[wchwawa]

TLDR

Require NoKV PRs to explain the problem, impact, example, solution, benefit, and tradeoffs in a consistent short format.

Problem

The template and agent guidance did not enforce the preferred description format. This is CI policy maintenance, an allowed exception to the linked-issue requirement.

Consequences

Descriptions can list changed files without explaining the resulting behavior, leaving reviewers to reconstruct the intent.

Example

Before: a Summary and long checklist could omit the user impact. After: missing or empty required sections fail the description check, including after title or body edits.

Solution

Align the template, contributor guide, and agent instructions, and validate live PR metadata with the protected base policy. Use the same validator locally.

Gain

Authors and reviewers share one documented structure and an automated check for incomplete descriptions.

Tradeoffs

The check validates structure and filled-in content; clarity and factual claims still need review. Activate the new required checks after this PR merges so the protected workflow is available.

Validation

• PR description regression suite: 12 tests passed, covering missing, reordered, duplicate, empty, placeholder, comment-only, and fenced-example cases plus CLI failures and workflow ownership.
• Existing change-governance suite: 24 tests passed.
• Local Markdown links and anchors: 32 checked; both new workflows parse as YAML.
• git diff --check: passed.
• Rust checks: not run locally; no Rust or storage behavior changes. Required repository CI must pass before merge.