Simplify PR template with two section only

• Replace the verbose PR template with two required sections for author context.
• Remove checklists, testing prompts, and user-impact fields to reduce PR author overhead.
• Add a simple "N/A" placeholder under Notes for Reviewers.

The following are alternative approaches to this PR:

1. Keep a minimal checklist (hybrid template)

• ➕ Retains critical prompts (testing performed, rollout/impact) while staying lightweight
• ➕ Reduces risk of missing release/process requirements
• ➖ Slightly more author overhead than the two-section template
• ➖ Requires team agreement on what is ‘minimal but required’

2. Use GitHub Issue Forms-style structured fields (where possible)

• ➕ More consistent structured inputs (e.g., required fields)
• ➕ Easier to parse/standardize for automation
• ➖ PR templates have more limited form capabilities than issue forms
• ➖ More setup complexity and may not fit current workflow

3. Move detailed guidance to CONTRIBUTING.md and keep template short

• ➕ Template stays lightweight while guidance remains discoverable
• ➕ Centralizes process documentation in one place
• ➖ Authors may skip reading CONTRIBUTING.md
• ➖ Reviewers may see less consistent PR context

Recommendation: If the goal is reducing friction, the two-section template is a reasonable default. Consider re-adding a very small checklist (e.g., testing/rollout or release labeling reminder) if reviewers frequently need to request that information post-hoc.

Documentation (1) +3 / -83

PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.mdReduce PR template to two sections plus N/A placeholder +3/-83

Reduce PR template to two sections plus N/A placeholder

• Replaces the previous multi-section PR template (type of change, testing, checklist, user impact, etc.) with only "What & Why" and "Notes for Reviewers" headings. Adds an "N/A" placeholder and removes the rest of the guidance content.

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

Description

This PR replaces the PR template headings with “What & Why” / “Notes for Reviewers”, removing the
“User-facing impact”, “Description”, “Changes Made”, and “Type of Change” sections that
hoophq/changelog’s prtext/classify logic relies on. As a result, hoophq/changelog will no longer (a)
honor author-declared “User-facing impact: None” exclusions and (b) use template sections to build
source text / internal-only heuristics, causing misclassification and noisier or incorrect changelog
entries.

Code

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md[R1-4]

+## What & Why

-## 📝 Description

-<!-- Please provide a brief description of the changes in this PR -->
+## Notes for Reviewers

Relevance

●● Moderate

Parser compatibility risk is plausible and specific, but no close repository precedent confirms
acceptance of this external integration concern.

ⓘ Recommendations generated based on similar findings in past PRs

Evidence

The PR removes the template sections/labels that hoophq/changelog’s parser and classifier explicitly
search for by normalized heading name (Impact/Description/Changes Made/Type of Change). The cited
changelog code shows hard-coded section keys and classification rules based on those sections; with
the new template, those signals will not be present in newly created PR bodies.

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md[1-6] External repo: hoophq/changelog, internal/prtext/prtext.go [70-149] External repo: hoophq/changelog, internal/prtext/prtext.go [160-176] External repo: hoophq/changelog, internal/classify/classify.go [101-132] External repo: hoophq/changelog, README.md [16-19]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

### Issue description
hoophq/changelog parses hoophq/hoop PR bodies by looking for specific level-2 headings (e.g., `## 📣 User-facing impact`, `## 📝 Description`, `## 📋 Changes Made`, `## 🚀 Type of Change`). This PR template change removes/renames those headings, which breaks that downstream contract: changelog classification can no longer exclude internal-only PRs via the impact section and loses structured source-text extraction.

### Issue Context
- Downstream repo `hoophq/changelog` is pinned and currently expects these headings.
- You can fix this either by keeping the old headings in hoop’s template (preferred for backward compatibility), or by coordinating a simultaneous update in `hoophq/changelog` to recognize the new headings as aliases.

### Fix Focus Areas
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md[1-6]
- /cross_repos/changelog/internal/prtext/prtext.go[70-149]
- /cross_repos/changelog/internal/prtext/prtext.go[160-176]
- /cross_repos/changelog/internal/classify/classify.go[101-132]

### Suggested approach
1. In **hoophq/hoop**, reintroduce (or keep) these headings in the PR template:
  - `## 📣 User-facing impact` (with guidance to write `None` when internal)
  - `## 📝 Description`
  - `## 📋 Changes Made`
  - `## 🚀 Type of Change` (checkboxes)
  You may add “What & Why” as an extra section, but keep the existing ones for the generator.

2. If you must keep only two sections, then in **hoophq/changelog** update `prtext.SourceText`, `prtext.Impact`, and `CheckedTypeOfChange` logic to treat:
  - `What & Why` as `Description`
  - Provide an alternate mechanism for “author-declared internal” (e.g., accept a `User-facing impact: None` line inside `What & Why`)
  - Treat `Notes for Reviewers` as a noise section to exclude from fallback text

3. Coordinate deployment/merge timing between repos so weekly changelog generation doesn’t drift mid-week.

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

Description

This PR only modifies .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md, which is documentation/process text and
does not count as source code, tests, or runtime/build configuration. This violates the requirement
that PRs include at least one objectively checkable code/test/config artifact.

