LowPR-scope Plug & play

Assign owners and request targeted reviewers

Tag code owners or subject-matter experts for impacted areas. Include a short 'What to review' section to guide each reviewer.

Why this matters

The right reviewers find the right issues faster.

Side-by-side examples engineers can pattern-match during review.

Avoid

No reviewers requested; generic ping.

Prefer

Owners: @payments-team @observability
What to review: proration calc; dashboard metric mapping.

Bad

@here please review

Good

Owners + targeted checklist

From the same buckets as this rule.

High
Avoid mixed concerns in one PR
Do not combine mechanical changes (formatting, renames) with behavioral changes. If unavoidable, separate commits and call out which commits are mechanical.
pr-hygienereadability-refactor+1
High
Behavioral changes must add or update tests
If files under src/ change behavior, the PR must include tests/ updates or a PR description line no-tests: <reason> explaining why tests are unaffected.
testing-qualitypr-hygiene
High
Bugfix PRs must match the real production failure (root cause, not band-aid)
If the PR claims to fix a specific issue (e.g., 'Fixes #123' / 'Fix PAY-123'), validate it against the real production error. - If an observability MCP is available (Sentry/Datadog/Bugsnag): fetch the event/stack trace and confirm the change addresses the root cause. - Require a regression test (or a clearly documented reason why a test cannot be added). Call out fixes that only hide symptoms (catch-and-ignore, broader retries, defaulting values) without removing the underlying failure mode.
pr-hygieneerror-handling+2