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 how contributors describe the problem, rationale, user impact, and evidence across repositories.

User Impact

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

Evidence

• Canonical source: https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/blob/2ac723282c84286ad3f38aabbd2e70699aafb3c3/.github/pull_request_template.md
• Source commit: openclaw/openclaw@2ac7232
• Blob: e902c4789b21765ea16dfb75e436db5801b6450b
• SHA-256: 38845d7f2cfc96402062408ac8a87b1e3f5f81dd80924785b0547b64a0c914b6
• Verified branch file bytes match the canonical SHA-256.
• Metadata-only change; no runtime tests were needed.
• AI-assisted batch maintenance change.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed July 13, 2026, 1:56 PM ET / 17:56 UTC.

Summary
Adds a 65-line .github/pull_request_template.md copied from the pinned canonical OpenClaw template.

Reproducibility: not applicable. This PR changes repository submission metadata and does not report broken runtime behavior requiring reproduction.

Review metrics: 2 noteworthy metrics.

• Metadata scope: 1 file added, 65 lines added, 0 removed. The patch is confined to contributor-facing GitHub metadata and cannot alter CrawlBar runtime behavior.
• Canonical source: 1 pinned upstream template. The recorded commit, blob, and SHA-256 make the copied content straightforward to audit.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🦞 diamond lobster
Proof: 🦞 diamond lobster
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 correct patch should proceed through ordinary maintainer merge handling.

Security
Cleared: The patch adds inert Markdown and introduces no workflow execution, dependency, permission, secret, packaging, or supply-chain change.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Merge the pinned canonical template through normal maintainer review if CrawlBar should use the organization-wide PR submission structure, retaining the source and hash provenance in the PR record.

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

Not applicable: this PR changes repository submission metadata and does not report broken runtime behavior requiring reproduction.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes: placing the pinned canonical content at GitHub's standard .github/pull_request_template.md path is the narrowest maintainable way to align PR descriptions.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 2a2ad967281b.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add P3: This is low-risk contributor-workflow standardization with no runtime or user-facing application change.
• add rating: 🦞 diamond lobster: Overall readiness is 🦞 diamond lobster; proof is 🦞 diamond lobster and patch quality is 🦞 diamond lobster.
• add status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: This repository-member, metadata-only PR has no runtime behavior to demonstrate; direct source and byte-hash provenance are appropriate proof.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is low-risk contributor-workflow standardization with no runtime or user-facing application change.
• rating: 🦞 diamond lobster: Overall readiness is 🦞 diamond lobster; proof is 🦞 diamond lobster 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 repository-member, metadata-only PR has no runtime behavior to demonstrate; direct source and byte-hash provenance are appropriate proof.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Focused metadata diff: The PR adds one Markdown file with 65 additions and no deletions, changing contributor guidance without modifying application code, packaging, or public runtime contracts. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, 624ee30d34f3)
• Canonical provenance: The PR body identifies the canonical OpenClaw source commit, source blob, and SHA-256, and reports that the branch file matches those bytes. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, 624ee30d34f3)
• Current-main comparison: The hydrated diff shows this template as a new file relative to current main, so the PR is not duplicating an existing repository template. (.github/pull_request_template.md:1, 2a2ad967281b)
• Validation state: The supplied GitHub context reports head 624ee30 as cleanly mergeable with the Swift check passing. (624ee30d34f3)
• Protected authorship signal: The author association is MEMBER, so repository policy requires keeping this PR open for explicit maintainer handling even though the patch appears correct. (624ee30d34f3)

Likely related people:

• hannesrudolph: The repository member authored the pinned metadata synchronization and documented its cross-repository provenance; the affected file is new, so no earlier file-level ownership trail exists. (role: organization template alignment owner; confidence: medium; commits: 624ee30d34f3; 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.

[hannesrudolph]

Land-ready verification:

• Reviewed head: 624ee30d34f39e5584201a5dc00e183ec7b3820d
• 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.