warp-release-audit

name	warp-release-audit
description	Use when generating a Warp pre-release or release-candidate audit report from Towncrier fragments and release history.
license	Apache-2.0

Release Audit

Generates a markdown audit of the upcoming Warp release for keep/defer decisions. Runs in two modes (auto-detected): a pre-release spot-check while work is still landing on main, or a release-candidate readiness review after the release branch is cut.

Output: a single markdown report, filed according to the destination chosen in Phase 1:

• Secret gist (default when gh is available and authenticated): stable filename warp-<version-string>-<prerelease|rc>-report.md, stable description Warp <version-string> <Pre-Release|Release Candidate> Report. Later runs against the same version revise the same gist in place; prior versions are preserved in the gist's git history.
• Local markdown file (fallback when gh unavailable, or opt-in when gh available): dated path at $(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/warp-<version-string>-<prerelease|rc>-report-<YYYY-MM-DD>.md. Not auto-committed; user moves, shares, or deletes as desired.

Inputs inferred from repo state: target version from VERSION.md, checked against warp/config.py; base from the latest previous-minor tag; head from upstream/release-<target> when present, otherwise upstream/main.

References to load on demand: use references/destination-rules.md in Phase 1; references/classification-rules.md in Phases 3-5; references/language-review-examples.md in Phase 5a; and references/report-template.md plus references/render-rules.md in Phase 6b.

Phase 1 — Align on scope

1. Read the version string from VERSION.md, Warp's canonical version source, and verify that warp/config.py declares the same value. If either value is missing or unparsable, or if they differ, show both raw values and wait for explicit user confirmation instead of selecting one. (warp/__init__.py aliases config.version and is not an independent version source.) Parse the confirmed version to extract the target minor (e.g., 1.13.0dev0 → target 1.13) and determine the report mode:

   • If the version string contains "rc" (e.g., 1.13.0rc1) → RC mode: this is a release-candidate readiness report.
   • If the version string contains "dev" (e.g., 1.13.0dev0) → Pre-release mode: this is an early-stage audit of unreleased work.
   • Otherwise → pre-release mode (default), but record the raw version string so the header can show it as-is.

2. Parse the target version into integers (major, minor) (e.g., 1.13.0dev0 → (1, 13)). Enumerate previous-minor tags:

   git tag --list 'v<major>.<minor - 1>.*' --sort=-v:refname
   

   Take the first result as the base candidate. Major-boundary fallback: if minor == 0 (e.g., target (2, 0)), there is no v2.-1.* line. In that case, enumerate tags from the previous major instead: git tag --list 'v<major - 1>.*' --sort=-v:refname, and take the highest as the base candidate. Always use integer math on the parsed (major, minor) tuple; never treat the dotted version string as a float (1.13 - 0.1 is not 1.12).

3. Probe for the head:

   git rev-parse --verify upstream/release-<target>
   

   If this succeeds, head = upstream/release-<target> and this is also a strong signal for RC mode (the branch-cut has happened). Otherwise try origin/release-<target>; otherwise head = upstream/main (falling back to origin/main, then main) which is pre-release mode. Record whichever fallback was used for the report header.

Phase 2 — Gather ground truth

1. Resolve <skill-dir> to the directory containing the currently loaded SKILL.md for this skill (for example, <repo>/.claude/skills/warp-release-audit or <repo>/.codex/skills/warp-release-audit). Do not hardcode .claude or .codex; the skill content must work from either tree. Run the commit-list tool via uv run as a single command:

   uv run "<skill-dir>/scripts/list_commits.py" \
     --base <base-ref> \
     --head <head-ref> \
     --report-date "$(date +%F)" \
     --main-ref <resolved-main-ref>
   

   Use $(date +%F) literally so the shell supplies today's date; do NOT substitute a date you generated yourself, since training-time bias can produce stale days_since_merge / days_in_main values. Capture stdout as the commit_list_json.

