Add pull request template

[dcartertwo]

Summary

• surface the existing contribution policy before a pull request is submitted
• ask authors to explain the concrete fix and why it is trivially verifiable
• add checklist confirmations with stable hidden identifiers for future policy automation

Verification

• git diff --check

[github-actions]

All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️ ✅
_{Posted by the CLA Assistant Lite bot.}

[ask-bonk]

Review

This is a clean, well-scoped change that adds a single .github/pull_request_template.md. It qualifies as exactly the kind of small, trivially-verifiable PR the contribution policy welcomes.

Verified

• Links resolve. CONTRIBUTING.md exists on main (repo default branch is main), so the guidelines link is valid. Discussions are enabled, so the discussions link is valid.
• Policy is faithfully summarized. The template's language ("small, trivially verified", "not a feature, refactor, or low-value cleanup such as a typo fix", "about a dozen changed lines") matches CONTRIBUTING.md (lines 7-9) without overstating or contradicting it.
• No whitespace issues. git diff --check is clean.
• Markdown is well-formed. The GitHub > [!IMPORTANT] alert and the checklist render correctly.

Notes (non-blocking)

• The stable hidden identifiers (<!-- contribution-policy:concrete-fix --> etc.) are a nice touch for future automation. Just flagging that they're currently unused — worth a follow-up that actually consumes them, otherwise they're only documentation. Not a blocker.
• The checklist places the HTML comment before the visible text on each - [ ] line, which renders fine and keeps the marker out of view. Good.

Looks good to me. Nice, focused contribution.

[ask-bonk]

Review posted to PR #144.

Summary

PR #144 adds a single .github/pull_request_template.md — a focused, low-risk change that fits the project's own contribution policy for small, trivially-verifiable PRs.

I verified:

• CONTRIBUTING.md exists on the main default branch, so the guidelines link resolves; discussions are enabled, so that link resolves too.
• The template's policy wording faithfully matches CONTRIBUTING.md (lines 7-9) without overstating it.
• git diff --check is clean (matching the author's stated verification).
• The > [!IMPORTANT] alert and checklist markdown are well-formed.

Non-blocking notes I raised: the hidden contribution-policy:* identifiers are currently unused (nice for future automation, but worth a follow-up that consumes them), and the comment-before-text ordering on each checklist item renders correctly.

Overall: approvable, no changes required.

github run

[dcartertwo]

I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA

[ask-bonk]

Review

The head commit (88b90ae) addresses both of @kentonv's review points well.

Verified

• Bug/feature routing separated (kentonv's first note). The > [!IMPORTANT] block now sends bugs to [Issues] and feature requests/proposals to [Discussions] on separate lines. Both links resolve: Issues is the standard issues/new, and Discussions is enabled on the repo.
• "Obviously correct" concern addressed (kentonv's second note re: the subtle one-line ollama change). The template no longer treats a small diff as sufficient:
  • adds "obviously correct" alongside "trivially verifiable",
  • frames acceptance as being "in the maintainers' assessment",
  • removes the "about a dozen lines" line-count language,
  • adds an explicit "Checking every item does not guarantee acceptance" note above the checklist, and
  • the "Why is this obviously correct and trivially verifiable?" section asks the author to show the complete effects can be established by reading the patch — which is exactly the property the ollama example lacked.
    This keeps the narrow exception (per dcartertwo's rationale) while making clear that maintainer judgment, not diff size, governs.
• Policy still faithful to CONTRIBUTING.md. CONTRIBUTING.md exists on main and its "small, trivially-verified PRs" stance is preserved without overstating it.
• git diff --check is clean — no whitespace issues.
• Markdown well-formed. The [!IMPORTANT] alert, section headers, and checklist render correctly; HTML comments precede the visible checklist text so the contribution-policy:* markers stay hidden.

Note (non-blocking, unchanged from prior review)

• The hidden contribution-policy:* identifiers are still currently unused. They remain a nice hook for future automation; worth a follow-up that actually consumes them, but not a blocker.

Looks good. The changes resolve the raised feedback.

[ask-bonk]

Review posted to PR #144.

Summary

The head commit 88b90ae ("Clarify pull request acceptance criteria") resolves both of @kentonv's review points, and I posted a review confirming this.

kentonv's feedback → resolution:

1. Separate bug reports from feature requests — Done. The [!IMPORTANT] block now routes bugs to Issues and feature requests/proposals to Discussions on distinct lines.

2. Capture "obviously correct", and don't let diff-size imply triviality (re: the subtle one-line ollama change) — Done. The template adds "obviously correct" alongside "trivially verifiable", frames acceptance as being "in the maintainers' assessment", removes the line-count language, and adds a "Checking every item does not guarantee acceptance" note. dcartertwo kept the narrow exception rather than removing it entirely, with the maintainer-judgment framing that kentonv's concern motivated.

Verified: links resolve (CONTRIBUTING.md and Discussions both exist on main), policy stays faithful to CONTRIBUTING.md, git diff --check is clean, and the markdown/hidden markers are well-formed. The only non-blocking note carried over is that the contribution-policy:* identifiers remain unused pending future automation.

github run