[CI] Update PR Template with claude review details

[kevalmorabia97]

What does this PR do?

Type of change: documentation

Adds a Did you get Claude approval on this PR? bullet to the pre-review checklist in .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md. Also adds two CRITICAL rules to CLAUDE.md so Claude Code (and contributors using it) follow the project's PR conventions:

• Use .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md verbatim instead of the harness's default ## Summary / ## Test plan format
• Run /claude review on non-trivial PRs before merging

Builds on #1400 (workflows added) and #1401 (proxy compat fixes).

Usage

N/A — documentation only.

Testing

• Verified the new checklist bullet renders under "Before your PR is Ready for review" in this PR's description
• Plan to run /claude review on this PR as a smoke-test of the integration on a docs-only diff

Before your PR is "Ready for review"

Make sure you read and follow Contributor guidelines and your commits are signed (git commit -s -S).

Make sure you read and follow the Security Best Practices (e.g. avoiding hardcoded trust_remote_code=True, torch.load(..., weights_only=False), pickle, etc.).

• Is this change backward compatible?: ✅
• If you copied code from any other sources or added a new PIP dependency, did you follow guidance in CONTRIBUTING.md: N/A
• Did you write any new necessary tests?: N/A
• Did you update Changelog?: N/A
• Did you get Claude approval on this PR?: ❌ (will run after PR is open)

Additional Information

Related: #1400, #1401

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Added a new checklist item asking for Claude approval on pull requests.
  • Added guidance requiring the PR template be used verbatim when creating PRs via the CLI.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Adds a CLAUDE guidance rule requiring the PR template be used verbatim with gh pr create, and updates .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md to include a new checklist item asking if the author received Claude approval (✅/❌/N/A).

Changes

PR Guidance Update

Layer / File(s)	Summary
CLAUDE guidance rule CLAUDE.md	Adds a bullet requiring .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md be filled verbatim when creating PRs with gh pr create, disallowing the harness default summary/test-plan substitution.
PR template checklist addition .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md	Adds a checklist question: "Did you get Claude approval on this PR?" with ✅/❌/N/A guidance.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 6

✅ Passed checks (6 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Security Anti-Patterns	✅ Passed	PR modifies only documentation and configuration files (PR template, CLAUDE.md, .claude/ skills). No Python code changes to modelopt or examples. Security check not applicable.
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: adding a Claude approval checkbox to the PR template. It is specific, concise, and directly reflects the primary modification in the changeset.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch kmorabia/mention-claude-in-pr-template

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[kevalmorabia97]

/claude review

[claude]

Claude review passed — no significant issues found. This is a trivial 1-line addition to the PR template checklist, consistent in style with the existing items. LGTM.

[kevalmorabia97]

@claude is the PR template missing any other important details?

[claude]

Claude finished @kevalmorabia97's task in 53s —— View job

---

PR Template Analysis

• Read current PR template
• Compare against CONTRIBUTING.md, SECURITY.md, and CLAUDE.md requirements
• Provide assessment

---

The template is in good shape. The existing checklist covers backward compatibility, third-party code/dependencies, tests, changelog, and now Claude review. Here are a few observations on what could be added, though none are critical:

Potentially missing items:

1. Security-sensitive code as a checklist item — The template references Security Best Practices in the preamble text, but doesn't have a dedicated checkbox like:

   - Does this PR introduce any security-sensitive patterns (trust_remote_code, torch.load, pickle, nosec, etc.)?: ✅ / ❌ / N/A
   

   This would make it harder for authors to skip reading the security notice. That said, CodeRabbit's automated "Security Anti-Patterns" check (which flagged this very PR for pre-existing # nosec comments) already enforces this at CI time, so a checkbox might be redundant.

2. License headers on new files — CLAUDE.md marks this as CRITICAL and CONTRIBUTING.md covers it under the "Copying code" section. However, the pre-commit insert-license hook auto-inserts headers for most files, so an explicit checkbox would likely just add noise.

3. Documentation updates — For new features or API changes, you might want a "Did you update the docs?" item. Currently the changelog bullet partially covers this, but user-facing docs (Sphinx/RST in docs/) are a separate concern. Whether this matters depends on how often docs lag behind code.

Verdict: Nothing critical is missing. The current checklist + the Security Best Practices preamble + CI automation (pre-commit hooks, CodeRabbit security check) cover the important bases. The only item I'd consider adding is a security-sensitive-code checkbox, since it would force authors to actively acknowledge the security policy rather than passively scroll past the link — but it's a judgment call given that CI already enforces it.

---

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 76.73%. Comparing base (579fc6c) to head (9429d77).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1404   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   76.73%   76.73%           
=======================================
  Files         476      476           
  Lines       51307    51307           
=======================================
  Hits        39371    39371           
  Misses      11936    11936           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit	52.54% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[github-actions]

PR Preview Action v1.8.1
Preview removed because the pull request was closed.
2026-05-07 19:46 UTC