libreyolo-release

name

libreyolo-release

description

Cut a LibreYOLO version release end to end: evidence-backed changelog built by fan-out agents over the release..dev diff, a gate scoreboard (unit CI, GPU e2e on Modal reusing the nightly, weight autodownload probe, wheel smoke, notices sync, docs drift, breaking-change sweep), the branch/tag/PyPI mechanics, post-publish verification, and the handoff to the marketing repo's announcement pipeline. Use whenever the user says "release", "cut vX.Y.Z", "ship a version", "prepare the changelog for the release", or "is dev ready to release?".

LibreYOLO release

Turn "let's release" into a published PyPI version with a real changelog, proven gates, and marketing assets queued, without re-deriving the process each time. The engineering source of truth is RELEASING.md; this skill wraps it with everything that document assumes you already know.

Golden rule: nothing goes in the changelog without evidence (a commit SHA or PR number), and nothing ships without a green scoreboard. The changelog is built before the gates run so that gate failures can be traced back to the change that caused them.

The lay of the land (read once, saves an hour)

• Branches are dev and release. There is no main.
• pyproject.toml version is the source of truth. dev carries a X.Y.Z.dev0 marker; release carries the clean X.Y.Z. The bump commit lives on the release side. It is the only file that carries the version: CITATION.cff and .zenodo.json are intentionally version-less and frozen so all academic citations cluster on one Scholar/Zenodo record. Never bump, date, or retitle them, even if they look stale.
• The version label is the human's call, not yours. Do not infer the number from the size of the diff. The .dev0 marker on dev is a hint, not a decision: the team may ship a large feature range under a patch label (e.g. everything since v1.3.0 released as v1.3.1), or hold features and cut a narrow patch. Ask; see "Minor vs patch" below.
• CI gotcha: unit-tests.yml and install-smoke.yml trigger only on push/PR to dev (plus workflow_dispatch). A dev -> release PR shows no checks; the real gate is CI on the dev push. Do not read the empty checks list as green; "no checks" on a release PR means untested.
• publish.yml fires on v* tags, rejects tags not reachable from release, and ends in a manual approval on the pypi GitHub Environment (the job shown as "Publish to PyPI"). It builds with uv build and publishes via Trusted Publishing / OIDC; there is no PyPI token anywhere.

Minor vs patch (decide with the user, up front)

The mechanics below default to a minor (X.Y.0) cut from dev, because that is the common case. A patch/hotfix (X.Y.Z, Z>0) differs:

• Feature drop labeled as a patch (what happened with v1.3.1: the whole v1.3.0..dev range shipped under 1.3.1): mechanically identical to the minor cut from dev below; only the number differs. Set both the dev marker and the release version to that patch number instead of the next X.Y.0. The changelog still lists everything in the range.
• True narrow hotfix: branch off release (not dev), cherry-pick or commit only the fix(es), bump release to X.Y.Z, tag. Then merge that back into dev so the fix is not stranded (this is the mirror of preflight check 3). The changelog lists only the fixes, not unrelated dev features.

Confirm which of these you are doing before Phase 1, because it changes what the changelog contains and which branch you cut from.

• GPU e2e lives on Modal. tools/ci/modal_nightly.py takes --ref <sha>, so the same harness that runs the nightly can test the exact release candidate commit.
• The announcement side (GitHub release body polish, LinkedIn carousel, Reddit GIF post) is the marketing repo's new-version-release skill (../marketing/skills/new-version-release/). This skill produces the facts file and changelog it consumes; do not rebuild its pipelines here.

Phase 0: Preflight and scoreboard

Create a working directory outside the repo tree (scratchpad or ~/release-<version>/) and start SCOREBOARD.md in it. Every phase below appends one line: | gate | PASS/FAIL/SKIPPED | evidence link or note |. The scoreboard is the deliverable you show the user before asking for the go/no-go; a release with SKIPPED rows needs their explicit sign-off per row.

