From 61d4b67a01298030dcfc625f2053470193e6c6e0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "automation-nsheaps[bot]"
 <251779498+automation-nsheaps[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 17:09:13 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] [sync] Create .github/pull_request_template.md

---
 .github/pull_request_template.md | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 72 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 .github/pull_request_template.md

diff --git a/.github/pull_request_template.md b/.github/pull_request_template.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e800e4d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.github/pull_request_template.md
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+<!--
+  Org-wide PR template — SYNCED from nsheaps/.github
+  (ansible/templates/.github/pull_request_template.md). Local edits are
+  replaced on the next org sync run; propose changes upstream instead.
+
+  Delete any section that genuinely does not apply. Do not delete
+  "Blast radius" or "Validation performed" — if they are empty, say why.
+-->
+
+## What changed
+
+<!--
+  The actual diff, file by file, in the order a reviewer should read it.
+  A table works well when several files change for different reasons.
+  Link to specific lines (`path/to/file.py:120-134`) rather than describing.
+-->
+
+## Why
+
+<!--
+  The problem or requirement this serves. If it came from an issue, a
+  review comment, or an incident, link it. "Because it was asked for" is
+  a real reason — say who asked and where.
+-->
+
+## Blast radius
+
+<!--
+  READ THIS SECTION BEFORE APPROVING.
+
+  Answer concretely:
+    - What is affected? (this repo only / N managed repos / all org members)
+    - When does it take effect? (on merge / on next sync / only for new repos)
+    - What breaks if this is wrong? What is the rollback?
+    - What existing behaviour or local decision does this override?
+
+  If the change is genuinely inert today (feature-flagged, enforcement
+  disabled, no consumer yet), say so AND say what would make it live.
+-->
+
+## Validation performed
+
+<!--
+  Paste REAL output — command invocations and their actual results. Not
+  "tests pass", not a description of what you would run.
+
+  Where a test is meant to catch a regression, show that it actually fails
+  without the fix. An assertion that never fails is not validation.
+-->
+
+```
+$ <command>
+<output>
+```
+
+## What a reviewer should scrutinise
+
+<!--
+  The parts you are least sure about, the trade-offs you made, and any
+  decision you made unilaterally that the reviewer might have made
+  differently. Pre-empt the strongest objection to this PR rather than
+  waiting for review to find it.
+-->
+
+1.
+2.
+
+## Related
+
+<!-- Issues, prior PRs, specs, Discord threads. Use "Closes #N" to auto-close. -->
+
+-