chore: remove reviewers checklist from PR template

[moul]

Wasn’t used.

Could make sense to keep the main description for the contributors. While having the reviewers checklist posted as a comment by a bot.

Checklists...

Contributors Checklist

• Added new tests, or not needed, or not feasible
• Provided an example (e.g. screenshot) to aid review or the PR is self-explanatory
• Updated the official documentation or not needed
• No breaking changes were made, or a BREAKING CHANGE: xxx message was included in the description
• Added references to related issues and PRs
• Provided any useful hints for running manual tests
• Added new benchmarks to generated graphs, if any. More info here.

Maintainers Checklist

• Checked that the author followed the guidelines in CONTRIBUTING.md
• Checked the conventional-commit (especially PR title and verb, presence of BREAKING CHANGE: in the body)
• Ensured that this PR is not a significant change or confirmed that the review/consideration process was appropriate for the change

[thehowl]

I think us maintainers know what to do; we would mostly need the checklist for external contributors, not for internal contributions, and since for any reasonably sized change there's a bunch of us reviewing them, if there's any problem it will be readily pointed out.

Approving & merging.

[ajnavarro]

I think a list is also helpful for internal contributions. You will generally remember almost all the points, but you will surely miss some of them.

I prefer to have a checkbox in PRs than needing to remember to add tests. It makes the process simpler.