Preflight checks (all read-only, run in parallel):

git fetch upstream --tags
# 1. What is shipping and from where
git log -1 upstream/dev --oneline
grep '^version' pyproject.toml                       # on dev: expect X.Y.Z.dev0 (e.g. 1.3.1.dev0)
# 2. Last released version = base ref for everything
git tag --sort=-creatordate | head -5
# 3. Hotfixes stranded on release that dev never got (MUST be merged back first)
git log upstream/dev..upstream/release --oneline
# 4. CI on dev HEAD is actually green
gh run list -R LibreYOLO/libreyolo --branch dev --limit 10
# 5. Anything already labeled/queued as release-blocking
gh pr list -R LibreYOLO/libreyolo --base dev --state open --limit 30

Confirm with the user: version label (vX.Y.Z), base tag, and which gates to run (default: all except RF5). Then proceed without further check-ins until the go/no-go.

Phase 1: Changelog by fan-out (facts first, prose second)

Range is vLAST..upstream/dev. Fan out parallel read-only agents, one lens each. Every agent returns numbered fact entries with evidence: one-line claim + commit SHA or PR number + file path. No pointer, no fact. Uncertain items get marked uncertain, never dropped.

Verify against code, not commit messages. This is the discipline that separates an accurate changelog from a plausible one. A commit titled "add X family" proves someone intended X, not that X is wired, exported, and usable. For every headline claim, confirm in the actual source: is the class exported from libreyolo/__init__.py or a registry, or is it an unwired native port that nobody imports (dead code from a user's view)? Is a "new family" actually new, or did it already exist at vLAST and only get modified? Is the thing a user-facing Libre* class, or an internal backbone (bert/swin-style) consumed only by another model? Is it a class or just a factory function? Commit messages routinely overstate all of these.

Lenses:

1. New models and tasks: model families, task types, weight variants added. Check libreyolo/models/, registry/config files, WEIGHT_VARIANTS, libreyolo/config/datasets/, docs pages added.
2. Features and API surface: new CLI commands/flags, new public API (exports in libreyolo/__init__.py), export formats, new skills shipped in skills/.
3. Bug fixes: every fix, including obscure ones. git log --grep for fix/bug plus a pass over merged PRs (gh pr list -R LibreYOLO/libreyolo --state merged --search "merged:>=<base-date>").
4. Breaking changes and deprecations: changed signatures, renamed or removed public names, changed defaults, CLI arg changes. Diff libreyolo/__init__.py, libreyolo/cli/, and anything in docs/*_schema.md between the two refs.
5. Changed output semantics (do not fold into "bug fixes"): changes that make the same call return a different number or shape than vLAST did, even when the code looks like a fix. Examples that bit the v1.3.1 range: validation metric keys renamed (old precision/recall were never a real P/R pair; became honest map_5095/ar_100 with deprecated aliases), depth metrics switched per-pixel to per-image (RMSE changes), a double letterbox-scaling bug in DETR val preprocessors that had been mis-scaling GT boxes and therefore mAP. Users comparing numbers across versions must be told; these belong in a Changed section, called out loudly.
6. Training / internals / performance: trainer, losses, augmentations, postprocess moves, refactors big enough to mention.
7. Tests, CI, docs, packaging, licensing: new test files/counts, workflow changes, dependency/extras changes, NOTICE / THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES entries. Count precisely: "N new test modules" is not the same as "N new files" (fixtures/.npz goldens are not modules); state which.
8. People and numbers: git shortlog -sn vLAST..upstream/dev, commit count, files touched, closed issues, PR count.

Merge into facts.md (numbered F1..Fn, grouped by lens).

Fact-check pass (before any of it becomes prose)

The first fan-out finds candidates; a second pass is what makes them true. Run one more round of read-only agents whose only job is to hunt false positives in facts.md: for each fact, is the claim exactly what the code does, or an overstatement? This pass is where "native port" gets downgraded to "reimplementation that still runs through transformers", an unwired family gets struck from the shipped list, a modified-not-new family gets removed, and miscounts get corrected. Also lock attribution here: get PR numbers from the merge-commit text (Merge pull request #N). Something that landed as a direct commit with no merge-PR line is attributed as "issue #N" or "commit <sha>", not "PR #N". Mark each fact verified or struck (reason). Only verified facts may appear in the changelog.