Code

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md[R1-6]

+## What & Why

-## 📝 Description

-<!-- Please provide a brief description of the changes in this PR -->
+## Notes for Reviewers

-## 📣 User-facing impact
-
-<!-- Optional. One or two sentences, in plain customer language, describing what users
-     gain from this PR — this feeds the public changelog at hoop.dev/docs/changelog.
-     Write "None" if this change is internal-only or gated behind a feature flag.
-     Leave the section untouched to let the changelog generator infer it from the
-     description. -->
-
-## 🔗 Related Issue
-
-<!-- Link to the issue this PR addresses (if applicable) -->
-<!-- Use "Fixes #123" or "Closes #123" to automatically close the issue when this PR is merged -->
-
-Fixes #
-
-## 🚀 Type of Change
-
-<!-- Please mark the relevant option with an "x" -->
-
-- [ ] 🐛 Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
-- [ ] ✨ New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
-- [ ] 💥 Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
-- [ ] 📚 Documentation update
-- [ ] 🎨 Style/UI update
-- [ ] ♻️ Code refactor
-- [ ] ⚡ Performance improvement
-- [ ] ✅ Test update
-- [ ] 🔧 Build configuration change
-- [ ] 🧹 Chore
-
-## 📋 Changes Made
-
-<!-- List the main changes made in this PR -->
-
-- 
-- 
-- 
-
-## 🧪 Testing
-
-<!-- Describe the tests you ran to verify your changes -->
-<!-- Provide instructions so we can reproduce -->
-<!-- Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration -->
-
-### Test Configuration:
-- **Browser(s)**: 
-- **OS**:
-
-### Tests performed:
-- [ ] Unit tests pass
-- [ ] Integration tests pass
-- [ ] Manual testing completed
-
-## 📸 Screenshots (if applicable)
-
-<!-- Add screenshots to help explain your changes -->
-<!-- You can drag and drop images directly into this text area -->
-
-## ✅ Checklist
-
-<!-- Please check off the following items by replacing [ ] with [x] -->
-
-- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
-- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
-- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
-- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
-- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
-- [ ] I have checked my code and corrected any misspellings
-
-## 📄 Additional Notes
-
-<!-- Add any additional notes, concerns, or discussion points here -->
-<!-- Is there anything specific you'd like reviewers to focus on? -->
-
----
-
-<!-- Thank you for contributing to our project! 🙏 --> 
+N/A

Relevance

●●● Strong

Active repository compliance rule directly requires a checkable artifact; this PR changes only the
template.

ⓘ Recommendations generated based on similar findings in past PRs

Evidence

PR Compliance ID 2362440 requires that the PR modifies at least one objectively checkable artifact
(source code, tests, or runtime/build configuration). The diff shows the only modified file is
.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md, which is a markdown PR template.

Rule 2362440: Pull-request changes must include at least one objectively checkable code artifact .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md[1-6]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

## Issue description
The PR currently changes only the PR template markdown, which does not satisfy the requirement to include at least one objectively checkable code/test/runtime-or-build configuration artifact.

## Issue Context
This is a docs/process-only change to `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md`.

## Fix Focus Areas
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md[1-6]

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

Description

The PR template no longer mentions the required release labels, while repo guidance states every PR
must have exactly one release label. This inconsistency increases the likelihood of unlabeled PRs
and follow-up churn to fix labeling/release intent after opening.

Code

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md[R1-4]

+## What & Why

-## 📝 Description

-<!-- Please provide a brief description of the changes in this PR -->
+## Notes for Reviewers

Relevance

●●● Strong

The diff removes explicit mandatory release-label guidance, creating a direct inconsistency with
CLAUDE.md.

ⓘ Recommendations generated based on similar findings in past PRs

Evidence

The updated PR template has only the two headings and no mention of release labels, whereas the
repository guidance states every PR must have exactly one release label
(major/minor/patch/skip-release).

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md[1-6] CLAUDE.md[256-264]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

## Issue description
The PR template removed the release-label requirement note, but the repository documentation still states that every PR must have exactly one release label. This mismatch can cause contributors to omit labels and requires follow-up to clarify release intent.

## Issue Context
- Current PR template only has two headings and no release-label guidance.
- `CLAUDE.md` explicitly documents that exactly one of `major`/`minor`/`patch`/`skip-release` must be applied to every PR.

## Fix Focus Areas
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md[1-6]

### Suggested change
Add a short IMPORTANT block at the top (1-3 lines) reminding authors to apply exactly one release label (or link to the relevant `CLAUDE.md` section), while keeping the two-section structure intact.

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

💡 Did you know, you can copy the agent prompt from any finding and feed it to your IDE agent

More tips ↗ | Customize Qodo ↗ | Qodo docs ↗