d6200c9d53
## Summary
Adds a PR template at `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md` encoding the 6
hard gates and section scaffolding from the 2026-04-24 engineering
announcement ("What a Good Pull Request Looks Like"), and lightly
updates `CONTRIBUTING.md` to point at it. The repo had no PR template;
recent PR descriptions have been inconsistent in structure and ticket
linking.
Resolves: _(driven by the 2026-04-24 engineering announcement; no Linear
ticket but happy to file one if preferred)_
## Design decisions
- Single template, not a multi-template directory.
## Scope
In scope:
- `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md` (new)
- `CONTRIBUTING.md` "Pull Request Guidelines" section (additive update;
existing 3 bullets preserved)
Not in scope:
- CI enforcement of template fields or ticket-linking
## Author checklist
- [x] `make check`/`make test` n/a — no Python touched; pre-commit hooks
pass
- [x] Reviewed my own diff top-to-bottom
- [x] I'd merge it myself
<!-- CURSOR_SUMMARY -->
---
> [!NOTE]
> <sup>[Cursor Bugbot](https://cursor.com/bugbot) is generating a
summary for commit d1f15d1e6b1a7521d01ace3c1379b330767f1fb9. Configure
[here](https://www.cursor.com/dashboard/bugbot).</sup>
<!-- /CURSOR_SUMMARY -->
87 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
87 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
<!--
|
||
PR title: conventional commits with optional scope, e.g.
|
||
feat(arcade-core): add support for X
|
||
fix(arcade-mcp-server): handle stdio EOF
|
||
chore(arcade-tdk): bump dep
|
||
|
||
Keep the title short and scannable. The description does the explaining.
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
## Summary
|
||
|
||
<!-- One short paragraph in plain English: what does this change do, and why? -->
|
||
|
||
Resolves: <!-- Linear ticket link OR GitHub issue # (e.g. #123, or https://linear.app/...) -->
|
||
|
||
## Design decisions
|
||
|
||
<!--
|
||
Delete this section if the change is mechanical.
|
||
|
||
Call out non-obvious choices: why this approach, what alternatives you considered,
|
||
what's intentionally NOT done. This is the part hardest to reconstruct from the
|
||
diff and easiest to skip — write it anyway.
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
## Scope
|
||
|
||
<!--
|
||
Delete this section if scope is obvious from the summary.
|
||
|
||
In scope:
|
||
-
|
||
|
||
Not in scope (handled separately / out of band):
|
||
-
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
## Test plan
|
||
|
||
<!--
|
||
Concrete, verifiable steps — not "tests pass." Describe what you actually exercised.
|
||
Example shape:
|
||
|
||
- [ ] `make check` (ruff + mypy) clean
|
||
- [ ] `make test` passes
|
||
- [ ] Ran `arcade mcp stdio` against the example server and confirmed tools/list returns the expected entries
|
||
- [ ] Exercised the end-user path: `arcade login` → tool call → confirmed auth token reached the tool
|
||
- [ ] Verified the MCP stdio channel stayed clean (no stray stdout/stderr) per CLAUDE.md
|
||
- [ ] Bumped the affected library version(s) in `libs/arcade-*/pyproject.toml` if the change is breaking
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
- [ ]
|
||
- [ ]
|
||
|
||
## Risk note
|
||
|
||
<!--
|
||
Delete this section unless the PR touches a sensitive area.
|
||
|
||
Sensitive paths in this repo include:
|
||
- `libs/arcade-serve/` — worker JWT auth and `/worker/*` endpoints
|
||
- `libs/arcade-mcp-server/arcade_mcp_server/resource_server.py` — OAuth 2.1 token validation
|
||
- MCP stdio transport — any new stdout/stderr writes can corrupt the JSON-RPC channel
|
||
- `pyproject.toml` files — version bumps, dependency changes, breaking-change semver
|
||
- Tool secrets / env-var flow — anything reachable from `context.get_secret()`
|
||
|
||
Describe the blast radius (who/what breaks if this is wrong) and your mitigations.
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
## Coverage note
|
||
|
||
<!--
|
||
Delete this section unless patch coverage is in the yellow zone (70–85%).
|
||
Aim for green (85%+); meaningful coverage matters more than artificial numbers.
|
||
Why coverage is below green:
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
## Author checklist
|
||
|
||
Before moving this PR from Draft to Ready for Review:
|
||
|
||
- [ ] Linked to a Linear ticket or GitHub issue (above)
|
||
- [ ] I understand every change in the diff — not "an agent wrote it, I'm not sure why"
|
||
- [ ] Runs locally, exercised through the end-user path (not just unit tests)
|
||
- [ ] `make check` and `make test` are green locally; CI is expected to pass
|
||
- [ ] I've pulled the branch fresh and reviewed my own diff top-to-bottom
|
||
- [ ] I'd merge it myself if a teammate said LGTM right now
|