make-change-file

name	make-change-file
description	Create or update Remix repo change files under `packages/*/.changes`. Use when a user asks for release notes, a change file, a missing changelog entry, a prerelease note, or an update to existing unpublished release notes.

Make Change File

Overview

Write release notes that match this repository's .changes conventions. Use it for both new change files and edits to existing unpublished ones.

Workflow

1. Read the package's package.json, existing .changes/ directory if present, and any relevant PR diff or commit range before writing anything.
2. Check whether an unpublished change file already exists for the same work. If it does, update it in place instead of creating a duplicate note.
3. Choose the bump type from the package version and the user-facing impact.
4. Create packages/<package>/.changes/ on demand if it does not already exist.
5. Write concise, user-facing release notes that describe shipped behavior, APIs, or exports.
6. Run pnpm changes:preview to verify the rendered changelog output.
7. Run pnpm run lint before finishing.

Naming

• Use packages/<package>/.changes/[major|minor|patch].short-description.md.

• The .changes/ directory is optional until a package has a change file or .changes/config.json.

• Keep the slug short, specific, and stable.

• Reuse existing deterministic names when the repo already has a pattern for that class of note.

• For brand-new package releases, prefer minor.initial-release.md.

• For Remix export-only changes, update packages/remix/.changes/minor.remix.update-exports.md in place.

• When packages/remix/.changes mirrors a change file from a re-exported package, name it packages/remix/.changes/[major|minor|patch].<package>.short-description.md, where <package> omits the @remix-run/ scope.

  packages/
  ├── route-pattern/
  │   └── .changes/
  │       └── patch.no-partial-matches-for-dynamic-pathnames.md
  └── remix/
      └── .changes/
          └── patch.route-pattern.no-partial-matches-for-dynamic-pathnames.md
  

Bump Rules

• For 0.x packages: use minor for new features and breaking changes, patch for bug fixes.
• Do not use major for 0.x packages unless explicitly instructed.
• For 1.x+ packages: use standard semver.
• Breaking changes are relative to main, not relative to earlier commits in the same PR.
• In 0.x, breaking change notes must start with BREAKING CHANGE: .
• For remix prerelease mode, the bump type mostly controls changelog categorization while the prerelease counter advances.

Content Rules

• Document user-visible behavior, public API changes, exports, migrations, or upgrade work.
• Do not write release notes for internal refactors unless they surface as real API or behavior changes.
• Keep each note self-contained. A reader should understand the shipped behavior from the note itself, with links adding context rather than replacing the explanation.
• When a change is tied to a public issue, PR, RFC, decision doc, spec, or external bug report, include a short reference in the note. Prefer the PR that actually addressed the issue or feature over the source issue because the source issue remains reachable from the PR. Use inline same-repo references like (see #1234) and full URLs for external repositories, specs, or reports.
• Name the affected API, route convention, package, entrypoint, runtime, browser, or tool version when that detail helps users recognize whether the note applies to them.
• For bug fixes, describe the user-visible symptom or failing scenario instead of only describing the implementation fix.
• For breaking changes, include the old behavior, new behavior, and migration path.
• For deprecations, mention the replacement API when one exists.
• Avoid linking every implementation PR when it does not add useful reader context.
• Prefer a small number of logically grouped notes over many tiny files.
• Add a manual change file to the package that owns the changed API, behavior, or implementation.
• If another package directly re-exports a newly added, removed, renamed, or otherwise changed public API surface, add a change file for the re-exporting package when users can consume that API through the re-exported entrypoint.
• Do not add manual change files recursively for packages that only observe a change through dependency updates. The release scripts automatically include transitive dependents in the release set and generate dependency bump changelog entries; see scripts/utils/changes.ts (parseAllChangeFiles and generateChangelogContent).
• For bug fixes in an underlying package, usually add a change file only to the package that owns the fix. Add a re-export package note only when the re-exporting package's own changelog needs to call out the behavior directly, not merely because the fixed dependency is reachable from that package.
• Do not manually hard-wrap prose in .changes/*.md files. Keep each paragraph or bullet on a single source line and let rendered changelogs wrap naturally.
• Use flat bullets only when they add clarity. Short paragraphs are usually better.

Historical Changelogs

• Treat existing CHANGELOG.md files and historical changelog docs as records of what was true at the time. Do not rewrite old entries to match current APIs, terminology, or guidance.
• If current guidance is stale or confusing, update current docs, README files, skills, or add a new .changes file instead of editing historical release prose.
• Only edit historical changelog entries for narrow corrections such as broken links, typos, or clearly invalid references, and prefer doing so only when the user explicitly asks.

Remix-Specific Rules

• packages/remix/src/* re-export files are generated. Do not hand-edit them unless the task explicitly requires generated output.
• When packages/remix/package.json gains or changes public exports, capture that in minor.remix.update-exports.md instead of inventing a one-off filename.
• If the change exposes another package's new APIs through remix/..., describe the surfaced remix/... entrypoints, not just the underlying workspace package name.

Checklist

• Did you inspect existing unpublished .changes files first?
• Is the bump type correct for the package version?
• Did you reuse any deterministic filename the repo already expects?
• Does the note describe user-facing changes instead of implementation details?
• Did you include related issue, PR, RFC, decision, spec, or external report references when they add useful context, preferring the implementation PR over the source issue when both exist?
• For bug fixes, does the note describe the failing scenario or symptom?
• For breaking changes or deprecations, does the note include the migration path or replacement API?
• Does each paragraph or bullet stay on one source line without manual hard wrapping?
• Did pnpm changes:preview render the expected changelog entry?