Release

Release Workflow

Steps

1. Sync the release branch with main: The release worktree's branch lags main between releases — it's only reset to main after a release lands. Cutting from a stale branch silently drops everything merged since. Fast-forward to the tip of main before anything else:

   git fetch origin
   git merge --ff-only origin/main
   

   --ff-only advances the branch when it's a strict ancestor of origin/main and fails (rather than creating a merge commit or discarding work) if it has diverged — reconcile manually before continuing. This is the release-branch equivalent of wt up, spelled out because the up alias rebases each branch onto its own upstream (origin/release), not main. Note the resulting commit SHA: this is the tip the changelog covers, and step 12 checks the changelog against everything that reaches main before the tag.

2. Run tests: Two gates — the local suite and the full cross-platform suite.

   • Local: cargo run -- hook pre-merge --yes.
   • Cross-platform: dispatch the nightly workflow on the cut-from tip and wait for it to go green. This is where a release gets its full linux/macos/windows validation: the PR path (ci.yaml) is moving to cargo-affected selection and will stop running the full test matrix, while nightly hosts full-tests (the full 3-OS suite) alongside feature-powerset, release-target, nix-flake, and minimal-versions. Benchmarks aren't part of nightly — they run in their own benchmarks.yaml and gate nothing.

     gh workflow run nightly.yaml --ref main
     # Registration lags the dispatch, and a prior release may have left a
     # stale completed workflow_dispatch run — filter to the in-flight one.
     sleep 5
     RUN=$(gh run list --workflow=nightly.yaml --event=workflow_dispatch --branch=main --limit 5 --json databaseId,status --jq 'map(select(.status != "completed")) | .[0].databaseId')
     

     Launch a ci-reporter to monitor $RUN to completion (avoid gh run watch — it can hang). Fix any failure before continuing.

3. Check current version: Read version in Cargo.toml

4. Review commits: Check commits since last release to understand scope of changes. Audit the cumulative diff for the data-loss surface (see Data-Loss Surface Review) before proceeding.

5. Check library API compatibility (advisory): Run cargo semver-checks check-release -p worktrunk (install with cargo install cargo-semver-checks --locked if missing) as a bump-level input, not a compat gate — worktrunk ships breaking library changes freely. If it reports breaking changes, that's fine; under semver the bump must still be minor (pre-1.0) or major (post-1.0). See "Library API Compatibility" below.

6. Credit contributors: Check for external PR authors and issue reporters (see "Credit External Contributors" and "Credit Issue Reporters" below)

7. Determine release type: Pick the bump from the changes (including semver-checks result). Ask the user only if the choice is genuinely ambiguous (see below).

8. Bump version (must run on a clean tree — before editing CHANGELOG):

   cargo release X.Y.Z -p worktrunk -x --no-publish --no-push --no-tag --no-verify --no-confirm && cargo check
   

   This bumps Cargo.toml and Cargo.lock, then auto-commits. We'll reset this commit in step 10 to fold in the CHANGELOG.

9. Update CHANGELOG: the top section holds this release's changes (see MANDATORY verification below). If it is ## Unreleased, rename that heading to ## X.Y.Z and fold the remaining entries into it — inserting a new heading above it ships a stale ## Unreleased in the release notes. Otherwise the top section is the last shipped version: add a ## X.Y.Z section above it, never append to it.

10. Commit: Reset the auto-commit from step 8, stage everything, and create the final release commit:

    git reset --soft HEAD~1 && git add -A && git commit -m "Release vX.Y.Z"
    

11. Merge to main: push the release branch, open a PR, wait for CI, and merge it. Keep the worktree — the remaining steps run from it. Then move the branch onto the merged tip:

    git fetch origin && git reset --keep origin/main
    

    The PR squash-merges, so the branch is no longer an ancestor of main and step 1's --ff-only can't advance it; --keep moves it across and still fails if anything is uncommitted. main can advance during the CI wait; step 12 catches anything that lands before the tag.

