Skip to content

chore: move Motivation section above Change Type in PR template#84003

Closed
seraphjiang wants to merge 1 commit into
openclaw:mainfrom
seraphjiang:chore/move-motivation-to-top
Closed

chore: move Motivation section above Change Type in PR template#84003
seraphjiang wants to merge 1 commit into
openclaw:mainfrom
seraphjiang:chore/move-motivation-to-top

Conversation

@seraphjiang

@seraphjiang seraphjiang commented May 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • Problem: The Motivation section appears after Change Type and Scope, making it easy to skip when filling out a PR — reviewers often want to understand why before what.
  • Solution: Move Motivation to immediately after Summary, so the first two things a contributor writes are the description and the rationale.
  • What changed: Section order in .github/pull_request_template.md only.
  • What did NOT change: No section content, wording, or checklist items were modified.

Motivation

Closes #83939. The motivation section is the most important context for reviewers, but it currently sits after two checklists. Moving it up front encourages contributors to articulate why before diving into what type and what scope.

Change Type (select all)

  • Docs

Scope (select all touched areas)

  • UI / DX

Linked Issue/PR

Real behavior proof (required for external PRs)

  • Behavior or issue addressed: PR template section order
  • Real environment tested: GitHub web UI + local markdown preview
  • Exact steps or command run after this patch: Open a new PR in the repo — Motivation now appears as the second section.
  • Evidence after fix: Section order in this PR's own template reflects the change.
  • Observed result after fix: Motivation is the second section, immediately after Summary.
  • What was not tested: N/A (pure template change, no code execution)

Root Cause (if applicable)

N/A — this is a UX improvement, not a bug fix.

Security Impact (required)

  • New permissions/capabilities? No
  • Secrets/tokens handling changed? No
  • New/changed network calls? No
  • Command/tool execution surface changed? No
  • Data access scope changed? No

Compatibility / Migration

  • Backward compatible? Yes
  • Config/env changes? No
  • Migration needed? No

Risks and Mitigations

  • Risk: None — template-only change with no behavioral impact.

@openclaw-barnacle openclaw-barnacle Bot added size: XS triage: needs-real-behavior-proof Candidate: external PR needs after-fix proof from a real setup. labels May 19, 2026
@clawsweeper

clawsweeper Bot commented May 19, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Codex review: passed.

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
Moves the Motivation section in .github/pull_request_template.md from after Linked Issue/PR to immediately after Summary, while normalizing the 2–5 helper text to 2-5.

Reproducibility: not applicable. this is a PR template ordering change rather than a runtime bug. Source inspection shows current main has Motivation at line 38 after Linked Issue/PR, while the PR head places it at line 12 before Change Type.

PR rating
Overall: 🐚 platinum hermit
Proof: 🐚 platinum hermit
Patch quality: 🦞 diamond lobster
Summary: Focused template-only patch with no blocking findings; proof is accepted by maintainer override rather than contributor artifact.

Rank-up moves:

  • none
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.

PR egg
✨ Hatched: 🌱 uncommon Tiny Review Wisp

        /\     /\            
      _/  \___/  \_          
     /  ( o   o )  \         
    |      \_/      |        
    |   /\  ===  /\ |        
     \_/  \_____/  \_/       
        _/|_| |_|\_          
       /__| | | |__\         
          ' ' ' '            
         /_/     \_\         
       .-----------.         
      '-------------'

Rarity: 🌱 uncommon.
Trait: guards the happy path.
Share on X: post this hatch
Copy: My PR egg hatched a 🌱 uncommon Tiny Review Wisp in ClawSweeper.

What is this egg doing here?
  • Eggs appear after the PR passes real-behavior proof. It is here for vibes, not verdicts: it does not change labels, ratings, merge decisions, or automation.
  • The shell reacts to review momentum: open follow-up work warms it up, re-review makes it wobble, and a clean final review lets it hatch.
  • How to hatch it: reach status: 👀 ready for maintainer look or status: 🚀 automerge armed; that usually means sufficient real-behavior proof, no blocking P0/P1/P2 findings, no security attention needed, and clean correctness.
  • The hatch is seeded from this repository and PR number, so the same PR keeps the same creature; the reviewed head SHA can only change safe visual details.
  • Rarity is just collectible sparkle: 🥚 common, 🌱 uncommon, 💎 rare, ✨ glimmer, and 🌈 legendary.

Real behavior proof
Override: A maintainer applied proof: override for this PR.

Next step before merge
No repair job is needed; the automerge-enabled PR has no actionable review findings and should be gated by normal exact-head checks.

Security
Cleared: The diff only changes Markdown in the PR template and does not alter workflows, scripts, dependencies, permissions, secrets handling, or execution paths.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Let the exact-head automerge flow merge the focused template reorder if required checks and mergeability remain green.

