Define design-doc expectations for deep, high-risk PRs

[enyst]

Desired Behavior

The automation repository's code-review guide should ask for a concise design doc when a deep, high-risk scheduling, webhook, or dispatch change cannot be evaluated efficiently from the diff, while avoiding unnecessary documentation for small or self-explanatory changes.

The policy must also account for .pr/ cleanup: an automated approval must not remove the only design artifact before a human maintainer has had the opportunity to review it.

Acceptance Criteria

• Deep, high-risk PRs without adequate design context do not receive automated approval.
• Low-risk, trivial, generated, or self-explanatory changes are not blocked solely by design-doc absence or line count.
• An equivalent PR-description write-up has clear minimum content: intent, important before/after behavior or API shape, compatibility/risk, and grounded code references.
• A .pr/ design doc remains available through the human review decision, or equivalent persistent context is present in the PR description before automated approval triggers cleanup.
• The guidance remains consistent with the repository's required approval gate.

---

This issue was created by an AI agent (OpenHands) on behalf of @enyst.

[github-actions]

✅ ready-for-dev label applied

This issue meets the readiness criteria and is ready for contribution.
A contributor can now open a PR that links this issue (Fixes #<number>).

This is an automated check — no AI was used to generate this comment.