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. The template asks for the problem, rationale, user impact, and evidence consistently.

User Impact

Contributors and maintainers get the same PR submission structure used by openclaw/openclaw. No runtime behavior changes.

Evidence

• Template bytes match openclaw/openclaw blob e902c4789b21765ea16dfb75e436db5801b6450b exactly.
• SHA-256: 38845d7f2cfc96402062408ac8a87b1e3f5f81dd80924785b0547b64a0c914b6.
• Metadata-only change; no runtime tests required.
• AI-assisted batch maintenance change.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed July 13, 2026, 12:19 PM ET / 16:19 UTC.

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

Reproducibility: not applicable. This PR changes GitHub contribution metadata rather than reporting a runtime defect.

Review metrics: 2 noteworthy metrics.

• Repository surface: 1 file added, 65 lines added, 0 removed. The patch is confined to contributor-facing GitHub metadata and has no executable surface.
• Runtime changes: 0 runtime files changed. No application, package, dependency, release, or automation behavior is altered.

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] No repair is needed; the member-authored draft can proceed through normal repository review and readiness handling.

Security
Cleared: The diff adds inert Markdown metadata and introduces no executable code, dependency, permissions, secrets, or supply-chain changes.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Land the one-file template alignment once the member author considers the draft ready, preserving the canonical contents and avoiding unrelated repository changes.

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

Not applicable; this PR changes GitHub contribution metadata rather than reporting a runtime defect.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes; adding the canonical template as one isolated .github file is the narrowest maintainable way to align pull request descriptions across repositories.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against a7d8b2b522ae.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add P3: This is a low-risk contributor-workflow and repository-metadata improvement with no runtime impact.
• 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: The PR is member-authored and changes only inert repository submission metadata; byte-level provenance and the successful check adequately validate this surface.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a low-risk contributor-workflow and repository-metadata improvement with no runtime impact.
• 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: The PR is member-authored and changes only inert repository submission metadata; byte-level provenance and the successful check adequately validate this surface.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Focused metadata change: The branch adds one pull request template file with 65 additions and no runtime, dependency, workflow, or source-code changes. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, 12efe7924925)
• Canonical template provenance: The PR body identifies OpenClaw commit 2ac723282c84286ad3f38aabbd2e70699aafb3c3, blob e902c4789b21765ea16dfb75e436db5801b6450b, and SHA-256 38845d7f2cfc96402062408ac8a87b1e3f5f81dd80924785b0547b64a0c914b6 as the copied template provenance. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, 12efe7924925)
• Current-main comparison: GitHub reports the file as newly added relative to base SHA a7d8b2b522ae02f53cbdb2465766f84f6389d9b6, so the exact change is not already implemented on current main. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, a7d8b2b522ae)
• Validation state: The provided GitHub context reports the build-and-lint check completed successfully and the PR is cleanly mergeable. (12efe7924925)
• Protected author signal: The author association is MEMBER; ClawSweeper policy requires member-authored pull requests to remain open for explicit repository-team handling. (12efe7924925)

Likely related people:

• steipete: Peter Steinberger is strongly connected to AXorcist's repository direction and is the best available routing candidate for organization-wide contribution-template policy. (role: repository and contribution-policy owner; confidence: medium; commits: 289d403c53ce; files: .github/pull_request_template.md)
• WinnCook: Repository activity identifies Winn Cook as a substantial AXorcist contributor, making them a plausible secondary reviewer for repository-level contributor workflow changes. (role: recent repository contributor; confidence: low; 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.