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). This standardizes 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: openclaw/openclaw commit 2ac723282c84286ad3f38aabbd2e70699aafb3c3, blob e902c4789b21765ea16dfb75e436db5801b6450b.
• Verified 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, 1:45 PM ET / 17:45 UTC.

Summary
Adds a 65-line .github/pull_request_template.md standardizing problem, rationale, user-impact, and evidence sections for new pull requests.

Reproducibility: not applicable. This PR adds repository metadata rather than addressing a reproducible product defect.

Review metrics: 2 noteworthy metrics.

• Repository surface: 1 metadata file added. The patch is narrowly limited to GitHub pull request authoring guidance.
• Diff size: 65 added, 0 changed, 0 removed. The additive-only diff has no migration, compatibility, or runtime surface.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🐚 platinum hermit
Proof: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Patch quality: 🐚 platinum hermit
Result: ready for maintainer review.

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

Rank-up moves:

• none.

Next step before merge

• [P2] A repository owner should make the final adoption or merge decision; there is no concrete code defect for an automated repair worker.

Maintainer decision needed

• Question: Should plugin-inspector adopt the pinned OpenClaw pull request template as its repository-wide submission format?
• Rationale: The patch is technically clean, but adopting organization-level contributor metadata in a member-authored PR remains an explicit repository-owner choice.
• Likely owner: steipete — The proposed format comes from the stewarded OpenClaw repository policy surface, making the project steward the best available routing candidate for adoption.
• Options:
  • Adopt the template (recommended): Merge the focused metadata change so new pull requests use the canonical OpenClaw structure.
  • Keep repository-specific formatting: Close or revise the PR if plugin-inspector intentionally needs a smaller or package-specific template.

Security
Cleared: The added Markdown template introduces no executable code, workflow permissions, dependencies, secret handling, downloads, or supply-chain changes.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Merge the focused template addition after the repository owner confirms this package should follow the pinned organization-wide PR format; no runtime, package-release, or Crabpot follow-through is needed.

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

Not applicable; this PR adds repository metadata rather than addressing a reproducible product defect.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes; adding the canonical file at .github/pull_request_template.md is the narrow GitHub-supported way to standardize new pull request bodies without changing runtime behavior.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 96bbf7ac2fbb.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add P3: This is low-risk repository ergonomics and contributor-process alignment with no runtime behavior change.
• add rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• add status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: Real-behavior proof is not required because this member-authored PR changes only non-executable GitHub submission metadata and claims no runtime behavior.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is low-risk repository ergonomics and contributor-process alignment with no runtime behavior change.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: Real-behavior proof is not required because this member-authored PR changes only non-executable GitHub submission metadata and claims no runtime behavior.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Current-main gap: The GitHub file diff adds .github/pull_request_template.md as a new file against current main, so the requested repository template is not already implemented. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, f708eed32979)
• Focused metadata change: The branch changes one GitHub metadata file with 65 additions and no deletions, dependencies, executable workflow steps, package metadata, or runtime code. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, f708eed32979)
• Canonical provenance: The PR body pins the copied template to OpenClaw commit 2ac723282c84286ad3f38aabbd2e70699aafb3c3, blob e902c4789b21765ea16dfb75e436db5801b6450b, and a SHA-256 digest, providing unusually specific provenance for a metadata sync. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, 2ac723282c84)
• Validation state: All reported checks succeeded on the exact PR head: Node 22, both CodeQL analysis jobs, and the aggregate CodeQL check. (f708eed32979)
• Protected author handling: GitHub reports the author association as MEMBER, so ClawSweeper policy requires keeping this PR open for explicit maintainer handling rather than auto-closing it. (f708eed32979)

Likely related people:

• steipete: OpenClaw contribution policy identifies Peter Steinberger as the project steward, and this PR imports the canonical OpenClaw pull request template and its maintainer-edit guidance into the package repository. (role: adjacent repository-policy owner; confidence: medium; commits: 2ac723282c84; files: .github/pull_request_template.md, AGENTS.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.

[hannesrudolph]

Land-ready verification:

• Reviewed head: f708eed32979cff18311692bc4f4e2f0359aaee9
• 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.