2. Read changelog/README.md and enumerate fragment paths from <head-ref>, not from the current working tree:

   git show <head-ref>:changelog/README.md
   git ls-tree -r --name-only <head-ref> -- changelog
   

   Exclude changelog/README.md. Record path, identifier, category, optional counter, and full content. Numeric IDs are GitHub issues; +slug IDs are orphans with no generated issue link.

3. Render those exact fragments with pinned Towncrier in a temporary detached worktree, keeping the selected ref's configuration and fragment set together:

   audit_worktree=$(mktemp -d)
   git worktree add --detach "$audit_worktree" <head-ref>
   trap 'git worktree remove --force "$audit_worktree" 2>/dev/null || true' EXIT
   draft_status=0
   (cd "$audit_worktree" && uvx --from towncrier==25.8.0 towncrier build \
     --draft --version <target-X.Y.Z> --date "$(date +%F)") || draft_status=$?
   git worktree remove --force ""
    - EXIT
     -eq 0
   

Phase 3 — Cross-reference

1. Build the commit ↔ pending-entry join on GH-ref overlap and fragment provenance:

   • For each rendered entry with at least one GH ref, find commits (from commit_list_json) whose gh_refs intersect.
   • For every entry with zero matches, inspect the introducing and modifying commits for each source fragment:

     git log --reverse --follow --format='%H|%s|%cs' \
       <base-ref>..<head-ref> -- <fragment-path>
     

     The fragment-introducing commit is the primary backing commit unless it is a fragment-only follow-up; in that case inspect the issue ID, symbols, and nearby history to find the code commit. Orphan fragments use the same path history and do not require a GH ref.
   • After these passes, surface entries with no backing commit in the Changelog Fragments Without Matching Commits appendix. Include every source path and the full rendered text; never truncate.

2. Do NOT build an audit trace of unmatched commits. The old "commits without changelog entries" appendix adds noise without value. Commits that do not map to a pending entry are not surfaced in the report.

Phase 4 — Analyze API surface

Before labeling any compatibility change, record four facts:

• Surface: the documented API, behavior, format, or platform affected.
• Reachability: how a user reaches it through a supported entry point.
• Deprecation: stable, experimental, deprecated with the scheduled removal release, or outside the documented stability boundary.
• Action: dismiss, document normally, label as a planned removal, or raise an alarming breaking-change finding.

A source or ABI difference is not automatically release risk. Raise an alarming finding only when the change affects a reachable surface covered by the compatibility policy, or when base-versus-HEAD execution confirms a supported user-visible behavior change. Direct use of internal native headers is in scope only if the current policy explicitly promises that interface.

4a — Determine what is genuinely NEW API

For each pending Added entry, extract the named symbol(s) (text in backticks matching wp.*, @wp.*, or patterns like ClassName).

For EACH named symbol, check if it existed at base:

• For top-level wp.X: look at git show <base>:warp/__init__.py — does it re-export X?
• For wp.submodule.X: read the submodule source at base.
• For @wp.kernel, @wp.struct, @wp.func decorator-style: check warp/__init__.py at base.
• For kernel-scope builtins (found in warp/_src/builtins.py): check if the builtin was registered at base via git show <base>:warp/_src/builtins.py | grep '"<name>"'.

Classification:

• Genuinely new (symbol was not present at base) → New API section.
• Existed at base (entry is adding a new parameter, option, or capability to something that already existed) → Changes to Existing API section with a "capability extension" or "new parameter" kind. Cite the backing commit's signature diff.
• Does not name a single symbol and describes a cross-cutting capability → Behavioral & Support Changes unless one mentioned symbol is genuinely new.

If an entry mixes new and pre-existing symbols, split it: genuinely new symbols go to New API and extensions go to Changes to Existing API.

4b — Resolve New API signatures + docstrings

For each Python-scope symbol confirmed as new:

1. Find its real source module via warp/__init__.py re-exports at HEAD.
2. ast.parse the source module; find the FunctionDef / ClassDef.
3. Extract the signature by re-stringifying the args (preserve type annotations).
4. Extract the docstring verbatim via ast.get_docstring(node).
5. Render as shown in the template.

