diff --git a/contrib/doc/pull-request-lifecycle.rst b/contrib/doc/pull-request-lifecycle.rst
index a62e63728..68b4b861a 100644
--- a/contrib/doc/pull-request-lifecycle.rst
+++ b/contrib/doc/pull-request-lifecycle.rst
@@ -4,18 +4,31 @@
 Pull request lifecycle
 ======================
 
-.. important::
 
-   |draft|
+Making Good Pull Requests
+=========================
 
-   |purpose|
+- **Title Format**: Use a concise, imperative verb phrase (e.g., "Fix typo in setup guide", not "Fixed typo").
+  - Start with a verb (e.g., "Add", "Fix", "Improve").
+  - Avoid vague terms like "Update" or "Change".
+  - Include an issue reference (e.g., "GH-123: Fix ...").
+- **Description**: Explain the **what**, **why**, and **how**.
+  - Reference related issues using ``GH-123`` or ``bpo-456``.
+  - For complex changes, add a "Rationale" subsection.
 
+  **Example:**
+  **Good Title**: "GH-931: Enforce imperative tense in PR titles"
+  **Bad Title**: "Updating docs"
 
-[Details of pull requests for documentation contributions. The existing
-:ref:`pull-request-lifecycle` page is long and includes many details.
-Some only apply to code contributions, but many are common to all
-contributions.  Should we keep a common page, with documentation tweaks here, or
-should this page have only the documentation details even if they are duplicated
-elsewhere?]
+  **Here is a checklist for contributors before submitting a PR**
 
-[See :ref:`code-pull-request-lifecycle` for the code half of this conundrum.]
+  Before submitting a PR:
+- [ ] Title follows the ``<Verb>: <Concise Summary>`` format.
+- [ ] Description explains the **purpose** and **impact**.
+- [ ] Linked to relevant issues (e.g., "Closes GH-123").
+- [ ] Tests or documentation updated (if applicable).
+
+.. warning::
+   Poorly titled PRs may be rejected or delayed. Maintainers rely on clear titles to track changes in the project’s history.
+
+Keep calm and code on! 🚀