chore: enforce figma links in relevant prs

[ovitrif]

Closes #1234

This PR adds a Design section to the pull request workflow so applicable UI changes reference their Figma frames and all other changes use an explicit N/A case.

Description

• Adds the Design section to the pull request template.
• Ties the agent and /pr guidance to the tested screens map, including its todo and n/a cases.
• Adds the no-UI Design case to version-bump release PR generation.
• Maps the payment-request and subscription screens merged alongside the screens-map test to their Figma frames.

Design

N/A — no UI changes.

Preview

N/A — no user-visible changes.

QA Notes

Manual Tests

N/A

Automated Checks

• Local verification: just test file "to.bitkit.docs.ScreensMapTest" and git diff --check; verified mapped designs, valid no-design markers, non-UI changes, uncertain matches, and omitted applicable links.

[greptile-apps]

Confidence Score: 5/5

The documentation-only policy changes appear safe to merge.

Summary

• Directs UI changes with existing designs to relevant Figma frames, starting from the screen map.
• Defines explicit N/A cases for changes without designs or user-visible UI.
• Keeps missing design links advisory and non-blocking.

[jvsena42]

Non-blocking — nothing in CI reads the PR body (both repos' claude-code-review.yml are workflow_dispatch-only with a required pr_number, and no workflow greps for figma, ### Design, or the body at all), so this is advisory, which the text correctly says.

#1237 merged to master at 10:17 today and this branch now conflicts in AGENTS.md. Master added, at the same insertion point this PR targets:

- ALWAYS resolve a changed *Screen.kt to its Figma frame through docs/screens-map.md ... (todo when the design does not exist yet); ScreensMapTest fails otherwise

Worth reconciling on rebase rather than landing both, because the merge also changes what the guidance here should say. docs/screens-map.md on master is no longer the RN↔Compose filename table — it now carries 37 Figma references across 155 screen rows, 141 of them pointing at a real Flow › Frame, with todo/n/a for the rest, and the header names both the file key and the Bitkit - Handoff vNN page. ScreensMapTest guarantees every screen has a row.

Two knock-ons for the wording:

• N/A — no design available. (pr.md:164, AGENTS.md:190, template:12) is currently a self-declared opt-out with nothing to check it against. Post-merge it can be tied to the map: the row is marked todo. That turns it from an assertion into something a reviewer can verify, and it matters because AGENTS.md:193 explicitly exempts N/A cases from the one advisory request — so today the zero-effort branch is the one shielded from review. Scoping the exemption to N/A — no UI changes. and pointing the design case at the map's todo marker closes it in one line.
• "missing or uncertain screens-map entries" (pr.md:166) now describes a state ScreensMapTest makes impossible on Android.

Separately, and outside this diff: .agents/commands/release.md:116-131 hardcodes a PR body with Description / Preview / QA Notes and no ### Design, so release PRs bypass the new section. Line 111 does say to read the template first, so it's a mixed signal rather than a flat contradiction. greptile raised the same gap on the iOS twin (synonymdev/bitkit-ios#734) but not here.

[jvsena42]

All four points from my last pass are closed — thanks.

• The #1237 conflict is reconciled cleanly: master's rule survives verbatim at AGENTS.md:188 and the new bullets hang off it, so the rule is stated once rather than duplicated.
• N/A is now anchored to the map: :191 scopes it to todo/n/a rows and :194 gates the exemption on Valid. That closes the loophole — validity is checkable against a row now.
• The impossible "missing screens-map entries" wording is gone, replaced by a state that is actually reachable given docs/screens-map.md:10.
• release.md:124-126 emits ### Design, in template order.

One thing the follow-up narrowed further than I think you intended — inline.

Cross-repo: the iOS twin went the opposite way (synonymdev/bitkit-ios#734). It kept the broad scope but left the N/A exemption unqualified. Between the two of you the end state each wants is the other's half, and both are one-liners.