Files
openclaw/.github/pull_request_template.md
2026-03-26 09:36:36 -05:00

150 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
## Summary
Describe the problem and fix in 25 bullets:
If this PR fixes a plugin beta-release blocker, title it `fix(<plugin-id>): beta blocker - <summary>` and link the matching `Beta blocker: <plugin-name> - <summary>` issue labeled `beta-blocker`. Contributors cannot label PRs, so the title is the PR-side signal for maintainers and automation.
- Problem:
- Why it matters:
- What changed:
- What did NOT change (scope boundary):
## Change Type (select all)
- [ ] Bug fix
- [ ] Feature
- [ ] Refactor required for the fix
- [ ] Docs
- [ ] Security hardening
- [ ] Chore/infra
## Scope (select all touched areas)
- [ ] Gateway / orchestration
- [ ] Skills / tool execution
- [ ] Auth / tokens
- [ ] Memory / storage
- [ ] Integrations
- [ ] API / contracts
- [ ] UI / DX
- [ ] CI/CD / infra
## Linked Issue/PR
- Closes #
- Related #
- [ ] This PR fixes a bug or regression
## Root Cause / Regression History (if applicable)
For bug fixes or regressions, explain why this happened, not just what changed. Otherwise write `N/A`. If the cause is unclear, write `Unknown`.
- Root cause:
- Missing detection / guardrail:
- Prior context (`git blame`, prior PR, issue, or refactor if known):
- Why this regressed now:
- If unknown, what was ruled out:
## Regression Test Plan (if applicable)
For bug fixes or regressions, name the smallest reliable test coverage that should have caught this. Otherwise write `N/A`.
- Coverage level that should have caught this:
- [ ] Unit test
- [ ] Seam / integration test
- [ ] End-to-end test
- [ ] Existing coverage already sufficient
- Target test or file:
- Scenario the test should lock in:
- Why this is the smallest reliable guardrail:
- Existing test that already covers this (if any):
- If no new test is added, why not:
## User-visible / Behavior Changes
List user-visible changes (including defaults/config).
If none, write `None`.
## Diagram (if applicable)
For UI changes or non-trivial logic flows, include a small ASCII diagram reviewers can scan quickly. Otherwise write `N/A`.
```text
Before:
[user action] -> [old state]
After:
[user action] -> [new state] -> [result]
```
## Security Impact (required)
- New permissions/capabilities? (`Yes/No`)
- Secrets/tokens handling changed? (`Yes/No`)
- New/changed network calls? (`Yes/No`)
- Command/tool execution surface changed? (`Yes/No`)
- Data access scope changed? (`Yes/No`)
- If any `Yes`, explain risk + mitigation:
## Repro + Verification
### Environment
- OS:
- Runtime/container:
- Model/provider:
- Integration/channel (if any):
- Relevant config (redacted):
### Steps
1.
2.
3.
### Expected
-
### Actual
-
## Evidence
Attach at least one:
- [ ] Failing test/log before + passing after
- [ ] Trace/log snippets
- [ ] Screenshot/recording
- [ ] Perf numbers (if relevant)
## Human Verification (required)
What you personally verified (not just CI), and how:
- Verified scenarios:
- Edge cases checked:
- What you did **not** verify:
## Review Conversations
- [ ] I replied to or resolved every bot review conversation I addressed in this PR.
- [ ] I left unresolved only the conversations that still need reviewer or maintainer judgment.
If a bot review conversation is addressed by this PR, resolve that conversation yourself. Do not leave bot review conversation cleanup for maintainers.
## Compatibility / Migration
- Backward compatible? (`Yes/No`)
- Config/env changes? (`Yes/No`)
- Migration needed? (`Yes/No`)
- If yes, exact upgrade steps:
## Risks and Mitigations
List only real risks for this PR. Add/remove entries as needed. If none, write `None`.
- Risk:
- Mitigation: