diff --git a/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md b/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..ab6813e3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+## What kind of change does this PR introduce?
+
+New eval, new experiment, scorer fix, framework change, docs update, ...
+
+## What is the current behavior?
+
+Please link any relevant issues here.
+
+## What is the new behavior?
+
+Feel free to include screenshots if it includes visual changes.
+
+## How to Review
+
+<!--
+A reviewer should understand what this PR does within 15-30 seconds, then know where to start reading.
+
+Non-trivial or multi-file PRs must fill in the reading path below. Trivial changes may delete this section when the review path is obvious.
+
+- Use bold numbered areas, each with one or two indented bullets: the exact files, then what to inspect.
+- Use exact repository-relative paths, and avoid line numbers while the branch is still changing.
+- Keep it scannable. Don't repeat the PR purpose or the verification steps here.
+
+For a new or changed eval, a good path is `PROMPT.md` (task + `motivation:`) -> `EVAL.ts` (scorer) -> `remote/` or `local/` seed data.
+For an experiment, point at the `experiments/` file and call out the `suite:`, skills, and MCP servers it configures.
+-->
+
+1. **Review area**
+   - `path/to/file`
+   - What to follow or verify.
+
+2. **Next review area**
+   - `path/to/next-file`
+   - What to follow or verify.
+
+**Review questions**
+
+<!-- Four to six short questions covering the reviewer's judgment calls. -->
+
+- [ ] Is the change scoped, and does the behavior match the description?
+- [ ] Are edge cases and failure paths handled safely?
+
+<!-- For new or changed evals, also confirm:
+- [ ] Does `motivation:` cite real evidence from the Supabase user journey?
+- [ ] Does the scorer check end state and prefer deterministic checks over prescribing process?
+- [ ] For a benchmark scenario, do results show agents legitimately failing rather than framework limitations?
+- [ ] Is the scenario representative rather than over-indexed on a niche use case?
+-->
+
+## Verification
+
+<!-- Include the steps and evidence for how you verified this change. -->
+
+For new or changed evals (see [CONTRIBUTING.md](/supabase/evals/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md)):
+
+- [ ] Ran the eval locally to sanity check it completes without framework errors.
+- [ ] Refreshed results in CI (`run-evals-changed` / `run-evals` labels, or the Refresh eval results workflow) and included them so a reviewer can see results directly.
+
+## Additional context
+
+Add any other context or screenshots.