patch-notes

!`bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys automation` **Automation mode**: Resolve `modes.automation` (`project.local.yaml` → `project.yaml` → default `collaborative`). Every `AskUserQuestion` call and every file write follows `.claude/docs/automation-modes.md` (collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds; `automation_always_ask` categories always prompt). # Patch Notes ## Provenance check — before reading any history **Confirm the history you are about to read belongs to THIS game.** Run this before Phase 2 and stop if it fails. 1. Sample the recent log: `git log --oneline -20`. **If it is empty or git is unavailable, skip this check** — there is nothing to classify, and Phase 2's no-changelog-data branch is the right stop. 2. **Classify every commit in the range, one at a time**, into exactly one of: - **Game** — changes the game the player plays: mechanics, content, balance, art, audio, UI, a bug in any of those. - **Framework / maintenance** — changes CCGS itself or the project's tooling: subjects naming skills, hooks, agents, the test plan, CI, the framework's own docs. **Excluded from player-facing notes, but not a reason to stop.** - **Unclear** — treat as framework. A commit you cannot confidently place is not one to write player copy from. 3. Then decide from the counts: - **At least one Game commit** → proceed, using **only** those. Say how many of how many you used, so the reader can see the filter ran. - **Zero Game commits** → stop, using the message below, and give the count (0 of how many) so the reader can see the filter ran. > **Filter per commit; do not stop on a repo that merely contains maintenance > work.** Every project built on this framework accumulates commits touching > hooks, CI and skills — the game repo *is* the framework repo. An earlier > version of this check listed "subjects naming the framework, its skills, hooks, > agents or test plan" as a hard STOP, which fires on virtually every real > project and contradicted its own step 2 whenever a history was mostly the > game's. The danger was never that such commits *exist*; it is that they get > **rendered as player-facing copy**. Excluding them addresses that exactly, and > a repo-level stop does not. Corroborate before you proceed, cheaply: the Game commits should name systems that appear in `design/` and the code root (`src/`, `Assets/` or `Source/`). If they name a product those directories never mention, that is the real wrong-history signal — stop. If **no** commit in the range is this game's, say so and stop: > "The git history in this repo does not appear to belong to [game]: 0 of the [N] > recent commits are Game commits. The recent > commits describe [what they actually describe]. I cannot generate release notes > from it — point me at the right history, or supply the change list directly." Verdict: **BLOCKED** — stop here without generating notes. **Why this is a hard stop, not a warning.** This exact failure is real, not hypothetical: a batch of framework-internal commits produced player-facing copy reading *"Fixed an issue where progress from your last session could be lost on launch"* — a session-hook timeout rendered as a gameplay fix for a game with **no save system**. It was fluent, plausible, and entirely false. A reader cannot tell the difference; only this check can. --- ## Phase 1: Parse Arguments - `version`: the release version to generate notes for (e.g., `1.2.0`) - `--style`: output style — `brief` (bullet points), `detailed` (with context), `full` (with developer commentary). Default: `detailed`. If no version is provided, ask the user before proceeding. --- ## Phase 2: Gather Change Data - Read the internal changelog at `production/releases/[version]/changelog.md` if it exists - Also check `docs/CHANGELOG.md` for the relevant version entry - Run `git log` between the previous release tag and current tag/HEAD as a fallback - Read sprint retrospectives in `production/sprints/` for context - Read any balance change documents in `design/balance/` - Read bug fix records from QA if available **If no changelog data is available** (neither `production/releases/[version]/changelog.md` nor a `docs/CHANGELOG.md` entry for this version exists, and git log is empty or unavailable): > "No changelog data found for [version]. Run `/changelog [version]` first to generate the > internal changelog, then re-run `/patch-notes [version]`." Verdict: **BLOCKED** — stop here without generating notes. --- ## Phase 2b: Detect Tone Guide and Template **Tone guide detection** — before drafting notes, check for writing style guidance: 1. Check `.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md` for any "tone", "voice", or "style" fields or sections. 