From d15ad8e27a0bdc71ef3d26e4fd70b055d320fe8a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lionel VINCENT <97742788+A669015@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2026 08:40:05 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] add PR template (#27)

---
 .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 70 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..554ad7c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+## Description
+- *What is being changed ?*
+- *Why is this change needed ?*
+- *Is it a new model project or an update to an existing one?*
+
+## Checklist
+
+### General
+- [ ] PR title starts with the issue id in brackets (e.g. [CEPP-XXX])
+- [ ] PR addresses a single issue or feature
+- [ ] Commit history is clear and reasonably sized
+
+### Open Access Procedure
+*Strikethrough (~~example~~) the non-relevant items of the list and check the boxes of the completed tasks. Unchecked boxes should highlight that the procedure is still not completed and the PR cannot be merged.*
+
+#### New model project:
+- [ ] The license(s) is/are chosen
+
+#### New and existing model projects:
+- [ ] The code follows the Development Quality Standard (see [Code Quality](#code-quality))
+- [ ] Patentability is checked with IP/legal team
+- [ ] License and legal obligations are checked (see [Legal compliance](https://github.com/AI4SIM/governance/blob/main/open_access_procedure.md#legal-compliance))
+- [ ] Known vulnerabilities are handled or documented
+- [ ] The Open Access form is fulfilled and the meeting is scheduled
+- [ ] The Open Access decision is taken
+- [ ] Synchronized with GBL Marketing/Communication to communicate about the code open sourced
+
+### Code Quality
+*Strikethrough (~~example~~) the non-relevant items of the list and check the boxes of the completed ones. Unchecked boxes should highlight that the PR is still in draft mode.*
+
+#### Implementation
+- [ ] This code change accomplishes what it is supposed to do
+- [ ] The solution cannot be simplified
+- [ ] The code is at the right abstraction level
+- [ ] The code is modular enough
+- [ ] No better solution can be found in terms of maintainability, readability, performance, or security
+
+#### Logic Errors and Bugs
+- [ ] No use case exists in which the code does not behave as intended
+- [ ] No inputs or external events could break the code
+
+#### Error Handling and Logging
+- [ ] Error handling is done the correct way
+- [ ] Logging or debugging information is appropriate (no unnecessary additions/removals)
+
+#### Dependencies
+- [ ] Updates to documentation, configuration, or readme files were made as required
+- [ ] No potential impacts on other parts of the system or backward compatibility
+
+#### Security and Data Privacy
+- [ ] This code change does not reveal any secret information like keys, passwords, or usernames
+
+#### Performance
+- [ ] There is no potential to significantly improve the performance of the code
+
+#### Usability and Accessibility
+- [ ] The API is well documented
+
+#### Testing and Testability
+- [ ] Automated tests have been added or updated to cover the change
+- [ ] Existing tests reasonably cover the code change (unit/functional/system tests)
+
+#### Readability
+- [ ] The code is easy to understand
+- [ ] Readability cannot be improved with different function, method, or variable names
+- [ ] No redundant or outdated comments exist
+- [ ] No commented-out code exists
+
+#### Experts' Opinion
+- [ ] A specific expert (e.g., security or usability) should review the code before acceptance: *mention them here*