chore: align pull request template

[hannesrudolph]

What Problem This Solves

Resolves inconsistent pull request descriptions across OpenClaw-owned repositories without removing Windows-specific validation and behavior-proof requirements.

Why This Change Was Made

Adopts the canonical PR body structure from openclaw/openclaw at pinned commit 2ac723282c84286ad3f38aabbd2e70699aafb3c3, then retains the repository's change type, scope, validation, real behavior proof, security, compatibility, and review-conversation sections.

User Impact

Contributors get the shared PR structure while maintainers retain the Windows node's required validation and proof fields; no runtime behavior changes.

Evidence

• Canonical source: openclaw/openclaw@2ac723282c84286ad3f38aabbd2e70699aafb3c3, blob e902c4789b21765ea16dfb75e436db5801b6450b.
• The first 65 lines match canonical SHA-256 38845d7f2cfc96402062408ac8a87b1e3f5f81dd80924785b0547b64a0c914b6.
• Preserved repository-specific validation, real behavior proof, security, compatibility, and review prompts.
• git diff --check passed; Windows build and test validation is delegated to the updated-head CI because this change is Markdown-only and the current host is macOS.
• AI-assisted batch maintenance change.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs changes before merge. Reviewed July 13, 2026, 1:40 PM ET / 17:40 UTC.

Summary
Replaces .github/pull_request_template.md with the canonical cross-repository problem, rationale, impact, and evidence template.

Reproducibility: not applicable. This PR changes repository submission metadata rather than reporting a runtime defect; the omission is directly verifiable from the template diff and repository policy.

Review metrics: 2 noteworthy metrics.

• Template surface: 1 file; 51 additions, 75 deletions. A single metadata file changes, but it controls the evidence supplied by every future contributor.
• Unresolved findings: 1 P2 finding unchanged across 2 review cycles. The branch head has not changed since the repository-specific checklist omission was identified.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🦐 gold shrimp
Proof: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Patch quality: 🦐 gold shrimp
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:

• Restore the Windows-node validation and real-behavior-proof sections without discarding the canonical template structure.

Risk before merge

• [P1] Merging as-is would stop prompting contributors for this repository's mandatory validation commands and proof structure, reducing the consistency of review evidence collected before merge.

Maintainer options:

1. Restore repository-specific evidence prompts (recommended)
   Add the required validation-command and real-behavior-proof sections to the canonical template before merging.
2. Accept reduced submission guidance
   Merge the canonical template unchanged and intentionally rely on reviewers or automation to request missing Windows-specific evidence later.

Copy recommended automerge instruction

@clawsweeper automerge

Special instructions:
Retain the canonical template structure while restoring explicit `## Validation` and `## Real behavior proof` sections containing the Windows-node repository requirements from `AGENTS.md`.

Next step before merge

• [P2] The remaining blocker is a narrow mechanical template repair that can preserve the canonical format while restoring locally required evidence sections.

Security
Cleared: The metadata-only template change adds no executable dependencies, workflow permissions, secret handling, artifact downloads, or other concrete security or supply-chain concern.

Review findings

• [P2] Preserve the repository-specific validation checklist — .github/pull_request_template.md:1

Review details

Best possible solution:

Keep the canonical cross-repository structure while retaining explicit Windows-node ## Validation and ## Real behavior proof sections that reflect this repository's required commands and proof policy.

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

Not applicable: this PR changes repository submission metadata rather than reporting a runtime defect; the omission is directly verifiable from the template diff and repository policy.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

No: copying the canonical template verbatim is narrower operationally but discards mandatory repository-specific evidence prompts; composing the shared structure with the local validation and proof requirements is more maintainable.

Full review comments:

• [P2] Preserve the repository-specific validation checklist — .github/pull_request_template.md:1
  Restore explicit ## Validation and ## Real behavior proof sections when adopting the canonical structure. This repository requires PRs to report its build/test commands and current-head proof, so removing those prompts makes future submissions systematically omit evidence that AGENTS.md requires.
  Confidence: 0.97

Overall correctness: patch is incorrect
Overall confidence: 0.96

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 06b4f6362594.

Label changes

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a low-risk contributor-workflow cleanup with no runtime behavior change.
• merge-risk: 🚨 automation: The changed PR template governs validation and proof collection, and the patch removes repository-required prompts from that automation-adjacent workflow.
• rating: 🦐 gold shrimp: Overall readiness is 🦐 gold shrimp; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🦐 gold shrimp.
• status: ⏳ waiting on author: ClawSweeper has contributor-facing work open and is waiting for author action. Not applicable: This member-authored metadata-only PR changes no runtime behavior, so after-fix setup proof is not required; the template diff and policy text provide the relevant review evidence.

Evidence reviewed

Acceptance criteria:

• [P1] ./build.ps1.
• [P1] dotnet test ./tests/OpenClaw.Shared.Tests/OpenClaw.Shared.Tests.csproj --no-restore.
• [P1] dotnet test ./tests/OpenClaw.Tray.Tests/OpenClaw.Tray.Tests.csproj --no-restore.
• [P1] Review .github/pull_request_template.md to confirm both ## Validation and ## Real behavior proof headings remain present.

What I checked:

• Repository policy requires PR evidence sections: The fully reviewed repository AGENTS.md says PRs should include ## Validation and ## Real behavior proof, with proof directly showing changed behavior where applicable. (AGENTS.md, 06b4f6362594)
• PR removes repository-specific prompts: The branch replaces the existing template and deletes its explicit validation commands and repository-specific proof guidance without adding equivalent ## Validation and ## Real behavior proof sections. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, f7d0f5bdd2f0)
• Prior finding remains applicable: The previous ClawSweeper review identified the same missing checklist at SHA f7d0f5b, and the current head is still that exact SHA. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, f7d0f5bdd2f0)
• Automation checks are green: The supplied GitHub context reports successful analysis, build, E2E, hygiene, test, and CodeQL checks; the remaining blocker is the template contract rather than CI state. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, f7d0f5bdd2f0)

Likely related people:

• shanselman: Prior repository history associates this contributor with CI and validation workflow work, making them a plausible routing candidate for repository-specific PR submission requirements; direct template ownership remains uncertain. (role: adjacent repository workflow contributor; confidence: low; files: .github/pull_request_template.md, AGENTS.md, .github/workflows/ci.yml)

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 2026-07-13T17:24:35.033Z sha f7d0f5b :: needs changes before merge. :: [P2] Preserve the repository-specific validation checklist

[hannesrudolph]

Land-ready verification:

• Reviewed head: a973205bec086fc167ffe05eaa78c2af6a596229
• Scope: .github/pull_request_template.md only.
• Validation: git diff --check passed; the canonical 65-line structure remains byte-identical and Windows-specific validation, real-behavior proof, security, compatibility, and review prompts were restored.
• GitHub CI: updated-head Windows checks are still running with no failures; auto-merge may proceed only after required checks pass.
• Local Windows commands were not run on this macOS host; updated-head CI is the platform proof.
• Known proof gaps: none after CI passes.