Clarify reviewer-facing PR guidance - #14509
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot review overview
🟢 Approval recommended
The change is scoped and clear; the terminology concern is non-blocking.
Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 1
Open (1)
What changed in this PR
Adds contributor guidance to keep pull request descriptions focused on review-relevant context.
Changes:
- Discourages process narration and private context.
- Allows such context when materially relevant.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md |
Adds reviewer-focused authoring guidance. |
💡 Configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
BagToad
left a comment
BagToad
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm approving this because I don't feel strongly but my opinion is that this "keeping private things private" instruction should be a personal agent instruction, not in a PR template.
My opinion is that an agent that will give out private information on a public issue is an improperly setup agent. Not something we should fix in our template.
I'm not sure how an agent will interpret "private" from this context. My own agent has a lot more instructions on what's private and I worry that this instruction will lead to frustration where it witholds information, but happy to ship to learn here.
Description
Pull request descriptions can include process narration or private conversational context that does not help reviewers evaluate the repository change. This adds template-wide guidance to keep pull requests self-contained, reviewer-facing, and diegetic, while allowing behind-the-scenes context only when it materially affects review.
How did you test this change?
Not tested - this is a prose-only template change. I inspected the final diff and ran
git diff --check, which completed without errors.Authorship and follow-up
Who wrote this:
Who answers review comments: