confidence: medium; commits: f20febe322b6; files: .github/pull_request_template.md)

What the crustacean ranks mean

• 🦀 challenger crab: rare, exceptional readiness with strong proof, clean implementation, and convincing validation.
• 🦞 diamond lobster: very strong readiness with only minor maintainer review expected.
• 🐚 platinum hermit: good normal PR, likely mergeable with ordinary maintainer review.
• 🦐 gold shrimp: useful signal, but proof or patch confidence is still limited.
• 🦪 silver shellfish: thin signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work.
• 🧂 unranked krab: not merge-ready because proof is missing/unusable or there are serious correctness or safety concerns.
• 🌊 off-meta tidepool: rating does not apply to this item.

Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics.

How this review workflow works

• ClawSweeper keeps one durable marker-backed review comment per issue or PR.
• Re-runs edit this comment so the latest verdict, findings, and automation markers stay together instead of adding duplicate bot comments.
• A fresh review can be triggered by eligible @clawsweeper re-review comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
• PR/issue authors and users with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on an open PR or issue to request a fresh review only.
• Maintainers can also comment @clawsweeper review to request a fresh review only.
• Fresh-review commands do not start repair, autofix, rebase, CI repair, or automerge.
• Maintainer-only repair and merge flows require explicit commands such as @clawsweeper autofix, @clawsweeper automerge, @clawsweeper fix ci, or @clawsweeper address review.
• Maintainers can comment @clawsweeper explain to ask for more context, or @clawsweeper stop to stop active automation.

Review history (1 earlier review cycle)

• reviewed 2026-07-13T17:02:13.460Z sha b57c675 :: needs maintainer review before merge. :: none