10 Pull Request Template Sections That Speed Up Code Reviews
An effective pull request (PR) template reduces ambiguity, speeds reviews, and limits risk by standardizing what authors explain and what reviewers verify. The best templates are short, predictable, and aligned to the repository's risks across service, library, frontend, data, or infrastructure code.
Use a common core across repos and enable optional sections that appear only when they are relevant. Measure outcomes through Review Latency, Pull Request Size, Merge Success Rate, and Change Failure Rate so the template earns its space.
What should a pull request template include?
Treat this as a menu. Keep a core of five to seven sections for all repos, then enable the others conditionally.
- Context and intent
Why this change exists and what outcome you expect. One or two sentences.
Use for all repos. This gives reviewers the "why", which correlates with better feedback quality.
Snippet
- Problem
- Outcome
- User or system impact
- Summary of changes
Plain language description of what changed, such as new endpoints, components, or jobs. Avoid restating every diff.
Use for all repos. This gives reviewers an overview of the important changes.
Snippet
- Key changes
- Areas touched
- Breaking changes
- Risk and rollback
What could go wrong and how to back out safely.
Use for services, data, infrastructure, and anything behind a flag. Required when touching auth, billing, or migrations.
Snippet
- Risks
- Rollback steps
- Monitoring to watch
- Test plan and evidence
How this was tested and how a reviewer can reproduce locally or in CI. Link to automated results (which hopefully is automated by the system).
Use for all repos. Keep it short for trivial changes.
Snippet
- Unit or component tests added or updated
- Manual steps or script to reproduce
- Link to CI job
Google's guidance highlights reviewer expectations on correctness and clarity. A concise test plan accelerates reviewer speed Reviewer speed.
- Screenshots or before and after
Images or short clips for UI or docs changes.
Use for frontends and docs. Skip for pure backend or library changes.
Snippet
- Before image link
- After image link
- Security and privacy checks
Data touched, secrets, permissions, and PII handling.
Use when code accesses sensitive data, new scopes, secrets, or external integrations. Required for regulated repos.
Snippet
- Data classification touched
- New secrets or scopes
- PII handling notes
- Performance or scalability notes
Expected resource impact and known limits.
Use for hot paths, batch jobs, queries, and anything with potential latency or cost implications.
Snippet
- Expected change to p50 or p95 latency
- Memory or CPU notes
- Load test link
- Migration or data change
Schema or data transformations and backfill steps.
Use for any persistent model or contract change.
Snippet
- Migration steps
- Backfill plan
- Safe deploy order
- Feature flags and exposure
Flag name, default state, ramp plan, and cleanup issue.
Use wherever changes are guarded or rolled out progressively.
Snippet
- Flag key and default
- Ramp plan and metrics
- Cleanup ticket
- Docs and release notes
What needs updating and a ready to paste note.
Use for public APIs, user facing behavior, ops runbooks, or notable fixes.
Snippet
- Docs to update
- Release note
Keep the template compact. Encourage authors to delete sections that do not apply. Templates should reduce cognitive load, not add ceremony. Google's small change guidance supports this bias toward brevity and focus Small CLs.
How to tune by repository type
- Service repos require Context and intent, Summary of changes, Test plan, Risk and rollback, Feature flags and exposure, and Performance or scalability notes. Screenshots or before and after snippets are optional.
- Libraries and SDKs require Context and intent, Summary of changes, Test plan and evidence, and Docs and release notes. Risk and rollback is optional unless API changes.
- Frontend apps require Context and Intent, Summary, Screenshots or before and after, Test plan and evidence, and Feature flags and exposure. Performance or scalability notes help for heavy interactions.
- Data and ETL require Context and Intent, Summary, Test Plan, Migration or data change, Risk and rollback, and Docs and release notes for downstream consumers.
- Infrastructure or IaC require Context and Intent, Summary, Test Plan, Risk and rollback, Security and privacy checks, and Docs and release notes that explain rollout order.
Martin Fowler's Ship Show Ask pattern can guide whether a repo should prefer pairing, PR review, or direct commits with post hoc review, and your template then enforces the minimum evidence for the chosen path.
Metrics to verify your PR template is helping, not slowing reviews
Use a small weekly scorecard. Decisions are more important than absolute targets. Tie movements to template trials so you can keep only what helps.
| Metric | What it shows | Healthy signal | Decision cue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Review Latency | Time from PR ready to first review and to approval | Downward trend after adopting concise sections | If latency rises, remove low value sections or split PRs |
| Pull Request Size | Lines or files changed per PR | Smaller, more focused PRs over time | Encourage authors to link follow ups if scope is large |
| Merge Success Rate | Share of PRs that merge without rework or rollback | Improves as risk and test evidence clarify changes | If it stays flat, tighten prompts in the risk or test plan sections |
| Change Failure Rate | Incidents or hotfixes within a defined window after merge | Declines with consistent risk and verification sections | If it rises, require flags and additional verification for risky areas |
Modern code review research links context and rationale to better review outcomes, especially as changes grow larger, Information Needs in Contemporary Code Review.
Practical guardrails for template length and adoption
- Keep it scannable. Use short prompts and bullets. Reviewers should find answers in under a minute.
- Bias to small PRs. The template should nudge authors to split changes. Google's practice notes that small changes are easier to review thoroughly and quickly Small CLs.
- Make sections conditional. Comment instructions tell authors when to delete or keep each section.
- Revisit quarterly. Drop sections that reviewers ignore. Add only when a clear risk repeats.
- Match workflow. If a repo uses pairing or Ship Show Ask for most changes, reserve the heavier template for risky changes only Ship Show Ask.
FAQ
How many sections should our PR template include?
Most teams do well with five to seven core items such as context, summary, test plan, risk and rollback, and docs or screenshots as appropriate. Add conditional sections for migrations, flags, and security in repos with higher risk.
Should templates differ by repository?
Yes. Keep a common core for consistency and layer repo specific prompts based on risk. Service and data repos need rollback and migration prompts. Libraries need docs prompts. Frontends need screenshots.
How do we prevent templates from slowing reviews?
Enforce brevity and deletion of irrelevant sections. Monitor Review Latency and Pull Request Size after adoption. If latency rises without quality gains, trim sections or split changes.
How do templates interact with coding style and review guidelines?
The template provides context and evidence. Coding standards and review checklists cover how to judge the code. Google's reviewer guidance is a solid reference for expectations and speed Reviewer speed.