12. Verify the changelog covers main, then tag and push: the tag decides what ships — release.yaml builds the binaries and the GitHub release notes from the tree at the tag, so everything reachable from it is in the release. The merge squashes onto whatever main tip exists at merge time, so a commit that lands during the PR's CI wait is already an ancestor of the release commit and ships whether or not the changelog mentions it (the easy miss is a follow-up that reworks a feature this release already documents). List what reached main since the cut-from tip (step 1):

    git fetch origin
    git log --oneline <cut-from-commit>..origin/main
    

    Clean means the changelog at origin/main documents every user-facing commit listed. With no drift the list is one line, the Release vX.Y.Z (#NNNN) squash commit. Review anything else that drifted in during the window and fold what's user-facing into the changelog with a follow-up squash PR, then re-fetch and re-run. The list only grows across passes — the drifted commits stay, joined by the follow-up's own squash commit — so each pass re-checks coverage over a longer list.

    Once clean, tag origin/main. The check and the tag then name the same ref, and it's main's tip, so the tag is reachable from main:

    git tag vX.Y.Z origin/main && git push origin vX.Y.Z
    

13. Wait for the release workflow: The tag push triggers release.yaml. Launch a ci-reporter agent to monitor the run through to completion (avoid gh run watch — it can hang); the run ID comes from:

    gh run list --workflow=release.yaml --event=push --branch=vX.Y.Z --limit 1 --json databaseId --jq '.[0].databaseId'
    

release.yaml builds binaries and publishes to crates.io, Homebrew, and winget automatically.

Data-Loss Surface Review

Worktrunk's worst failure is silently destroying a user's work. The per-PR review (running-tend, "Data-Loss Surface") is the first gate; the release is the second, where the whole diff since the last release is visible at once.

This review optimizes for recall: find every change that could touch the deletion surface, accept false positives, then adjudicate each candidate. Missing one real loss path costs far more than reviewing a false alarm.

A keyword grep alone is insufficient. It finds only what someone thought to pattern-match, and an agent handed the grep anchors on it and inherits its blind spots. So fan out independent finders, most of them without the grep, and analyze every candidate they surface.

Find: independent finders, recall over precision

Launch 3-5 finder subagents in parallel over the cumulative diff (git log v<last-version>..HEAD -p) and the code it touches, including anything that calls into or is called by the changed code. Each works independently: do not let them share findings during this phase, and do not collapse them onto one method. Each returns candidate locations with a one-line reason, erring toward over-reporting.

Give each a distinct charter. At least two receive no grep and no keyword list, so they reason from the code instead of pattern-matching:

• Behavioral (no grep): read each change and ask what it could destroy: files, branches, worktrees, uncommitted or untracked work, committed-but-unpushed commits. Flag any change whose worst case is lost user data.
• Blast-radius (no grep): for every function and file the diff touches, trace callers and callees. Flag any path that can now reach a destructive primitive (branch deletion, worktree removal, filesystem removal, history rewrite), even when that call sits outside the diff.
• Automation diff (no grep): compare shipped automation before and after: plugins/*/hooks/hooks.json, hooks/hooks.json, hooks/wt.sh, and skill or alias examples users copy. Flag any new or altered invocation that removes or force-overwrites anything.
• Keyword scan (grep): one finder runs the pattern filter over the full diff as a cross-check, never as the primary method. It takes no pathspec; a path allowlist would recreate the blind spots the no-grep finders exist to avoid (the densest destructive code, the trash sweep in src/commands/process.rs, sits outside src/git/).

  git log v<last-version>..HEAD -p \
    | grep -nE -- '--force-delete|--force| -D| -f |branch -[dD]|worktree remove|reset --hard|checkout -f|clean -[fdx]|remove_dir_all|remove_file|rm -rf'
  

Analyze: adjudicate each candidate

Pool the candidates, dedupe, and analyze each against the data-safety invariants in CLAUDE.md and the FAQ "What can Worktrunk delete?" inventory: does it preserve data on failure, require explicit consent for destructive ops, and avoid silent side-effect deletion? Mark each real risk / acceptable / needs change, with the reasoning.

Surface the full adjudicated list and get explicit sign-off before tagging. Do not tag a release with an unresolved deletion-surface candidate, even if it looks acceptable.

CHANGELOG Review

Check commits since last release for missing entries:

git log v<last-version>..HEAD --oneline

IMPORTANT: Don't trust commit messages. Commit messages often undersell or misdescribe changes. For any commit that might be user-facing:

1. Run git show <commit> --stat to see what files changed
2. If it touches user-facing code (commands, CLI, output), read the actual diff
3. Look for changes bundled together — a "rename flag" commit might also add new features

Common patterns where commit messages mislead:

• "Refactor X" commits that also change behavior
• "Rename flag" commits that add new functionality
• "Fix Y" commits that also improve error messages or add hints
• CI/test commits that include production code fixes

Notable changes to document:

• New features or commands
• User-visible behavior changes
• Bug fixes users might encounter

Section order: Improved, Fixed, Documentation, Internal. Documentation is for help text, web docs, and terminology improvements. Internal is for selected notable internal changes (not everything).

Within each section, order by reader interest. The section is the first ordering dimension and is fixed; reader interest is the second, and it decides rank inside a section. A change's class does not: a behavior change nobody asked for ranks below a feature people requested, and a fix every user hits ranks above a platform-specific one. Interest combines how many readers a change reaches with how much it obliges each of them to act, and never counts the effort the change took to build — effort and interest diverge most on the change just finished, which is the one being written up. So a breaking change stays near the top of its section: it reaches few readers, but every one of them has to do something about it. (/writing-prose calls this "Calibrate prominence to audience fraction"; restated here because that skill is personal config and isn't in this repo.)

Breaking changes: Note inline with the entry, not as a separate section:

- **Feature name**: Description. (Breaking: old behavior no longer supported)

Skip: internal refactors, test additions (unless user-facing like shell completion tests).

Length and tone

Combine related bullets. Several PRs that share a theme — e.g. three perf changes that together account for one user-visible speedup — belong in one bullet, not three. The reader cares about the net change, not the PR boundaries. Cite all the PRs in the trailing ([#a](...), [#b](...), [#c](...)) list.

Be brief — the ceiling is words, not sentences. A bullet aims at 35 words; a dense one runs to 60, and the two or three headline entries may reach 80; Internal-section bullets get one sentence. Drop the "why we did it this way" details unless they change how the user thinks about the change, and leave code examples and Cmd::stream / OnceCell / DashMap-style internals in the PR description, where the reasoning belongs.

Sentences stretch to fit whatever you want to say; words don't. So measure rather than judge:

awk '/^## /{if (f) exit; f=1} f' CHANGELOG.md \
  | awk '/^- \*\*/ {n=split($0,_," "); t+=n; c++; if (n>60) o++; printf "%4d  %.58s\n", n, $0} END {printf "\n%d entries, %d avg, %d over 60\n", c, c?t/c:0, o}'

Calibrate against the ceiling, not against the last release. Length ratchets: each release is drafted beside the previous section, and an abstract rule loses to a concrete neighbouring exemplar every time. Entries grew from 49 to 101 words on average across five releases while this skill said "be brief" throughout. Read the previous section for what it drifted to, then ignore it and write to the ceiling.

No editorial framing. Describe what changed, not what was wrong with the previous decision in subjective terms. Avoid words like "sledgehammer", "ugly", "noisy", "wrong" applied to past code. State the prior behavior neutrally and the new behavior plainly.

Good: "Removed .pi/ from the default excludes list; users who need it can add it via [step.copy-ignored]." Bad: "Removed .pi/ — a sledgehammer fix from an unrelated debugging session that has no place as a project-agnostic default."

Credit External Contributors

For any changelog entry where an external contributor (not the repo owner) authored the commit, add credit with their GitHub username:

- **Feature name**: Description. ([#123](https://github.com/user/repo/pull/123), thanks @contributor)

Find external contributors:

git log v<last-version>..HEAD --format="%an <%ae>" | sort -u

Then for each external contributor's commit, find their GitHub username from the commit (usually in the email or PR).

Credit Issue Reporters

When a fix or feature addresses a user-reported issue in this repo, thank the reporter — not just the PR author. Users who take time to report bugs, request features, or provide reproduction steps deserve recognition. (Don't credit reporters from upstream/external repos — only issues filed here.)

- **Feature name**: Description. ([#456](https://github.com/user/repo/pull/456), thanks @reporter for reporting)

For fixes that reference issues:

- **Bug fix**: Description. Fixes [#123](https://github.com/user/repo/issues/123). (thanks @reporter)

Finding reporters — do ALL three steps:

Issues may have been filed months before the fix. Bug reports also appear as PR comments, not just issues. These steps are complementary; each catches things the others miss.