For each kernel-scope builtin confirmed as new:

1. Read warp/_src/builtins.py at HEAD. Find the add_builtin("<name>", ...) call.
2. Do NOT show the add_builtin() registration call itself. Instead, SYNTHESIZE a Python-function-style signature from its arguments:
   • The builtin name becomes the function name.
   • Each entry in input_types= or inputs= (or positional args) becomes a function parameter with type annotation.
   • The value_type or output arg (or return value) becomes the return annotation.
   • Rewrite Warp internal type classes (e.g., tile(dtype=...), vector(length=N, dtype=...)) as they appear — this is the user-facing form.
3. Example of the required output shape:

   builtin_name(inout: tile(dtype=Float, shape=tuple[int, ...])) -> None
   

   NOT:

   add_builtin("builtin_name", input_types={"inout": tile(...)}, ...)
   

4. The docstring comes from the doc= parameter of add_builtin(). Render verbatim as a blockquote.

4c — Symbol resolution fallbacks

• Symbol in backticks doesn't resolve at HEAD: render the entry with a ⚠️ note: "Couldn't resolve <symbol> in source — verify entry names a real public symbol." Do not fabricate a header like wp.*(no symbol)*. Use the entry's natural subject as the section title.
• Entry describes a topic, not a symbol: use a short descriptive title summarized from the entry, not a synthetic wp.* name.
• Header naming rule: use the actual fully-qualified symbol or a short descriptive title extracted from the entry. Never use wp.*, wp.(something), or another stub pattern.

4d — Changed / Removed / Deprecated signature diffs

For each pending entry in Changed / Removed / Deprecated (plus any "capability extension" entries routed here from 4a):

• Compute signatures at base and HEAD (same resolution as 4b).
• For signature-shape changes: render a fenced diff block showing - and + lines.
• For semantic-only changes (no signature shift) where the entry has **Breaking:**: skip the diff block; include the backing commit's URL and the full CHANGELOG text.
• For Removed entries: show the old signature on a - line; omit +.

Deprecation-window lookup for Removed entries. For every Removed entry (and every Changed entry whose prose describes a removal), search CHANGELOG.md for the matching prior Deprecated entry:

1. Extract distinctive tokens from the Removed entry: the named symbol(s) in backticks and, if the entry carries a GH ref, that ref number.
2. Scan all released-version sections of CHANGELOG.md beneath the Towncrier insertion marker, top-down, for a ### Deprecated bullet that names the same symbol(s) OR the same GH ref. The FIRST such entry is the latest match because CHANGELOG.md is reverse chronological.
3. Record: (a) the release version heading that contains the Deprecated entry (e.g., 1.11.0), (b) the full Deprecated entry text.
4. In the rendered Removed entry, include a one-line deprecation window: Deprecated in X.Y.Z; removed here. Do NOT fabricate a version if no prior entry is found.

Removal risk. Apply the stability and reachability gate before assigning an alarm level:

• If a supported stable surface has no prior deprecation, surface 🚨 Policy: removed without prior deprecation in Breaking Changes. A simultaneous deprecate-and-remove is the same policy violation.
• If the documented deprecation window is satisfied, label it Planned removal, provide migration guidance, and do not count it as an alarming breaking change. Keep it in Changes to Existing API so users can find the removal and replacement.
• If the surface is experimental, use the experimental treatment in Phase 4h.
• If the surface is outside the documented stability boundary or was never reachable through a supported entry point, do not manufacture a compatibility finding. Preserve the CHANGELOG entry in its normal category when one exists.

Include the deprecation window in every rendered removal detail and in the Changes-to-Existing-API row. For an unplanned removal that also appears in Breaking Changes, include it there as well.

4e — Signature-AST diff for unlabeled breaking changes

Independently of CHANGELOG content, compare the committed public API at base and HEAD. Read references/classification-rules.md for module selection, public-stub coverage, signature compatibility, and manual fallbacks. Always include warp and add public submodules named by pending entries:

uv run "<skill-dir>/scripts/diff_public_api.py" \
  --base <base-ref> \
  --head <head-ref> \
  --module warp \
  --module <public-submodule>

Repeat --module per resolved submodule and omit the placeholder when there are none. Capture stdout as api_diff_json.

For each api_diff_json.changes[] item:

• Classify the fact through the stability and reachability gate before deciding whether it belongs in Breaking Changes.
• Merge supported signature changes and public-stub removals into Changes to Existing API; add alarming entries only for unplanned stable breaks.
• Surface helper warnings concisely and manually inspect the affected path.
• Render supported breaking signature shifts with a diff and a concrete before/after call.

Removed symbols require risk classification, not a marker check. Do not flag a Removed entry merely for lacking **Breaking:**. Classify it using the stability, reachability, and deprecation-window rules above. Only unplanned removals of supported stable surfaces enter the alarming Breaking Changes count; planned and experimental removals use their respective labels.

4f — Deprecated compatibility path exceptions

Independently inspect deprecated compatibility paths for newly introduced exceptions. This catches breaks in old import paths or wrappers that still exist only to warn and forward callers to a replacement API.

1. Identify candidate paths from commits and CHANGELOG entries, then discard paths outside the documented stability boundary:
   • Files or packages whose path contains deprecated, deprecation, compat, compatibility, backcompat, or a deprecated namespace name.
   • Public modules named in Deprecated, Removed, or migration-style CHANGELOG entries.
   • Modules that issue deprecation warnings, forward imports from an old namespace to a replacement, or provide compatibility aliases.
2. Compare candidate files at base and HEAD. Look specifically for new raise statements, changed exception types or messages, stricter guard conditions before forwarding/delegation, removed try/except fallbacks, and import-time errors added to a path that previously warned and delegated.
3. If the old deprecated path can now raise a new or stricter exception before reaching the replacement API, add a Breaking Changes entry and a Changes-to-Existing-API row with kind semantic change and description new exception in deprecated compatibility path.
4. Include a short before/after snippet showing the deprecated call or import form, the new exception behavior, and the replacement path users should call instead. If the behavior is ambiguous from the diff, verify with a minimal Python script at base and HEAD before reporting it.
5. Do not suppress this merely because the path is deprecated. A documented, still-supported compatibility path carries a migration contract until its scheduled removal. An internal or unsupported compatibility helper does not.

4g — Semantic-breaking verification (the assistant performs the verification)

Inspect every pending entry and backing commit whose diff plausibly changes supported, user-observable behavior. Use changes under code generation and native implementation paths as high-risk hints, not an exhaustive scope; Python runtime, serialization, interop, and platform-support changes may also require verification. Conversely, touching a high-risk path is not evidence that an internal symbol is public.

For each candidate:

1. Skip if the commit is already mapped to a pending entry carrying **Breaking:** (it's already in Breaking Changes).

2. Read the commit's diff: git show --stat <sha> then git show <sha> for small diffs, or read specific hunks for large ones.

3. Triage into one of three buckets:

   • Clearly not breaking → drop. Examples: renaming internal symbols, comment/format changes, pure internal refactors with no emitted-code difference, performance optimizations that preserve semantics, test-only changes, build-system changes, bug fixes where the pre-fix behavior was itself a bug.
   • Clearly breaking with an obvious user-observable shift visible from the diff alone → include directly (proceed to step 5).
   • Ambiguous — the diff suggests the change could affect emitted code or runtime behavior, but the assistant cannot tell from reading alone whether a user would observe a difference → verify by running code (step 4).

4. Verification by running code. For ambiguous candidates, the assistant must actually run Warp at both base and HEAD and compare observable output:

   • Build Warp at HEAD using uv run build_lib.py --quick (~2-4 min) if not already built. If a build is already current, skip.
   • Check out the base tag in a separate worktree or save the current HEAD state, build Warp at base, capture the built library. git worktree add is useful here to avoid disturbing HEAD. Alternatively, git-stash + checkout + build + stash-pop.
   • Write a minimal Python test script that exercises the hypothesized behavior. The script should live under /tmp/ (never commit). Example for a numerical-algorithm change: a small kernel that applies the changed op to a fixed input and prints the result. Example for a codegen change: a kernel whose emitted code should differ; compare via wp.get_module().save_kernel_source(...) or equivalent introspection.
   • Run the test against the base build and the HEAD build; capture outputs.
   • Compare: if outputs agree → change is NOT user-observably breaking → drop.
   • If outputs differ → confirmed breaking. Proceed to step 5, using the actual test script and its before/after outputs as the evidence in the report.
   • Restore the worktree/HEAD state so the session continues cleanly.

   Never punt with "please verify". If a candidate is ambiguous, either verify it by running code or drop it. Unverified flags do not land in the report.

Never produce an unexamined list of candidates. Every Breaking Changes entry either has explicit CHANGELOG backing, a signature-diff detected shape change, a public stub removal, a new exception in a deprecated compatibility path, or assistant-verified behavioral evidence.

4h — Experimental-marker cross-reference

Some symbols are shipped with an explicit **Experimental** marker in the CHANGELOG entry that introduced them. Changes to those symbols do NOT carry the same stability contract as changes to stable APIs: the whole point of the marker is to reserve the right to break them. The report must reflect that so the release manager does not over-weight the concern.

For each entry in Breaking Changes, Changes to Existing API, and Removed (as collected through 4a–4g), determine whether the affected symbol or feature area is currently experimental:

1. Collect candidate symbols and feature-area phrases from the entry: backticked identifiers, class names, and distinctive descriptive nouns.
2. Search all released-version sections of CHANGELOG.md beneath the Towncrier insertion marker for bullets that both carry **Experimental** (bold, with or without trailing colon) AND name one of the candidates from step 1. Also match via GH ref if the current entry and a prior experimental entry share a GH number.
3. If a match exists AND there is no subsequent CHANGELOG bullet in a later released version explicitly promoting the symbol to stable (e.g., "Promote wp.Foo out of experimental", "Stabilize wp.Bar"), the symbol is still experimental. Record: (a) the release version that introduced the symbol as experimental, (b) the full text of that introduction bullet.
4. Also check the module source at HEAD for an in-code .. experimental / Experimental: / experimental_api / @experimental annotation on the symbol's declaration. If present, treat as experimental regardless of CHANGELOG signal.

Tag every matched entry internally as experimental=True. Do not alter the CHANGELOG text itself.

How the tag changes rendering:

• Do not include an experimental-only compatibility change in Breaking Changes or the alarming breaking count. Keep it in Changes to Existing API.
• In the Changes-to-Existing-API table, show Experimental rather than Yes, even when the change is technically source-breaking.
• Include it in Release Highlights only when the capability itself is headline-worthy. Label it Experimental: without a warning glyph and state the advertised stability level rather than leading with migration urgency.

Never drop the entry. Experimental treatment changes placement and tone, not visibility. A removed or signature-changed experimental symbol still appears in Changes to Existing API.

Phase 5 — Review CHANGELOG language and bake

5a — Language review (renders as the Changelog Review Notes appendix)

Read references/language-review-examples.md. For EACH rendered pending entry, apply LLM judgment and identify its source fragment path(s):

• 🔗 Wrong ref (tier-1): for every GH ref in the entry, fetch the mapped commits' subjects and paths. If the entry topic doesn't match the commits' actual scope, flag.
• 🔗 Wrong ref (tier-2): if gh --version and gh auth status both succeed, run gh issue view <num> --json title,body per ref and compare issue title to entry topic. Skip silently if gh unavailable.
• 🗣️ Internal language: internal module paths (warp._src.*), C++/CUDA type names (launch_bounds_t, tile_register_t), private identifiers.
• 📝 Too terse: under ~10 words with no context.

Record flagged entries. Keep the FULL entry text in the audit table — do not truncate.

5b — Bake aggregation

Pre-release mode (resolved.head.sha == resolved.main_ref.sha). Every commit's main equivalent is itself, so days_in_main == days_since_merge and the bake distribution would just restate the age histogram. Render an "Age distribution" table from days_since_merge (same 🟢/🟡/🟠 thresholds), label the column "Days since merge", and skip both the "Bake distribution" table and the anomaly banner. There is no meaningful "didn't bake on main" condition when head IS main.

RC mode (resolved.head.sha != resolved.main_ref.sha). Partition commits by main_match_state:

• state == "unique": bucket by days_in_main into 🟢 (>14 days), 🟡 (7–14 days), 🟠 (<7 days).
• state == "missing": subject not present on main_ref. Inspect the commit before calling it a bake gap. Exclude expected release bookkeeping when the diff only synchronizes release metadata or release-specific documentation and does not change user-facing product or distribution behavior. Use repository policy, release history, and the semantic content of the diff; subject wording and a fixed path allowlist are hints, never the deciding rule. Count the remaining missing commits separately and, if non-zero, fire the ⚠️ banner in the report header. Optionally summarize excluded bookkeeping in a quiet footnote.
• state == "ambiguous": subject appears more than once on main_ref, as with reverts or replayed commits. The commit IS on main; the script just could not pick a single canonical occurrence. Render a separate row labeled "⚪ ambiguous main match: K commits" and do not fire the banner.

If resolved.empty_main_index == true, the bake table is meaningless: every commit will resolve as missing. Render only days_since_merge stats and surface the empty-main-index condition prominently in the report header (e.g., "main_ref <ref> had no commits in <base>..<main_ref> — main bake unverifiable") instead of firing the routine bake-gap banner.

Never compare a days_in_main of null (emitted for both missing and ambiguous) to the numeric thresholds.

Phase 6 — Write report to the chosen destination

6a — Draft the release highlights

Before filling the template, synthesize the {{HEADLINE_SUMMARY}} section. This is the only part of the report that requires qualitative judgment rather than mechanical rendering. Everything else flows from the cross-reference and classification work in Phases 3-5; this step picks what a reader should know first.

What the summary is (and isn't):

• IS: a reviewer's preview of what the official release notes will likely call out, written so the release manager can sanity-check the upcoming release post at a glance.
• IS NOT: the actual release notes. Do not write copy the marketing team would ship.
• IS NOT: a restatement of the headline counts. The counts block right above it already carries the quantitative summary; the highlights carry the qualitative one.

How to pick items. Select 4 to 8 bullets from the material already analyzed (New API, Breaking Changes, Changes to Existing API, Behavioral & Support, Removed). Use LLM judgment. An item belongs in the highlights if at least one of these is true:

• It changes a user's mental model of Warp (a new scalar type, a new public protocol, a platform dropped).
• It is a breaking change that needs a migration note in the release post.
• It is a headline-worthy experimental capability whose stability bar readers need to understand. The marker alone does not force inclusion.
• It unlocks a workflow that was previously impossible or awkward.
• Multiple smaller entries form a coherent theme worth a single combined bullet.

An item does NOT belong in the highlights if any of these is true (drop even if the pending entry is present):

• It is a pure bug fix whose symptom description fits in one line and has no surprising semantics (goes under Fixed, not highlights).
• It is a build-system, CI, or infrastructure change with no runtime user effect.
• It is an internal refactor already scoped away from user-visible surface.
• It is a capability extension to an existing parameter that a typical user would not notice (e.g. a defaults tidy-up).

Aim for 4-8 bullets total. Fewer than 4 almost always means you missed a theme; more than 8 means you listed changes instead of highlights.

