Would a review packet check help with scoped PRs?

[shihchengwei-lab]

I noticed Flux added AGENTS.md guidance around human responsibility, disclosure, and concise PR descriptions.

I built a small GitHub Action that might fit that direction:
https://github.com/shihchengwei-lab/corridor-ci

It does not detect AI. It applies to PRs in general.

For non-trivial PRs, it asks the author to provide a short review packet: what changed, why it matters, non-goals, verification, risk, and touched paths.

The default is warn mode, and tiny one-file fixes can pass without the packet.

The idea is to make scope and verification visible before review, instead of making maintainers reconstruct them from the diff.

Would a check like this be useful for Flux, or would it add noise?

[stefanprodan]

All PRs opened with AI have a huge amount of slop in the description, similar to what your action requires. We want to opposite, a very compact description that links to an issue where the "why" is explained. Maintainers are expected to review the code, no matter what the PR description claims.

[shihchengwei-lab]

Yeah, that makes sense. I reworked it around that feedback. Thanks.