gstack/document-release/SKILL.md.tmpl

---
name: document-release
preamble-tier: 2
version: 1.0.0
description: |
  Post-ship documentation update. Reads all project docs, cross-references the
  diff, builds a Diataxis coverage map (reference/how-to/tutorial/explanation),
  updates README/ARCHITECTURE/CONTRIBUTING/CLAUDE.md to match what shipped,
  detects architecture diagram drift, polishes CHANGELOG voice with a sell-test
  rubric, cleans up TODOS, and optionally bumps VERSION. Surfaces documentation
  debt in the PR body. Use when asked to "update the docs", "sync documentation",
  or "post-ship docs". Proactively suggest after a PR is merged or code is shipped. (gstack)
allowed-tools:
  - Bash
  - Read
  - Write
  - Edit
  - Grep
  - Glob
  - AskUserQuestion
triggers:
  - update docs after ship
  - document what changed
  - post-ship docs
---

{{PREAMBLE}}

{{BASE_BRANCH_DETECT}}

# Document Release: Post-Ship Documentation Update

You are running the `/document-release` workflow. This runs **after `/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.

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 number mismatch)

**NEVER do:**
- Overwrite, replace, or regenerate CHANGELOG entries — polish wording only, preserve all content
- Bump VERSION without asking — always use AskUserQuestion for version changes
- Use `Write` tool on CHANGELOG.md — always use `Edit` with exact `old_string` matches

---

## 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:

```bash
git diff <base>...HEAD --stat
```

```bash
git log <base>..HEAD --oneline
```

```bash
git diff <base>...HEAD --name-only
```

3. Discover all documentation files in the repo:

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

4. Classify the changes into categories relevant to documentation:
   - **New features** — new files, new commands, new skills, 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 1.5: Coverage Map (Blast-Radius Analysis)

Before touching any documentation file, build a **coverage map** of what shipped vs what's
documented. This is inspired by the Diataxis framework (tutorial / how-to / reference / explanation)
— but applied as an audit lens, not a generation tool.

1. **Extract public surface changes from the diff.** Scan `git diff <base>...HEAD` for:
   - New exported functions, classes, commands, CLI flags, config options, API endpoints
   - New skills, workflows, or user-facing capabilities
   - Renamed or removed public surface (modules, commands, features)
   - New environment variables, feature flags, or configuration knobs

2. **For each new/changed public surface item, assess documentation coverage:**

```
Coverage map:
  [entity]         [reference?] [how-to?] [tutorial?] [explanation?]
  /new-skill       ✅ AGENTS.md  ❌        ❌          ❌
  --new-flag       ✅ README     ✅ README  ❌          ❌
  FooProcessor     ❌            ❌        ❌          ❌
```

Use these definitions:
- **Reference** — factual description of what it is, its API, its options (README tables, AGENTS.md skill lists, API docs)
- **How-to** — task-oriented: "how to do X with this" (README examples, CONTRIBUTING workflows)
- **Tutorial** — learning-oriented: step-by-step walkthrough for newcomers (getting started guides)
- **Explanation** — understanding-oriented: "why this works this way" (ARCHITECTURE decisions, design rationale)

3. **Output the coverage map.** Items with zero coverage are **critical gaps** — flag them for
   Step 3. Items with reference-only coverage are **common gaps** — note them for the PR body.

4. **Architecture diagram drift detection.** If ARCHITECTURE.md (or any doc) contains ASCII
   diagrams or Mermaid blocks, extract entity names (modules, services, data flows) from the
   diagrams. Cross-reference against the diff. Flag any diagram entities that were renamed,
   split, removed, or moved in the code.

The coverage map feeds into Steps 2-3 (what to audit and fix) and Step 9 (documentation debt
summary in the PR body). Do NOT auto-generate missing documentation pages — flag gaps only.
When significant gaps are found, suggest running `/document-generate` to fill them.

---

## Step 2: Per-File Documentation Audit

Read each documentation file and cross-reference it against the diff. Use these generic heuristics
(adapt to whatever project you're in — these are not gstack-specific):

**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 ASCII 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. Architecture docs
  describe things unlikely to change frequently.

**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 tier descriptions match the current test infrastructure?
- Are workflow descriptions (dev setup, operational learnings, etc.) current?
- Flag anything that would fail or confuse a first-time contributor.

**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 the file says.

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-skill to skills table, updated skill 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, use AskUserQuestion 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.

A real incident occurred where an agent replaced existing CHANGELOG entries when it should have
preserved them. This skill must NEVER do that.