Also record each surviving capability's validation evidence, including any RF1 exclusion and its exact reason. The changelog must describe callable behavior and known limits separately.

Out of scope for the changelog (do not spend the pass on these): raw performance/throughput deltas and docs/website prose content. Everything that changes code behavior or public API is in scope.

Write the changelog

Where it lives: there is currently no tracked CHANGELOG.md on upstream/dev (releases have shipped through GitHub Releases only). Ask the user whether to (a) start a root CHANGELOG.md in keepachangelog format, committed via the release PR, and/or (b) just produce changelog.md in the working dir for the GitHub release body. Default to both: a tracked file is worth starting.

Format (keepachangelog sections; only include sections that have content):

## [X.Y.Z] - YYYY-MM-DD

One-paragraph summary, leading with the strongest verified item.

### Added        New models (sizes + license posture), tasks, features, CLI, skills.
### Changed      Changed-output-semantics (loud), behavior/default changes.
### Fixed        Every non-omitted fix, one line each, plain language.
### Deprecated   Renamed-with-alias, soft-removed names.
### Removed      Hard removals (what to do instead).

Contributors: everyone in the range, alphabetized, with what they did.
Stats: N commits, N files, +N/-N lines, N new test modules.

`pip install --upgrade libreyolo`

Tone: factual, concrete, numbers over adjectives, zero hype. No em dashes. Every line traces to a verified fact id. Show the changelog to the user now; they curate (a fix can advertise the bug), you never silently drop items.

Phase 2: Gates

Run these in parallel where possible; append each result to the scoreboard.

Gate A: unit CI on the exact candidate SHA

Already covered by preflight check 4 if dev HEAD is the candidate. If the latest dev run is stale or red, stop here.

Gate B: GPU e2e on Modal (reuse the nightly, don't reinvent it)

The nightly harness is the canonical GPU gate. Two ways to run it against the candidate; prefer the first (no local credentials needed):

# 1. Dispatch the existing workflow; force bypasses the tested-SHA cache
gh workflow run e2e-nightly-dev.yml -R LibreYOLO/libreyolo -f force=true
gh run watch -R LibreYOLO/libreyolo <run-id>   # ~up to 3h; check step summary

# 2. Or run the Modal app directly (needs MODAL_TOKEN_ID/SECRET in env)
uvx modal run tools/ci/modal_nightly.py --ref <candidate-sha> --target test_nightly

Both print a MODAL_NIGHTLY_RESULT {json} line with status, runtime, and estimated GPU cost; record status and cost on the scoreboard.

A green nightly in the run list does not mean the candidate was tested. The workflow skips when the target already passed this week, and a skipped run still reports success. Counting a skip as a pass is how an untested commit ships. Two questions, in order, and both must be answered from the run itself:

1. Did the suite run at all, on this SHA? Read the e2e job's conclusion, not whether the job is listed: a skipped run still lists e2e (dev), with conclusion skipped. The guard's step summary on every run names the target it resolved.

gh api repos/LibreYOLO/libreyolo/actions/runs/<run-id>/jobs \
  --jq '.jobs[] | "\(.name) \(.conclusion)"'
# e2e (dev) success  -> the suite ran and the job passed
# e2e (dev) skipped  -> it never ran; this run is not evidence about any SHA
#                       (a companion "Skipped (dev already tested)" job says so)

2. Did it pass? For the dev workflow, do not stop at the artifact name. The upload is if: always(), so modal-nightly-<sha> also exists for failed, timed-out, and unknown-status runs. Read the status out of it:

gh run download <run-id> -R LibreYOLO/libreyolo \
  -n modal-nightly-<candidate-sha> -D /tmp/nightly
jq -r '.status, .ref, .estimated_gpu_cost_usd' /tmp/nightly/modal-nightly-result.json
# status must be exactly "passed", and ref must be the candidate SHA

Only status == "passed" on the candidate SHA counts; then skip the re-run, that is the point of reusing the nightly. Anything else, including three consecutive green runs, is not evidence about the candidate.