1. Extract every issue/PR reference from every commit (PRIMARY):

   git log v<last-version>..HEAD --format="%B" | grep -oE '#[0-9]+' | sort -t'#' -k2 -n -u
   

   For each referenced number: run gh issue view N --json title,author,state. This catches issues filed months ago — the most commonly missed credits.

2. Check PR comments for bug reports (catches reports that never became issues): For feature PRs referenced in commits, check comment threads for users reporting problems:

   gh pr view NNN --json comments --jq '.comments[] | "\(.author.login): \(.body[:150])"'
   

3. Survey every issue opened or closed since last release (catches unreferenced matches):

   git log -1 --format=%cs v<last-version>
   gh issue list --state all --search "created:>=<date>" --json number,title,author --limit 100
   gh issue list --state closed --search "closed:>=<date>" --json number,title,author --limit 100
   

   Cross-reference every title against changes in this release.

When to credit:

• Bug reports with clear reproduction steps (in issues OR PR comments)
• Feature requests that shaped the implementation
• Performance reports with measurements (like "takes 15s")
• Users who helped diagnose issues through discussion

Skip credit for: issues opened by the repo owner, trivial reports, or issues that were substantially different from what was implemented.

Link Significant Features to Docs

For major features with dedicated documentation, include a docs link. Use full URLs so links work from GitHub releases:

- **Hook system**: Shell commands that run at key points in worktree lifecycle. [Docs](https://worktrunk.dev/hook/) ([#234](https://github.com/user/repo/pull/234), thanks @contributor for the suggestion)

Link when there's substantial documentation the user would benefit from reading — new commands, feature pages, or Tips & Patterns sections. Skip for minor improvements.

MANDATORY: Verify Each Changelog Entry

After drafting changelog entries, you MUST spawn a subagent to verify each bullet point is accurate. The tag publishes this text as the GitHub release body, so a correction afterwards takes a follow-up PR to CHANGELOG.md and a hand-edit of the release page, and people have read the wrong line by then. This pass is worth as much time as it takes.

The gate cuts both ways. Checking only accuracy pushes every entry longer: "understates" and "not covered" have no counterweight, so each pass adds and none subtracts. That asymmetry is what drove the ratchet above. An entry that is too long, too internal, or ranked above one more readers will notice is reported on the same footing as one that is wrong.

Subagent prompt template:

Verify these changelog entries for version X.Y.Z are accurate. They publish with
the tag, and by the time anyone corrects a wrong line, readers have acted on it.
Spend the time to read a source for each one: reading the entry and finding it
plausible is not a check, because the entry was written from the same commits you
are about to read.

Previous version: [e.g., v0.1.9]
Commits to check: git log v<previous>..HEAD

Entries to verify: the top section of CHANGELOG.md as it stands on disk. Read it
there rather than from a paste:
awk '/^## /{if (f) exit; f=1} f' CHANGELOG.md

Verify claim by claim, not entry by entry: an entry carries several independent
claims, and one verdict over the whole entry waves through every claim that is not
its headline.

1. Find the relevant commit(s) using git log and git show
2. Read the diff, not the commit message. The diff settles what changed, and
   nothing else: not what the behavior was before, not what the user sees, not
   what a file it doesn't touch does. Settle a "previously" / "no longer" / "so X
   broke" claim by reading the old file (`git show <sha>^:<path>`) and confirming
   the old behavior there. The new code's handling of the old case is not that
   confirmation: a case added together with a comment about why it produces
   nothing reads in a diff exactly like a case that used to produce something.
   Some claims have no source in the commit at all — a version floor, what a
   rendered page shows, how another component behaves. Read that source: the
   rendered output, the other component's own file, the upstream project's own
   releases
3. Flag any claim its source does not support, whether it overstates,
   understates, or misdescribes
4. Flag if the entry runs over 60 words (80 for one of the two or three headline
   entries), restates the PR description, or explains mechanism the reader cannot
   act on — report these as seriously as an inaccuracy, and quote a shorter
   rewrite that keeps every user-facing claim

Also check:
- Are there user-facing changes NOT covered by these entries?
- Verify each "thanks @..." attribution (right person, right role — author vs reporter)
- Within each section, is any entry ranked above one that more readers will notice?

