docs: disclose how a contribution was produced, and what to check before opening it

[u5surf]

What this changes

Adds a pull request template, which the repository did not have, and adds an
assistance disclosure to the three issue forms.

Contributions increasingly come with a model somewhere in the loop, and how a
change was produced affects the review it needs — a patch someone wrote by hand
and a patch a model generated want different kinds of attention, even when both
are correct. Rather than guess, ask. This follows what
caddyserver/caddy does: a required
dropdown on every issue form, and a disclosure section in the pull request
template with room to say how far the tooling went. Disclosure is explicitly
not held against a contribution; the point is to review it properly.

Since there was no pull request template at all, it also carries a checklist of
the things this module has actually been broken by, rather than generic advice:

• the build with --without-http-cache, which fix: skip subrequests in LOG_PHASE handler and avoid cache lock nesting (P0 SIGSEGV + P1 deadlock risk) #344 broke and ci: build with and without the HTTP cache #350 added a CI
  job for;
• NGX_HTTP_VHOST_TRAFFIC_STATUS_DUMP_FORMAT_VERSION, which a change to
  ngx_http_vhost_traffic_status_node_t has to bump, since that layout is both
  written to the dump file and held in the shared memory zone;
• guarding a newly used nginx field on nginx_version, so the module still
  builds against older nginx;
• counting the arguments at every ngx_sprintf() when a conversion is added to
  a ..._FMT_... macro. fix: pass cache-zone overCounts arguments in format order #398 fixed a mismatch of exactly this kind that had
  been in the tree since 2015, because ngx_sprintf() is variadic and nothing
  checks it.

blank_issues_enabled: false is added so the forms are the way in.

Two deliberate differences from caddy's templates:

• caddy has consolidated to a single issue form. The three forms here ask for
  nginx -V output and a reproducing nginx.conf, which are worth keeping, so
  they are left as they are and only gain the disclosure.
• caddy puts an empty first entry in the dropdown to force an explicit choice.
  That is omitted here: with no default, a required dropdown starts
  unselected anyway, and an empty option string is a needless risk of the form
  failing to render.

How it was verified

The three issue forms and config.yml were parsed and checked to confirm the
disclosure is present and required in each:

bug_report.yaml:       options=["AI used", "AI not used"] required=true default=nil
feature_request.yaml:  options=["AI used", "AI not used"] required=true default=nil
submit_question.yaml:  options=["AI used", "AI not used"] required=true default=nil
config.yml: {"blank_issues_enabled"=>false}

GitHub validates issue forms when they reach the default branch, so the forms
are worth a look on the preview before merging. No code changes, so the build
and the test suite are untouched.

Checklist

Nothing here touches the module source, so the build, dump format, nginx
version and format macro items do not apply.

• README.md and CHANGELOG.md are updated if the change is visible to
  users — not applicable; this changes the contribution forms, not the
  module.

Assistance Disclosure

AI used. I asked Claude to look at caddyserver/caddy's templates and adapt them
for this repository; it drafted the files and checked the YAML, and I reviewed
the result and chose what to keep from caddy and what to leave alone. The
checklist items come from problems found in this repository over the last few
weeks.

[Copilot]

🔵 Needs a closer look

The required dropdowns default to “AI used,” so untouched forms can misreport assistance.

Warning

• Copilot's review of this pull request may be incomplete because some of the changed files are excluded by your Copilot content exclusion settings. See Excluding content from Copilot for details.

Pull request overview

Adds contributor guidance and AI-assistance disclosure fields to pull requests and issue forms.

Changes:

• Adds a project-specific pull request template.
• Adds disclosure dropdowns to three issue forms.
• Updates issue intake configuration.

File summaries

File	Description
.github/pull_request_template.md	Adds PR guidance, checklists, and disclosure prompts.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/submit_question.yaml	Adds an assistance disclosure field.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yaml	Adds an assistance disclosure field.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yaml	Adds an assistance disclosure field.

Review details

Files excluded by content exclusion policy (1)

• .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml

Suppressed comments (3)

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yaml:68

• With no default, GitHub preselects the first dropdown option, so required: true does not force an explicit choice here: a submitter who leaves the form untouched is recorded as AI used. Put a neutral placeholder first and instruct users to choose, or use a required free-text mechanism if the disclosure must be an intentional selection; otherwise this field can misreport assistance. GitHub issue forms cannot enforce that a placeholder is not submitted, so the exact replacement is a design choice.

      options:
        - AI used
        - AI not used

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yaml:53

• With no default, GitHub preselects the first dropdown option, so required: true does not force an explicit choice here: a submitter who leaves the form untouched is recorded as AI used. Put a neutral placeholder first and instruct users to choose, or use a required free-text mechanism if the disclosure must be an intentional selection; otherwise this field can misreport assistance. GitHub issue forms cannot enforce that a placeholder is not submitted, so the exact replacement is a design choice.

      options:
        - AI used
        - AI not used

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/submit_question.yaml:46

• With no default, GitHub preselects the first dropdown option, so required: true does not force an explicit choice here: a submitter who leaves the form untouched is recorded as AI used. Put a neutral placeholder first and instruct users to choose, or use a required free-text mechanism if the disclosure must be an intentional selection; otherwise this field can misreport assistance. GitHub issue forms cannot enforce that a placeholder is not submitted, so the exact replacement is a design choice.

      options:
        - AI used
        - AI not used

• Files reviewed: 5/5 changed files
• Comments generated: 0
• Review effort level: Lite

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.