Note the artifact exists only for the dev workflow. The release and PyPI workflows run on the self-hosted runner and upload nothing, so for those the evidence is the job list plus the run conclusion from question 1.

For gates beyond the nightly contract (RF5 training benchmark, a heavier suite, a specific GPU), use the launch-serverless-gpu-job skill (Vast / Modal / Beam) instead of hand-rolling anything.

Gate C: risk-targeted e2e subset (local GPU, optional but cheap)

Map Phase-1 facts to test files: any model family touched in the range gets its tests/e2e/test_<family>*.py run locally via the libreyolo-run-e2e-tests skill (one file per process, -m "e2e and not rf5"). This catches family-specific regressions the general nightly case may not exercise. Skip if no local GPU; note it on the scoreboard.

Gate D: weight autodownload probe

Every weight variant that is new or renamed in the range must actually resolve. For each, HEAD-request its Hugging Face URL (or instantiate the model with autodownload in a temp cache) and record HTTP 200. A release that advertises a model whose weights 404 is the most embarrassing failure this project can have; this gate exists because of that.

Gate E: wheel build + fresh-venv smoke

Build with uv build to smoke-test the same artifact path CI uses (publish.yml builds with uv build, not python -m build). Then install the wheel into a throwaway venv and import it. Paths below are POSIX; on this Windows box use the scratchpad dir and Scripts/ layout (the sibling merge-to-dev skill has the Windows form):

uv build                     # sdist + wheel; MANIFEST.in must keep weights out
# POSIX:
python -m venv /tmp/relsmoke && /tmp/relsmoke/bin/pip install dist/*.whl
/tmp/relsmoke/bin/python -c "import libreyolo; print(libreyolo.__version__)"
/tmp/relsmoke/bin/libreyolo --help
# Windows (PowerShell): use a scratchpad venv, then
#   <venv>\Scripts\python.exe -c "import libreyolo; print(libreyolo.__version__)"
#   <venv>\Scripts\libreyolo.exe --help

Check the sdist/wheel size is sane (no accidentally bundled weights or datasets) and the version string matches expectation.

Gate F: notices and license sync

If Phase-1 lens 1 found new model families or ported code, verify NOTICE, THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.txt, and weights/LICENSE_NOTICE.txt gained the matching entries in the same range. A new family with no notices diff is a red flag; surface it as a licensing decision for the user, never patch it silently.

Gate G: docs drift

Every headline changelog item should be reachable in docs: repo docs/ and, where relevant, the website repo. List headline facts with no doc mention; the user decides whether that blocks or ships as follow-up.

Phase 3: Go/no-go, then cut it

Present the scoreboard + curated changelog. On explicit "go":

This is the minor / feature-drop path (cut from dev). For a true narrow hotfix, use the "Minor vs patch" branch-off-release variant instead.

1. Merge release -> dev first (recovers release-only hotfixes; preflight check 3 told you if there are any). Resolve conflicts on dev; the version line auto-merges to the clean release value, so manually set dev back to the next X.Y.Z.dev0 (the number the user chose).

2. Bump + hand over the PR link. Branch off merged dev, set pyproject.toml to the clean X.Y.Z the user chose, push, then hand the user the one-click compare URL https://github.com/LibreYOLO/libreyolo/compare/release...<branch>?expand=1. Per AGENTS.md, the agent does not open the PR; the human submits it. Remind them: this PR shows no CI checks by design, and it must be merged with a merge commit, never squash (squash collapses the whole cycle's history).

