Pull Request Templates¶
Pull request templates encode review expectations for docs, ops, and general repository changes.
Template Value Model¶
flowchart TD
PR[Pull request opened] --> Fill[Fill template]
Fill --> Describe[Describe change]
Fill --> Impact[State impact]
Fill --> Evidence[Attach evidence]
Fill --> Risk[Call out risk areas]
Describe --> Review[Reviewer has context]
Impact --> Review
Evidence --> Review
Risk --> Review
This is the real job of a PR template in Atlas: to force the change story, the evidence story, and the risk story into one place before reviewer time gets spent.
Source Anchors¶
.github/pull_request_template.mdis the default repository template.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/docs-governance.mdadds docs-specific governance checks.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/ops-e2e-boundary.mdadds boundary checks for ops end-to-end work
What The Default Template Forces Into View¶
- a plain-language summary of the visible repository change
- validation expectations such as
make ci-fast,make ci-pr, and focused command reruns - source-of-truth checks for contracts, generated artifacts, redirects, and docs alignment
- risk disclosures for breaking changes and ops boundary changes
Why This Matters¶
Without the template, important maintainer facts stay implicit:
- whether the author changed the owning source before the docs
- whether generated artifacts were refreshed
- whether a moved docs page got its redirect update
- whether a workflow or ops change crossed the wrong boundary
The template turns those from reviewer guesswork into author-declared evidence.
When To Update A Template¶
Update PR templates when the repository changes what must be proven for merge, such as:
- new required validation lanes
- new source-of-truth locations
- new docs governance obligations
- new ops boundary rules
Do not update templates casually for stylistic preference alone. A template change is a review-model change and should stay durable and repo-wide.
Main Takeaway¶
PR templates are part of Atlas governance, not repository decoration. They define the minimum story a maintainer must tell about a change before review can be efficient, consistent, and honest.