2. Check `docs/PATCH-NOTES-STYLE.md` if it exists. 3. Check `design/community/tone-guide.md` if it exists. 4. If any source contains tone/voice/style instructions, extract them and apply them to the language and framing of the generated notes. 5. If no tone guidance is found anywhere, default to: player-friendly, non-technical language; enthusiastic but not hyperbolic; focus on what the player experiences, not what the developer changed. **Template detection** — check whether a patch notes template exists: 1. Glob for `docs/patch-notes-template.md` and `.claude/docs/templates/patch-notes-template.md`. 2. If found at either location, read it and use it as the output structure for Phase 4 instead of the built-in style templates (Brief / Detailed / Full). Fill in the template's sections with the categorized data, mapping each category to the template section that means the same (New Content → its new-features section, Bug Fixes → its fixes section); a category with no matching section goes under the closest one, never dropped. Keep the template's header and footer text as written. Say in the output which template was used — and, when `--style` was passed, that the template replaced it. 3. If not found, use the built-in style templates as defined in Phase 4. --- ## Phase 3: Categorize and Translate Categorize all changes into player-facing categories: - **New Content**: new features, maps, characters, items, modes - **Gameplay Changes**: balance adjustments, mechanic changes, progression changes - **Quality of Life**: UI improvements, convenience features, accessibility - **Bug Fixes**: grouped by system (combat, UI, networking, etc.) - **Performance**: optimization improvements players might notice - **Known Issues**: transparency about unresolved problems Translate developer language to player language: - "Refactored damage calculation pipeline" → "Improved hit detection accuracy" - "Fixed null reference in inventory manager" → "Fixed a crash when opening inventory" - "Reduced GC allocations in combat loop" → "Improved combat performance" - Remove purely internal changes that don't affect players - Preserve specific numbers for balance changes (damage: 50 → 45) --- ## Phase 4: Generate Patch Notes ### Brief Style ```markdown # Patch [Version] — [Title] **New** - [Feature 1] - [Feature 2] **Changes** - [Balance/mechanic change with before → after values] **Fixes** - [Bug fix 1] - [Bug fix 2] **Known Issues** - [Issue 1] ``` ### Detailed Style ```markdown # Patch [Version] — [Title] *[Date]* ## Highlights [1-2 sentence summary of the most exciting changes] ## New Content ### [Feature Name] [2-3 sentences describing the feature and why players should be excited] ## Gameplay Changes ### Balance | Change | Before | After | Reason | | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | | [Item/ability] | [old value] | [new value] | [brief rationale] | ### Mechanics - **[Change]**: [explanation of what changed and why] ## Quality of Life - [Improvement with context] ## Bug Fixes ### Combat - Fixed [description of what players experienced] ### UI - Fixed [description] ### Networking - Fixed [description] ## Performance - [Improvement players will notice] ## Known Issues - [Issue and workaround if available] ``` ### Full Style Includes everything from Detailed, plus: ```markdown ## Developer Commentary ### [Topic] > [Developer insight into a major change — why it was made, what was considered, > what the team learned. Written in first-person team voice.] ``` --- ## Phase 5: Review Output Check the generated notes for: - No internal jargon (replace technical terms with player-friendly language) - No references to internal systems, tickets, or sprint numbers - Balance changes include before/after values - Bug fixes describe the player experience, not the technical cause - Tone matches the game's voice (adjust formality based on game style) --- ## Phase 6: Save Patch Notes Present the completed patch notes to the user along with: a count of changes by category, and any internal changes that were excluded (for review). Ask: "May I write these patch notes to `docs/patch-notes/[version].md`, and an archive copy to `production/releases/[version]/patch-notes.md`?" If yes, write both files, creating the directories if needed. If no, write nothing. --- ## Phase 7: Next Steps Verdict: **COMPLETE** — patch notes generated and saved. (If the write was declined: Verdict: **COMPLETE** — patch notes generated and shown, not saved.) - Run `/release-checklist` to verify all other release gates are met before publishing. - Share the patch notes draft with the community-manager for tone review before posting publicly.