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 commit 2ac723282c84286ad3f38aabbd2e70699aafb3c3 (blob e902c4789b21765ea16dfb75e436db5801b6450b) to standardize problem, rationale, impact, and evidence across repositories.

User Impact

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

Evidence

• Canonical source blob: e902c4789b21765ea16dfb75e436db5801b6450b at openclaw/openclaw@2ac723282c84286ad3f38aabbd2e70699aafb3c3.
• Canonical/source and branch file 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, 12:52 PM ET / 16:52 UTC.

Summary
Adds a 65-line canonical OpenClaw pull request body template at .github/pull_request_template.md with problem, rationale, user-impact, and evidence prompts.

Reproducibility: not applicable. This PR is a repository metadata addition, and the exact observable change is source-verifiable from the single added template file.

Review metrics: 2 noteworthy metrics.

• Repository metadata: 1 file added, 65 lines added, 0 removed. The change is tightly scoped to contributor guidance and has no runtime surface.
• Validation state: 14 reported checks completed: 12 succeeded, 2 skipped. The available checks show no repository integration failure on the exact reviewed head.

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

• [P2] No repair is needed; the next action is ordinary approval by the .github code owner on the unchanged clean head.

Maintainer decision needed

• Question: Should the .github code owner approve and merge this canonical pull request template into Graincrawl?
• Rationale: The patch is technically clean and useful, but .github is explicitly code-owned and the author is a repository member, so final acceptance belongs to the designated human owner rather than cleanup automation.
• Likely owner: @openclaw/openclaw-secops — Current CODEOWNERS assigns the affected .github path to this team.
• Options:
  • Approve and merge (recommended): Confirm the canonical source and content hash, then land the focused metadata-only template addition.
  • Request repository-specific edits: Keep the PR open and request only the Graincrawl-specific wording changes the code owner considers necessary.

Security
Cleared: The diff adds only inert Markdown guidance and does not change workflows, permissions, dependencies, secrets, publishing, or executable code.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Have the .github code owner verify the cited canonical-source parity, then merge this focused template addition without expanding it into unrelated repository-process changes.

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

Not applicable; this PR is a repository metadata addition, and the exact observable change is source-verifiable from the single added template file.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes; adding the canonical template at .github/pull_request_template.md is the narrowest maintainable way to standardize new PR descriptions in this repository.

AGENTS.md: not found in the target repository.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 90d3f0dc1b1b.

Label changes

Label justifications:

• P3: This is low-risk repository-process cleanup that standardizes contributor ergonomics without changing runtime behavior.
• 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 to demonstrate; exact source-blob and content-hash provenance plus green checks are appropriate evidence.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Current-main gap: GitHub reports the file as added against current main, confirming that the base branch does not already contain this pull request template. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, 90d3f0dc1b1b)
• Focused branch change: The reviewed head adds exactly one Markdown file with 65 additions and no deletions; the PR body also records source-blob and SHA-256 parity with the cited canonical OpenClaw template. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, 9ce268598799)
• Review continuity: The head SHA is unchanged from the previous completed ClawSweeper review, which reported no findings; the PR is now ready, cleanly mergeable, and all reported checks completed successfully. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, 9ce268598799)
• Ownership boundary: The current repository CODEOWNERS file assigns .github changes to @openclaw/openclaw-secops, making that team the appropriate approval route. citeturn2search1. (.github/CODEOWNERS:3, 90d3f0dc1b1b)

Likely related people:

• @openclaw/openclaw-secops: Current CODEOWNERS assigns the affected .github path, including the proposed template, to this team for review. citeturn2search1. (role: code owner; confidence: high; files: .github/CODEOWNERS, .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 2026-07-13T16:35:06.335Z sha 9ce2685 :: needs maintainer review before merge. :: none

[hannesrudolph]

Land-ready verification:

• Reviewed head: 9ce26859879975e5a6cbef55e313550c1282d67a
• Scope: GitHub pull-request contribution metadata only.
• GitHub head checks: SUCCESS.
• Validation: Direct template comparison and git diff --check provide the relevant metadata proof.
• Runtime tests: not applicable to this metadata-only change.
• Known proof gaps: none.