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

[kentonv]

Let's separate:

• For bugs, file an issue.
• For feature requests, open a discussion.

[dcartertwo]

Updated the template to direct bug reports to Issues and feature requests or other proposals to Discussions.

[kentonv]

I wonder if we can also capture whether it is "obviously correct"... There have been some PRs that were only a few lines but the effects were subtle, e.g. disabling a feature for ollama so that the adapter worked with arbitrary OpenAI-compatible endpoints. It's one line but the effects are hard to judge.

Maybe we should actually remove this triviality condition entirely and just say we don't accept PRs, otherwise people might get annoyed when they open a one-liner and we decide it isn't sufficiently trivial.

[dcartertwo]

how about

We are not generally accepting outside contributions. We may accept a small
change only when, in the maintainers' assessment, it is obviously correct and
trivially verifiable by reading the patch.

i think proactively sharing that it is in the "maintainers' assessment" is reasonable and not that uncommon.

[dcartertwo]

I kept the narrow exception, but clarified that acceptance depends on the maintainers' assessment that the change is both obviously correct and trivially verifiable. I also removed the line-count language so a small diff is not presented as sufficient.

[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