3. GitHub release (human action). Cutting the release is the user's. By default the agent creates no release object: hand over the changelog file and the New Release URL and let the human fill it in, so no agent-created draft or tag target is left behind if the release is cancelled or retargeted.

   https://github.com/LibreYOLO/libreyolo/releases/new?target=release&tag=vX.Y.Z
   

   The human sets the title, pastes changelog.md, and publishes; that is what creates the tag and fires publish.yml.

   Prefill the form so the human only reviews and clicks Publish. The releases/new page accepts title and body query params, so hand over a URL with everything filled in. Prefilling creates nothing (no tag, no draft) until the human clicks Publish, so it stays inside the "tag creation is a human action" rule below. Build it by URL-encoding changelog.md:

   import urllib.parse, pathlib
   body = pathlib.Path("changelog.md").read_text(encoding="utf-8")
   q = urllib.parse.urlencode(
       {"target": "release", "tag": "vX.Y.Z", "title": "vX.Y.Z", "body": body}
   )
   print( + q)
   

Phase 4: Post-publish verification (do not skip)

# PyPI index catches up within minutes; poll, don't assume
pip index versions libreyolo
# POSIX (on Windows use a scratchpad venv + Scripts/python.exe):
python -m venv /tmp/pypismoke && /tmp/pypismoke/bin/pip install libreyolo==X.Y.Z
/tmp/pypismoke/bin/python -c "import libreyolo; assert libreyolo.__version__ == 'X.Y.Z'"
# GPU e2e against the released branch (manual dispatch only)
gh workflow run e2e-nightly-release.yml -R LibreYOLO/libreyolo

Append results to the scoreboard. The release is "done" when PyPI installs clean and the release nightly is green (or dispatched with the user's OK to not wait).

Phase 5: Marketing handoff

Hand facts.md + changelog.md to the marketing repo's new-version-release skill (checkout at ../marketing). It owns curation for the announcement, the GitHub release body polish, the LinkedIn carousel pipeline (generate -> audit -> simulator -> final review -> queue), and the Reddit GIF post pack. Your facts file matches its expected format (numbered facts with evidence), so it can skip its own fact-finding phase and start at curation. Never post to social platforms yourself; assets are queued for the user to post by hand.

Anti-patterns

• Writing the changelog from memory or from PR titles alone; titles lie, diffs don't. Verify each headline claim against the actual source.
• Counting an unwired native port, a modified-not-new family, or an internal backbone as a shipped user-facing family. Verify it's exported and reachable first.
• Shipping the changelog without the false-positive fact-check pass.
• Replacing exact validation evidence with a blanket capability label.
• Attributing a direct-commit change as "PR #N" when it has no merge-PR.
• Inferring the version number from the diff size instead of asking; the label is the human's call.
• Treating the empty checks list on the dev -> release PR as green.
• Re-running a 3-hour Modal nightly when the last green run already tested the candidate SHA.
• Reading a green nightly as a pass on the candidate. Skipped runs are green too, and the dev artifact is uploaded on failure as well, so neither the tick nor the artifact name is the evidence. The evidence is an e2e job that concluded success, plus status == "passed" inside modal-nightly-result.json.
• Squash-merging the release PR.
• Bumping the version on dev instead of on the release-PR branch.
• Skipping Phase 4 because "publish.yml was green" (green publish and a broken install have coexisted before in other projects; verify the artifact users actually get).
• Fixing a missing license notice yourself instead of surfacing it.
• "Helpfully" bumping the version or date in CITATION.cff / .zenodo.json. They are frozen on purpose; a version there fragments the citation record. This exact mistake has already been made and reverted once.

Related

• RELEASING.md: the minimal engineering process this skill wraps.
• skills/libreyolo-run-e2e-tests/: how to run e2e correctly (markers, one-file-per-process rule).
• skills/launch-serverless-gpu-job/: rented/serverless GPUs for gates beyond the nightly contract.
• ../marketing/skills/new-version-release/: the announcement pipeline (curation, GitHub release body, LinkedIn carousel, Reddit GIF).
• .github/workflows/: e2e-nightly-dev.yml, e2e-nightly-release.yml, publish.yml, unit-tests.yml, install-smoke.yml.