Codex review: keeping this open for maintainer follow-up; there is still a little grit to resolve.

Workflow note: Future ClawSweeper reviews update this same comment in place.

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.

Summary
This should stay open because the requested PR-template ordering change is not present on current main and the issue has the protected maintainer label, so it needs explicit maintainer workflow judgment instead of automated cleanup.

Reproducibility: not applicable. this is a repository workflow template-order request, not a runtime bug. Source inspection gives high confidence that the requested order is not already present on current main.

Ways to help us reproduce this

Add a screenshot or short recording showing the behavior.
Add expected vs actual behavior.
Include redacted logs or terminal output.

Next step
Protected-label policy keeps this out of the automated fix lane despite the small one-file change.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Have a maintainer decide the desired PR-template flow, then make a one-file .github/pull_request_template.md reorder if Motivation should come before the current summary, scope, or issue-link sections.

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

Not applicable: this is a repository workflow template-order request, not a runtime bug. Source inspection gives high confidence that the requested order is not already present on current main.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

The narrow implementation would be a one-file template reorder, but whether that is the best review workflow is a maintainer preference decision because this issue is protected with the maintainer label.

Label justifications:

P3: This is a low-risk repository workflow ergonomics request about PR template section ordering.

What I checked:

Protected issue label: The provided GitHub context shows this issue is open and labeled maintainer; repository policy says protected-label items must stay open for explicit maintainer handling.
Current template order: The current PR template starts with Summary, Change Type, Scope, and Linked Issue/PR before ## Motivation, so the requested reorder is not implemented on current main. (.github/pull_request_template.md:32, 131577a4dc6d)
Template history provenance: Blame shows the visible current Linked Issue/PR and Motivation ordering came from commit 721ad15. (.github/pull_request_template.md:38, 721ad1587ae5)
Motivation search: A repository search found the only PR-template Motivation section in .github/pull_request_template.md; the other hit is an unrelated test-utils comment, so there is no alternate template already carrying the requested order. (.github/pull_request_template.md:38, 131577a4dc6d)

Likely related people:

Patrick Erichsen: Visible history and blame assign the current PR template, including the Motivation section placement, to commit 721ad15. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 721ad1587ae5; files: .github/pull_request_template.md)

Remaining risk / open question:

An automated reorder could conflict with the protected maintainer workflow decision for how PR authors should present motivation, scope, proof, and issue links.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against 131577a4dc6d.

Uh oh!

Move motivation section to top of pull request template #83939

Description

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Fields

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions