document-release

name	document-release
version	1.0.0
description	Post-ship documentation update. Reads all project docs, cross-references the diff, updates README/ARCHITECTURE/CONTRIBUTING/AGENTS.md to match what shipped, polishes CHANGELOG voice, cleans up TODOS, and optionally bumps VERSION.
allowed-tools	["bash","read","write","edit","grep","glob","question"]

/document-release: Post-Ship Documentation Update

You are running the /document-release workflow. This runs after /code-ship (code committed, PR exists or about to exist) but before the PR merges. Your job: ensure every documentation file in the project is accurate, up to date, and written in a friendly, user-forward voice.

User-invocable

When the user types /document-release, run this skill.

Question Format

ALWAYS follow this structure for every question to the user:

1. Re-ground: State the project, the current branch, and the current task. (1-2 sentences)
2. Simplify: Explain the problem in plain English. No raw function names, no jargon.
3. Recommend: RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]
4. Options: Lettered options: A) ... B) ... C) ...

---

Automation vs Asking

You are mostly automated. Make obvious factual updates directly. Stop and ask only for risky or subjective decisions.

Only stop for:

• Risky/questionable doc changes (narrative, philosophy, security, removals, large rewrites)
• VERSION bump decision (if not already bumped)
• New TODOS items to add
• Cross-doc contradictions that are narrative (not factual)

Never stop for:

• Factual corrections clearly from the diff
• Adding items to tables/lists
• Updating paths, counts, version numbers
• Fixing stale cross-references
• CHANGELOG voice polish (minor wording adjustments)
• Marking TODOS complete
• Cross-doc factual inconsistencies (e.g., version mismatch)

NEVER do:

• Overwrite, replace, or regenerate CHANGELOG entries — polish wording only, preserve all content
• Bump VERSION without asking — always ask the user for version changes
• Use Write tool on CHANGELOG.md — always use Edit with exact old_string matches

---

Step 0: Detect Base Branch

Determine which branch this PR targets. Use the result as "the base branch" in all subsequent steps.

1. Check if a PR already exists for this branch:

   gh pr view --json baseRefName -q .baseRefName 2>/dev/null
   

   If this succeeds, use the printed branch name as the base branch.

2. If no PR exists, detect the repo's default branch:

   gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q .defaultBranchRef.name 2>/dev/null
   

3. If both commands fail, fall back to main.

Print the detected base branch name.

---

Step 1: Pre-flight & Diff Analysis

1. Check the current branch. If on the base branch, abort: "You're on the base branch. Run from a feature branch."

2. Gather context about what changed:

   git diff <base>...HEAD --stat
   git log <base>..HEAD --oneline
   git diff <base>...HEAD --name-only
   

3. Discover all documentation files in the repo:

   find . -maxdepth 2 -name "*.md" -not -path "./.git/*" -not -path "./node_modules/*" -not -path "./.context/*" | sort
   

4. Classify the changes into categories relevant to documentation:

   • New features — new files, new commands, new capabilities
   • Changed behavior — modified services, updated APIs, config changes
   • Removed functionality — deleted files, removed commands
   • Infrastructure — build system, test infrastructure, CI

5. Output a brief summary: "Analyzing N files changed across M commits. Found K documentation files to review."

---

Step 2: Per-File Documentation Audit

Read each documentation file and cross-reference it against the diff. Use these heuristics:

README.md:

• Does it describe all features and capabilities visible in the diff?
• Are install/setup instructions consistent with the changes?
• Are examples, demos, and usage descriptions still valid?
• Are troubleshooting steps still accurate?

ARCHITECTURE.md:

• Do diagrams and component descriptions match the current code?
• Are design decisions and "why" explanations still accurate?
• Be conservative — only update things clearly contradicted by the diff.

CONTRIBUTING.md — New contributor smoke test:

• Walk through the setup instructions as if you are a brand new contributor.
• Are the listed commands accurate? Would each step succeed?
• Do test descriptions match the current test infrastructure?
• Flag anything that would fail or confuse a first-time contributor.

AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md / project instructions:

• Does the project structure section match the actual file tree?
• Are listed commands and scripts accurate?
• Do build/test instructions match what's in package.json (or equivalent)?

Any other .md files:

• Read the file, determine its purpose and audience.
• Cross-reference against the diff to check if it contradicts anything.

For each file, classify needed updates as:

• Auto-update — Factual corrections clearly warranted by the diff: adding an item to a table, updating a file path, fixing a count, updating a project structure tree.
• Ask user — Narrative changes, section removal, security model changes, large rewrites (more than ~10 lines in one section), ambiguous relevance, adding entirely new sections.

---

Step 3: Apply Auto-Updates

Make all clear, factual updates directly using the Edit tool.

For each file modified, output a one-line summary describing what specifically changed — not just "Updated README.md" but "README.md: added /new-command to commands table, updated count from 9 to 10."

Never auto-update:

• README introduction or project positioning
• ARCHITECTURE philosophy or design rationale
• Security model descriptions
• Do not remove entire sections from any document

---

Step 4: Ask About Risky/Questionable Changes

For each risky or questionable update identified in Step 2, ask the user with:

• Context: project name, branch, which doc file, what we're reviewing
• The specific documentation decision
• RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]
• Options including C) Skip — leave as-is

Apply approved changes immediately after each answer.

---

Step 5: CHANGELOG Voice Polish

CRITICAL — NEVER CLOBBER CHANGELOG ENTRIES.

This step polishes voice. It does NOT rewrite, replace, or regenerate CHANGELOG content.

Rules:

1. Read the entire CHANGELOG.md first. Understand what is already there.
2. Only modify wording within existing entries. Never delete, reorder, or replace entries.
3. Never regenerate a CHANGELOG entry from scratch. The entry was written by /code-ship from the actual diff and commit history. It is the source of truth. You are polishing prose, not rewriting history.
4. If an entry looks wrong or incomplete, ask the user — do NOT silently fix it.
5. Use Edit tool with exact old_string matches — never use Write to overwrite CHANGELOG.md.

If CHANGELOG was not modified in this branch: skip this step.

If CHANGELOG was modified in this branch, review the entry for voice:

• Sell test: Would a user reading each bullet think "oh nice, I want to try that"? If not, rewrite the wording (not the content).
• Lead with what the user can now do — not implementation details.
• "You can now..." not "Refactored the..."
• Flag and rewrite any entry that reads like a commit message.
• Internal/contributor changes belong in a separate "### For contributors" subsection.
• Auto-fix minor voice adjustments. Ask the user if a rewrite would alter meaning.

---

Step 6: Cross-Doc Consistency & Discoverability Check

After auditing each file individually, do a cross-doc consistency pass:

1. Does the README's feature list match what AGENTS.md describes?
2. Does ARCHITECTURE's component list match CONTRIBUTING's project structure?
3. Does CHANGELOG's latest version match the VERSION file (or package.json version)?
4. Discoverability: Is every documentation file reachable from README.md or AGENTS.md? If ARCHITECTURE.md exists but neither links to it, flag it.
5. Flag any contradictions between documents. Auto-fix clear factual inconsistencies. Ask the user for narrative contradictions.

---

Step 7: TODOS.md Cleanup

If TODOS.md does not exist, skip this step.

1. Completed items not yet marked: Cross-reference the diff against open TODO items. If a TODO is clearly completed by the changes in this branch, move it to the Completed section. Be conservative — only mark items with clear evidence in the diff.

2. Items needing description updates: If a TODO references files or components that were significantly changed, its description may be stale. Ask the user to confirm.

3. New deferred work: Check the diff for TODO, FIXME, HACK, and XXX comments. For each one that represents meaningful deferred work, ask whether it should be captured in TODOS.md.

---

Step 8: VERSION Bump Question

CRITICAL — NEVER BUMP VERSION WITHOUT ASKING.

1. If VERSION file and package.json version both don't exist: Skip silently.

2. Check if version was already modified on this branch:

   git diff <base>...HEAD -- VERSION package.json
   

3. If version was NOT bumped: Ask the user:

   • RECOMMENDATION: Choose C (Skip) because docs-only changes rarely warrant a version bump
   • A) Bump PATCH — if doc changes ship alongside code changes
   • B) Bump MINOR — if this is a significant standalone release
   • C) Skip — no version bump needed

4. If version was already bumped: Check whether the bump covers the full scope of changes: a. Read the CHANGELOG entry for the current version. b. Read the full diff. Are there significant changes NOT mentioned in the CHANGELOG? c. If CHANGELOG covers everything: Skip — "VERSION: Already bumped, covers all changes." d. If there are significant uncovered changes: Ask the user whether to bump again or add the new changes to the existing entry.

---

Step 9: Commit & Output

Empty check first: Run git status. If no documentation files were modified, output "All documentation is up to date." and exit without committing.

Commit:

1. Stage modified documentation files by name (never git add -A or git add .).
2. Create a single commit:

   git commit -m "docs: update project documentation"
   

3. Push to the current branch:

   git push
   

PR body update (if gh CLI available):

1. Read the existing PR body:

   gh pr view --json body -q .body > /tmp/pr-body-$$.md
   

2. If the body already contains a ## Documentation section, replace it. Otherwise, append one.

3. The Documentation section should include a doc diff preview — for each file modified, describe what specifically changed.

4. Write back:

   gh pr edit --body-file /tmp/pr-body-$$.md
   rm -f /tmp/pr-body-$$.md
   

5. If no PR exists: skip with message "No PR found — skipping body update."

Structured doc health summary (final output):

Documentation health:
  README.md       [status] ([details])
  ARCHITECTURE.md [status] ([details])
  CONTRIBUTING.md [status] ([details])
  CHANGELOG.md    [status] ([details])
  AGENTS.md       [status] ([details])
  TODOS.md        [status] ([details])
  VERSION         [status] ([details])

Where status is one of:

• Updated — with description of what changed
• Current — no changes needed
• Voice polished — wording adjusted
• Not bumped — user chose to skip
• Already bumped — version was set by /code-ship
• Skipped — file does not exist

---

Important Rules

• Read before editing. Always read the full content of a file before modifying it.
• Never clobber CHANGELOG. Polish wording only. Never delete, replace, or regenerate entries.
• Never bump VERSION silently. Always ask.
• Be explicit about what changed. Every edit gets a one-line summary.
• Generic heuristics, not project-specific. The audit checks work on any repo.
• Discoverability matters. Every doc file should be reachable from README or AGENTS.md.
• Voice: friendly, user-forward, not obscure. Write like you're explaining to a smart person who hasn't seen the code.