Report format:
- Entry: [entry text]
  Status: ✅ Accurate / ⚠️ Needs revision / ❌ Incorrect
  Length: [word count] — ✅ / ⚠️ over ceiling
  Evidence: [for each claim, the source you read and what it said]
  Suggested fix: [if needed]

The pass ends on a clean run, not on the first run's findings. A rewrite the verifier suggests has no more evidence behind it than one you wrote yourself, and an entry you edit while the pass runs is in the same state — both leave that entry unverified. Re-run over the section as it now stands, and finalize only once a run comes back clean.

evals/README.md beside this skill holds four entries from a shipped release, three of them wrong, for scoring a change to this template against what the last wording missed.

If verification finds problems: Escalate to the user. Show them the subagent's findings and ask how to proceed. Don't attempt to resolve ambiguous changelog entries autonomously — the user knows the intent behind their changes better than you do.

Determine Release Type

Pick the bump from the changes. Skip the question when only one level is plausible; ask only when the choice is genuinely ambiguous.

Proceed without asking when the answer is obvious:

• cargo semver-checks reports breaking changes → minor (pre-1.0; patch is disallowed, major has no basis pre-1.0 in a maturing project). Inform the user and continue: "Bumping minor — semver-checks reported N breaking changes; patch is disallowed pre-1.0."
• Only bug fixes and internal commits since the last release, no new features, no semver breakage → patch. Inform the user with the same shape.

Ask only when genuinely ambiguous — e.g., new features landed with no semver breakage (patch vs. minor is a judgment call), or a borderline case where the user's read of the changes may differ. Use AskUserQuestion with the actual choice (patch vs. minor); don't add novelty options like skipping a version number.

When asking, present:

1. Current version (e.g., 0.2.0)
2. Brief summary of changes (new features, bug fixes, breaking changes)
3. Your recommendation with reasoning

Example:

Current version: 0.2.0
Changes since v0.2.0:
- Added `state clear` command (new feature)
- Added `previous-branch` state key (new feature)
- No breaking changes

Recommendation: Minor release (0.3.0) — new features, no breaking changes

Version Guidelines

• Second digit (0.1.0 → 0.2.0): Backward incompatible changes
• Third digit (0.1.0 → 0.1.1): Everything else

Current project status: maturing mode (see CLAUDE.md › Project Status). External interfaces — the config file format (wt.toml, user config) and CLI flags/arguments — carry compatibility weight, so breaks there need justification (a real improvement, not cleanup) and prefer deprecation warnings over silent breaks. Everything else, including the internal and library APIs, stays flexible: worktrunk ships breaking library changes freely and bumps the version each time, putting no weight on the existing internal APIs.

Library API Compatibility

Worktrunk is a CLI tool. The [lib] crate in Cargo.toml does expose a public API, but it is not a compatibility surface — per CLAUDE.md › Project Status there are no Rust library compatibility concerns, and the project ships breaking library changes freely, bumping the version each time (see the "Breaking library API" entries in CHANGELOG.md). Downstream crates are expected to pin.

cargo-semver-checks is therefore an advisory bump-level input, not a gate that commits us to keeping the API stable for downstream crates. It compares the current public API against the last version published to crates.io and reports semver-relevant changes — a useful signal for choosing the bump:

cargo semver-checks check-release -p worktrunk

Interpreting results:

• No issues reported: no library-level signal for the bump. Choose based on CLI changes and new features.
• Breaking changes reported: expected and acceptable — breaking the library API is not something to avoid here. But under semver a breaking change still warrants at minimum a minor bump while pre-1.0 (e.g., 0.37.0 → 0.38.0) rather than a patch. Bump accordingly; this is version mechanics, not a signal to preserve the old API.
• Tool fails to run (e.g., missing baseline): likely the crate hasn't been published yet or the registry cache is stale. Try cargo semver-checks check-release -p worktrunk --baseline-version <last-published>.

This check validates the chosen bump — it doesn't distinguish patch vs. minor when no breakage exists. Continue using the commit review to decide between patch (fixes only) and minor (new features).