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

Not applicable: this is a PR template ordering change rather than a runtime bug. Source inspection shows current main has Motivation at line 38 after Linked Issue/PR, while the PR head places it at line 12 before Change Type.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes: if maintainers want Motivation earlier, the one-file reorder is the narrow maintainable solution. The incidental 2–5 to 2-5 normalization is visible in the diff but not a correctness blocker.

Label justifications:

  • P3: This is a low-risk repository workflow ergonomics change to a Markdown PR template.

What I checked:

Likely related people:

  • steipete: git blame attributes the current PR template and proof-policy scaffolding to commit 8aff180, including the present Motivation placement that this PR reorders. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 8aff1807fa65; files: .github/pull_request_template.md, scripts/github/real-behavior-proof-policy.mjs, test/scripts/real-behavior-proof-policy.test.ts)
  • Takhoffman: git shortlog --all -- .github/pull_request_template.md shows the most prior changes from Tak Hoffman, and the provided GitHub context links the requested reorder to his open workflow issue and automerge request. (role: prior template contributor and workflow requester; confidence: high; commits: 302dafbe1ad4, 6872e079e673, a4e5b23dc37f; files: .github/pull_request_template.md)
  • Vincent Koc: History shows one prior accepted PR-template scope change in this file, making him an adjacent routing candidate if template scope wording comes up again. (role: adjacent contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 5408a3d1a4e5; files: .github/pull_request_template.md)

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against 5e0850fc548c.

@clawsweeper clawsweeper Bot added rating: 🦪 silver shellfish Thin PR readiness signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work. status: 📣 needs proof The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. P3 Low-priority cleanup, docs, polish, ergonomics, or speculative work. labels May 19, 2026
@Takhoffman Takhoffman added the proof: override Maintainer override for the external PR real behavior proof gate. label May 19, 2026
@openclaw-barnacle openclaw-barnacle Bot removed the triage: needs-real-behavior-proof Candidate: external PR needs after-fix proof from a real setup. label May 19, 2026
@Takhoffman

Takhoffman commented May 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@clawsweeper automerge

@clawsweeper clawsweeper Bot added the clawsweeper:automerge Maintainer opted this PR into bounded ClawSweeper-reviewed automerge label May 19, 2026
@clawsweeper

clawsweeper Bot commented May 19, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🦞🔧
ClawSweeper saw the passing review, but the PR needs another repair pass before merge.

Source: clawsweeper[bot]
Feedback: structured ClawSweeper verdict: pass (sha=e82115cad67064c6ae67e9977d39e99ee6ecc64f); failed required checks before automerge: Real behavior proof:CANCELLED
Action: repair worker queued. Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/26092493966
Model: gpt-5.5

I will update this PR branch, or open a safe credited replacement, if the repair worker finds a narrow CI fix.

Automerge progress:

  • 2026-05-19 10:44:20 UTC review queued e82115cad670 (queued)
  • 2026-05-19 10:50:44 UTC review passed e82115cad670 (structured ClawSweeper verdict: pass (sha=e82115cad67064c6ae67e9977d39e99ee6ecc...)

@clawsweeper clawsweeper Bot added rating: 🐚 platinum hermit Good normal PR readiness with ordinary maintainer review expected. status: 🚀 automerge armed This PR is in ClawSweeper's automerge lane. and removed rating: 🦪 silver shellfish Thin PR readiness signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work. status: 📣 needs proof The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. labels May 19, 2026
@clawsweeper clawsweeper Bot mentioned this pull request May 19, 2026
Merged
@clawsweeper

clawsweeper Bot commented May 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

ClawSweeper 🐠 reef update

Thanks for the contribution. The source branch was not safely writable by ClawSweeper, so it opened a replacement PR and kept the credit trail visible.

Why replacement: ClawSweeper could not update the source PR branch directly; GitHub did not grant sufficient push rights to the bot for that branch.
Replacement PR: #84098
Why close: this run explicitly closes the superseded source PR after the credited replacement PR is open, so review continues in one place.
Closing this source PR because this run explicitly enabled source-PR closeout.
Attribution is preserved in the replacement PR body and release-note trail.
Co-author credit kept:

fish notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against 6c68583.

@clawsweeper clawsweeper Bot closed this May 19, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

clawsweeper:automerge Maintainer opted this PR into bounded ClawSweeper-reviewed automerge P3 Low-priority cleanup, docs, polish, ergonomics, or speculative work. proof: override Maintainer override for the external PR real behavior proof gate. rating: 🐚 platinum hermit Good normal PR readiness with ordinary maintainer review expected. size: XS status: 🚀 automerge armed This PR is in ClawSweeper's automerge lane.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Move motivation section to top of pull request template

2 participants

@seraphjiang @Takhoffman