How to write each bullet. Each bullet leads with a bold 2-6 word headline, then a colon, then one sentence of rationale that explains what it is and why it matters. Prepend ⚠️ Breaking: only for alarming breaking changes, use Experimental: for headline-worthy experimental work, and append a bake hint (🟠 N days bake.) when the headline item's minimum bake is under 7 days. Example:

• ⚠️ Breaking: (GH-NNN): .

Lead with the unlock, not the mechanism. State the new user capability and why it matters before listing supporting API names or implementation details. For a new artifact, format, protocol, or cross-language boundary, name it and state the workflow it enables.

GH refs MUST be hyperlinks, always. Every GH-NNNN in a highlight bullet is a markdown link to https://github.com/NVIDIA/warp/issues/NNNN. This applies even when a single bullet combines multiple GH refs. Do NOT use shortcuts like (multiple GHs), (GH-1287, GH-1298, ...) in plain text, or (see CHANGELOG). If the bullet covers six issues, render all six as individual links, either inline (([GH-1287](...), [GH-1298](...), [GH-1335](...))) or in a trailing parenthesis at the end of the headline. There is no upper limit on link count; a reader can scan links but cannot resolve plain numbers.

Experimental softening. If Phase 4h tagged an entry as experimental and it is otherwise highlight-worthy, use Experimental: rather than a warning or breaking prefix. Lead with what changed and its stability bar, not migration urgency.

Open the summary with a 2-3 sentence intro paragraph that names the shape of the release in plain language. This sets the tone for everything below it. Do not stuff the intro with numbers or repeat the bake distribution.

Output style rules apply here too. No em dashes. No skill-internal terminology ("Phase 4f"). No "end of summary" markers. The summary reads as release-note input, not as an audit artifact.

6b — Fill template

Read references/report-template.md. Fill in every {{PLACEHOLDER}} marker, including the {{HEADLINE_SUMMARY}} produced in 6a.

Read references/render-rules.md and apply every rule there: URL shapes, signature + docstring code-block forms, table column specs, audit-appendix conditional, and the output-style hard constraints (no em dashes, no skill-internal terminology, no terminal markers, every GH ref hyperlinked, no Phase names).

6c — Write output to chosen destination

Read the filing instructions in references/destination-rules.md and act on the destination token confirmed in Phase 1. Return the report location, headline counts, and revision-history note when applicable.

Regexes and parsing rules (inline reference)

• GH ref: \bGH-(\d+) — word boundary prevents matching inside other identifiers.
• Breaking flag: literal substring **Breaking:** (with the colon).
• Fragment path: ^changelog/(?:\+[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9-]*|\d+)\.(added|removed|deprecated|changed|fixed|documentation)(?:\.\d+)?\.md$.
• Rendered target header: ## [<target-X.Y.Z>] with optional trailing date.
• CHANGELOG subsection headers: ### Added, ### Removed, ### Deprecated, ### Changed, ### Fixed, ### Documentation.
• Symbol extraction from entry text: backtick-quoted wp.X, wp.X.Y, @wp.X, or bare ClassName (capitalized identifier). The FIRST backtick-quoted symbol in the bullet is usually the primary subject.

Failure modes

• Rendered entry has no backing commit after fragment-history lookup: surface it in Changelog Fragments Without Matching Commits with source paths and reason "no associated commit found, verify".
• Added entry names a symbol not resolvable at HEAD: render with a ⚠️ note; do NOT emit synthetic wp.* stub names.
• upstream/ remote missing: substitute origin/. Note the substitution in the report header.
• Release branch exists but contains no new commits past main: treat as head==main effectively; skip cherry-pick detection.
• No pending fragments: render an empty Towncrier draft and warn "No pending changelog fragments found at <head-ref>." Do not substitute the newest historical release section.
• Towncrier draft fails: surface the command output and stop; the audit cannot use a hand-built approximation of the release section.
• gh installed but not authenticated: treat as gh unavailable; skip gist matching and gist prompt; add one-line chat note.