standards/review - Add templates

docs/standards/review/template-del-1.0.md

+(*CiviCRM Review Template DEL-1.0*)
+
+<!-- In each category, choose the option that most applies. Delete the others. Optionally, provide more details or explanation in the "Comments". -->
+
+* JIRA ([`r-jira`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-jira))
+    * __UNREVIEWED__
+    * __PASS__ : The PR has a JIRA reference. (Or: it does not need one.)
+    * __ISSUE__: Please file a ticket in [JIRA](http://issues.civicrm.org/) and place it in the subject
+    * __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
+* Test results ([`r-test`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-test))
+    * __UNREVIEWED__
+    * __PASS__: The test results are all-clear.
+    * __PASS__: The test results have failures, but these have been individually inspected and found to be irrelevant.
+    * __ISSUE__: The test failures need to be resolved.
+    * __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
+* Code quality ([`r-code`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-code))
+    * __UNREVIEWED__
+    * __PASS__: The functionality, purpose, and style of the code seems clear+sensible.
+    * __ISSUE__: Something was unclear to me.
+    * __ISSUE__: The approach should be different.
+    * __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
+* Run it ([`r-run`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-run))
+    * __UNREVIEWED__
+    * __PASS__: I executed the code in a few plausible ways, and it behaved as expected.
+    * __ISSUE__: I executed the code in a few plausible ways, and it had a problem.
+    * __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
+* User impact ([`r-users`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-users))
+    * __UNREVIEWED__
+    * __PASS__: The change would be intuitive or unnoticeable for a majority of users who work with this feature.
+    * __ISSUE__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining).
+    * __PASS__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining), but this has been addressed with a suitable transition/communication plan.
+    * __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
+* Technical impact ([`r-technical`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-technical))
+    * __UNREVIEWED__
+    * __PASS__: The change preserves compatibility with existing callers/code/downstream.
+    * __PASS__: The change potentially affects compatibility, but the risks have been sufficiently managed.
+    * __ISSUE__: The change potentially affects compatibility, and the risks have **not** been sufficiently managed.
+    * __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
+* Maintainability ([`r-maint`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-maint))
+    * __UNREVIEWED__
+    * __PASS__: The change sufficiently improves test coverage, or the change is trivial enough that it does not require tests.
+    * __PASS__: The change does not sufficiently improve test coverage, but special circumstances make it important to accept the change anyway.
+    * __ISSUE__: The change does not sufficiently improve test coverage. 
+    * __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
+* Documentation ([`r-doc`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-doc))
+    * __UNREVIEWED__
+    * __PASS__: There are relevant updates for the documentation.
+    * __PASS__: The changes do not require documentation.
+    * __ISSUE__: The user documentation should be updated.
+    * __ISSUE__: The administrator documentation should be updated.
+    * __ISSUE__: The developer documentation should be updated.
+    * __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*

docs/standards/review/template-mc-1.0.md

+(*CiviCRM Review Template MC-1.0*)
+
+<!-- In each category, choose the option that most applies. Optionally, provide more details or explanation in the "Comments". -->
+
+* JIRA ([`r-jira`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-jira))
+    * [ ] __PASS__ : The PR has a JIRA reference. (Or: it does not need one.)
+    * [ ] __ISSUE__: Please file a ticket in [JIRA](http://issues.civicrm.org/) and place it in the subject
+    * [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
+* Test results ([`r-test`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-test))
+    * [ ] __PASS__: The test results are all-clear.
+    * [ ] __PASS__: The test results have failures, but these have been individually inspected and found to be irrelevant.
+    * [ ] __ISSUE__: The test failures need to be resolved.
+    * [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
+* Code quality ([`r-code`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-code))
+    * [ ] __PASS__: The functionality, purpose, and style of the code seems clear+sensible.
+    * [ ] __ISSUE__: Something was unclear to me.
+    * [ ] __ISSUE__: The approach should be different.
+    * [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
+* Run it ([`r-run`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-run))
+    * [ ] __PASS__: I executed the code in a few plausible ways, and it behaved as expected.
+    * [ ] __ISSUE__: I executed the code in a few plausible ways, and it had a problem.
+    * [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
+* User impact ([`r-users`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-users))
+    * [ ] __PASS__: The change would be intuitive or unnoticeable for a majority of users who work with this feature.
+    * [ ] __ISSUE__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining).
+    * [ ] __PASS__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining), but this has been addressed with a suitable transition/communication plan.
+    * [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
+* Technical impact ([`r-technical`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-technical))
+    * [ ] __PASS__: The change preserves compatibility with existing callers/code/downstream.
+    * [ ] __PASS__: The change potentially affects compatibility, but the risks have been sufficiently managed.
+    * [ ] __ISSUE__: The change potentially affects compatibility, and the risks have **not** been sufficiently managed.
+    * [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
+* Maintainability ([`r-maint`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-maint))
+    * [ ] __PASS__: The change sufficiently improves test coverage, or the change is trivial enough that it does not require tests.
+    * [ ] __PASS__: The change does not sufficiently improve test coverage, but special circumstances make it important to accept the change anyway.
+    * [ ] __ISSUE__: The change does not sufficiently improve test coverage. 
+    * [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
+* Documentation ([`r-doc`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-doc))
+    * [ ] __PASS__: There are relevant updates for the documentation, or the changes do not require documentation.
+    * [ ] __ISSUE__: The user documentation should be updated.
+    * [ ] __ISSUE__: The administrator documentation should be updated.
+    * [ ] __ISSUE__: The developer documentation should be updated.
+    * [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*

docs/standards/review/template-word-1.0.md

+(*CiviCRM Review Template WORD-1.0*)
+
+<!-- In each category, change the word "Undecided" to "Pass" or "Issue". Add explanatory comments if prompted or desired. -->
+
+* ([`r-jira`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-jira)) __Undecided__
+* ([`r-test`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-test)) __Undecided__
+* ([`r-code`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-code)) __Undecided__
+* ([`r-doc`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-doc)) __Undecided__
+* ([`r-maint`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-maint)) __Undecided__
+* ([`r-run`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-run)) __Undecided__: (*Describe...*)
+* ([`r-users`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-users)) __Undecided__: (*Describe...*)
+* ([`r-technical`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-technical)) __Undecided__: (*Describe...*)