diff --git a/.gitar/rules/pr-description-quality.md b/.gitar/rules/pr-description-quality.md
index 5297e3d8c12..02acaaf0ebc 100644
--- a/.gitar/rules/pr-description-quality.md
+++ b/.gitar/rules/pr-description-quality.md
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ actions: Read PR template for guidance then report requirement status
 
 When evaluating a pull request description:
 
-1. **Read the PR template** at `.github/pull_request_template.md` to understand the expected guidance for each section
+1. **Read the PR template guidance** at `.github/pull_request_guidance.md` to understand the expected guidance for each section
 2. Apply that guidance to evaluate the current PR description
 3. Provide recommendations for how to improve the description. 
 
diff --git a/.github/pull_request_guidance.md b/.github/pull_request_guidance.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..5f26ab30a1f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.github/pull_request_guidance.md
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+<!-- 1-2 line summary of WHAT changed technically:
+- Always link the relevant projects GitHub issue, unless it is a minor bugfix
+- Good: "Modified FailoverDomain mapper to allow null ActiveClusterName #320"
+- Bad: "added nil check" -->
+**What changed?**
+
+
+<!-- Your goal is to provide all the required context for a future maintainer 
+to understand the reasons for making this change (see https://cbea.ms/git-commit/#why-not-how).
+How did this work previously (and what was wrong with it)? What has changed, and why did you solve it 
+this way?
+- Good: "Active-active domains have independent cluster attributes per region. Previously,
+  modifying cluster attributes required spedifying the default ActiveClusterName which
+  updates the global domain default. This prevents operators from updating regional
+  configurations without affecting the primary cluster designation. This change allows
+  attribute updates to be independent of active cluster selection."
+- Bad: "Improves domain handling" -->
+**Why?**
+
+
+<!-- Include specific test commands and setup. Please include the exact commands such that
+another maintainer or contributor can reproduce the test steps taken. 
+- e.g Unit test commands with exact invocation
+  `go test -v ./common/types/mapper/proto -run TestFailoverDomainRequest`
+- For integration tests include setup steps and test commands
+  Example: "Started local server with `./cadence start`, then ran `make test_e2e`"
+- For local simulation testing include setup steps for the server and how you ran the tests
+- Good: Full commands that reviewers can copy-paste to verify
+- Bad: "Tested locally" or "Added tests" -->
+**How did you test it?**
+
+
+<!-- If there are risks that the release engineer should know about document them here. 
+For example:
+- Has an API/IDL been modified? Is it backwards/forwards compatible? If not, what are the repecussions? 
+- Has a schema change been introduced? Is it possible to roll back?
+- Has a feature flag been re-used for a new purpose? 
+- Is there a potential performance concern? Is the change modifying core task processing logic? 
+- If truly N/A, you can mark it as such -->
+**Potential risks**
+
+
+<!-- If this PR completes a user facing feature or changes functionality add release notes here.
+Your release notes should allow a user and the release engineer to understand the changes with little context.
+Always ensure that the description contains a link to the relevant GitHub issue. -->
+**Release notes**
+
+
+<!-- Consider whether this change requires documentation updates in the Cadence-Docs repo
+- If yes: mention what needs updating (or link to docs PR in cadence-docs repo)
+- If in doubt, add a note about potential doc needs
+- Only mark N/A if you're certain no docs are affected -->
+**Documentation Changes**
+
+
diff --git a/.github/pull_request_template.md b/.github/pull_request_template.md
index 7e535d77572..5b69c2d1027 100644
--- a/.github/pull_request_template.md
+++ b/.github/pull_request_template.md
@@ -1,58 +1,21 @@
-<!-- 1-2 line summary of WHAT changed technically:
-- Always link the relevant projects GitHub issue, unless it is a minor bugfix
-- Good: "Modified FailoverDomain mapper to allow null ActiveClusterName #320"
-- Bad: "added nil check" -->
+<!-- If you are new to contributing or want a refresher, please read ./pull_request_guidance.md -->
 **What changed?**
 
 
-<!-- Your goal is to provide all the required context for a future maintainer 
-to understand the reasons for making this change (see https://cbea.ms/git-commit/#why-not-how).
-How did this work previously (and what was wrong with it)? What has changed, and why did you solve it 
-this way?
-- Good: "Active-active domains have independent cluster attributes per region. Previously,
-  modifying cluster attributes required spedifying the default ActiveClusterName which
-  updates the global domain default. This prevents operators from updating regional
-  configurations without affecting the primary cluster designation. This change allows
-  attribute updates to be independent of active cluster selection."
-- Bad: "Improves domain handling" -->
 **Why?**
 
 
-<!-- Include specific test commands and setup. Please include the exact commands such that
-another maintainer or contributor can reproduce the test steps taken. 
-- e.g Unit test commands with exact invocation
-  `go test -v ./common/types/mapper/proto -run TestFailoverDomainRequest`
-- For integration tests include setup steps and test commands
-  Example: "Started local server with `./cadence start`, then ran `make test_e2e`"
-- For local simulation testing include setup steps for the server and how you ran the tests
-- Good: Full commands that reviewers can copy-paste to verify
-- Bad: "Tested locally" or "Added tests" -->
 **How did you test it?**
 
 
-<!-- If there are risks that the release engineer should know about document them here. 
-For example:
-- Has an API/IDL been modified? Is it backwards/forwards compatible? If not, what are the repecussions? 
-- Has a schema change been introduced? Is it possible to roll back?
-- Has a feature flag been re-used for a new purpose? 
-- Is there a potential performance concern? Is the change modifying core task processing logic? 
-- If truly N/A, you can mark it as such -->
 **Potential risks**
 
 
-<!-- If this PR completes a user facing feature or changes functionality add release notes here.
-Your release notes should allow a user and the release engineer to understand the changes with little context.
-Always ensure that the description contains a link to the relevant GitHub issue. -->
 **Release notes**
 
 
-<!-- Consider whether this change requires documentation updates in the Cadence-Docs repo
-- If yes: mention what needs updating (or link to docs PR in cadence-docs repo)
-- If in doubt, add a note about potential doc needs
-- Only mark N/A if you're certain no docs are affected -->
 **Documentation Changes**
 
-
 ---
 
 ## Reviewer Validation