name: changelog type: workflow description: "Generates a structured changelog from git history following Keep a Changelog format and conventional commits. Use when creating a CHANGELOG.md, preparing release notes, or when the user mentions changelog or release history." argument-hint: "[version|sprint-number]" user-invocable: true allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash context: | !git log --oneline -30 2>/dev/null !git tag --list --sort=-v:refname 2>/dev/null | head -5 effort: 1 when_to_use: "When generating a changelog from git commits for a version or sprint release"
When this skill is invoked:
- Read the argument for the target version or sprint number. If a version is given, use the corresponding git tag. If a sprint number is given, use the sprint date range.
1b. Check git availability — Verify the repository is initialized:
- Run
git rev-parse --is-inside-work-treeto confirm git is available - If not a git repo, inform the user and abort gracefully
-
Read the git log since the last tag or release:
git log --oneline [last-tag]..HEADIf no tags exist, read the full log or a reasonable recent range (last 100 commits).
-
Read sprint reports from
production/sprints/for the relevant period to understand planned work and context behind changes. -
Read completed design documents from
design/docs/for any new features that were implemented during this period. -
Categorize every change into one of these categories:
- New Features: Entirely new business systems, modes, or content
- Improvements: Enhancements to existing features, UX improvements, performance gains
- Bug Fixes: Corrections to broken behavior
- Balance Changes: Tuning of business logic values, difficulty, economy
- Known Issues: Issues the team is aware of but have not yet resolved
-
Generate the INTERNAL changelog (full technical detail):
# Internal Changelog: [Version]
Date: [Date]
Sprint(s): [Sprint numbers covered]
Commits: [Count] ([first-hash]..[last-hash])
## New Features
- [Feature Name] -- [Technical description, affected systems]
- Commits: [hash1], [hash2]
- Owner: [who implemented it]
- Design doc: [link if applicable]
## Improvements
- [Improvement] -- [What changed technically and why]
- Commits: [hashes]
- Owner: [who]
## Bug Fixes
- [BUG-ID] [Description of bug and root cause]
- Fix: [What was changed]
- Commits: [hashes]
- Owner: [who]
## Balance Changes
- [What was tuned] -- [Old value -> New value] -- [Design intent]
- Owner: [who]
## Technical Debt / Refactoring
- [What was cleaned up and why]
- Commits: [hashes]
## Known Issues
- [Issue description] -- [Severity] -- [ETA for fix if known]
## Metrics
- Total commits: [N]
- Files changed: [N]
- Lines added: [N]
- Lines removed: [N]
- Generate the USER-FACING changelog (friendly, non-technical):
# What is New in [Version]
## New Features
- **[Feature Name]**: [User-friendly description of what they can now do
and why it is exciting. Focus on the experience, not the implementation.]
## Improvements
- **[What improved]**: [How this makes the product better for the user.
Be specific but avoid jargon.]
## Bug Fixes
- Fixed an issue where [describe what the user experienced, not what was
wrong in the code]
- Fixed [user-visible symptom]
## Balance Changes
- [What changed in user-understandable terms and the design intent.
Example: "Healing potions now restore 50 HP (up from 30) -- we felt
users needed more recovery options in late-product encounters."]
## Known Issues
- We are aware of [issue description in user terms] and are working on a
fix. [Workaround if one exists.]
---
Thank you for playing! Your feedback helps us make the product better.
Report issues at [link].
- Output both changelogs to the user. The internal changelog is the primary working document. The user-facing changelog is ready for community posting after review.
Guidelines
- Never expose internal code references, file paths, or developer names in the user-facing changelog
- Group related changes together rather than listing individual commits
- If a commit message is unclear, check the associated files and sprint data for context
- Balance changes should always include the design reasoning, not just the numbers
- Known issues should be honest -- users appreciate transparency
- If the git history is messy (merge commits, reverts, fixup commits), clean up the narrative rather than listing every commit literally
Protocol
- Question: Reads version or sprint number from argument; verifies git repo availability before starting
- Options: Skip — both internal and user-facing versions always generated
- Decision: Skip
- Draft: Both changelogs shown in conversation before saving
- Approval: "May I write to
production/releases/[version]/changelog.md?"
Output
Deliver exactly:
- Internal changelog — developer-facing, grouped by category (Features, Fixes, Performance, etc.)
- User-facing changelog — user-friendly language, no internal references
- Both saved to
production/releases/[version]/changelog.mdandchangelog-user.md - Excluded items count — internal-only changes omitted from user version
See Also
- Use
/patch-notesto generate user-facing release notes from this changelog