**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 `/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, use AskUserQuestion — 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 (Diataxis rubric):** Score each CHANGELOG entry 0-3:
  - **1 point** — answers "What changed?" (reference: names the feature/fix)
  - **1 point** — answers "Why should I care?" (explanation: user impact, pain removed)
  - **1 point** — answers "How do I use it?" (how-to: command, flag, or link to docs)
  - Entries scoring <2 need a rewrite. Entries scoring 3 are gold.
- 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. Use AskUserQuestion 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/capability list match what CLAUDE.md (or project instructions) describes?
2. Does ARCHITECTURE's component list match CONTRIBUTING's project structure description?
3. Does CHANGELOG's latest version match the VERSION file?
4. **Discoverability:** Is every documentation file reachable from README.md or CLAUDE.md? If
   ARCHITECTURE.md exists but neither README nor CLAUDE.md links to it, flag it. Every doc
   should be discoverable from one of the two entry-point files.
5. Flag any contradictions between documents. Auto-fix clear factual inconsistencies (e.g., a
   version mismatch). Use AskUserQuestion for narrative contradictions.

---

## Step 7: TODOS.md Cleanup

This is a second pass that complements `/ship`'s Step 5.5. Read `review/TODOS-format.md` (if
available) for the canonical TODO item format.

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
   with `**Completed:** vX.Y.Z.W (YYYY-MM-DD)`. 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. Use AskUserQuestion to confirm whether
   the TODO should be updated, completed, or left as-is.

3. **New deferred work:** Check the diff for `TODO`, `FIXME`, `HACK`, and `XXX` comments. For
   each one that represents meaningful deferred work (not a trivial inline note), use
   AskUserQuestion to ask whether it should be captured in TODOS.md.

---

## Step 8: VERSION Bump Question

**CRITICAL — NEVER BUMP VERSION WITHOUT ASKING.**

1. **If VERSION does not exist:** Skip silently.

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

```bash
git diff <base>...HEAD -- VERSION
```

3. **If VERSION was NOT bumped:** Use AskUserQuestion:
   - RECOMMENDATION: Choose C (Skip) because docs-only changes rarely warrant a version bump
   - A) Bump PATCH (X.Y.Z+1) — if doc changes ship alongside code changes
   - B) Bump MINOR (X.Y+1.0) — if this is a significant standalone release
   - C) Skip — no version bump needed

4. **If VERSION was already bumped:** Do NOT skip silently. Instead, check whether the bump
   still covers the full scope of changes on this branch:

   a. Read the CHANGELOG entry for the current VERSION. What features does it describe?
   b. Read the full diff (`git diff <base>...HEAD --stat` and `git diff <base>...HEAD --name-only`).
      Are there significant changes (new features, new skills, new commands, major refactors)
      that are NOT mentioned in the CHANGELOG entry for the current version?
   c. **If the CHANGELOG entry covers everything:** Skip — output "VERSION: Already bumped to
      vX.Y.Z, covers all changes."
   d. **If there are significant uncovered changes:** Use AskUserQuestion explaining what the
      current version covers vs what's new, and ask:
      - RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because the new changes warrant their own version
      - A) Bump to next patch (X.Y.Z+1) — give the new changes their own version
      - B) Keep current version — add new changes to the existing CHANGELOG entry
      - C) Skip — leave version as-is, handle later

   The key insight: a VERSION bump set for "feature A" should not silently absorb "feature B"
   if feature B is substantial enough to deserve its own version entry.

---

## Step 9: Commit & Output

**Empty check first:** Run `git status` (never use `-uall`). If no documentation files were
modified by any previous step, 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:

```bash
git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
docs: update project documentation for vX.Y.Z.W

{{CO_AUTHOR_TRAILER}}
EOF
)"
```

3. Push to the current branch:

```bash
git push
```

**PR/MR body update (idempotent, race-safe):**

1. Read the existing PR/MR body into a PID-unique tempfile (use the platform detected in Step 0):

**If GitHub:**
```bash
gh pr view --json body -q .body > /tmp/gstack-pr-body-$$.md
```

**If GitLab:**
```bash
glab mr view -F json 2>/dev/null | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin).get('description',''))" > /tmp/gstack-pr-body-$$.md
```

2. If the tempfile already contains a `## Documentation` section, replace that section with the
   updated content. If it does not contain one, append a `## Documentation` section at the end.

3. The Documentation section should include:

   a. **Doc diff preview** — for each file modified, describe what specifically changed (e.g.,
      "README.md: added /document-release to skills table, updated skill count from 9 to 10").

   b. **Documentation debt** — if the coverage map from Step 1.5 found gaps, append a
      `### Documentation Debt` subsection listing:
      - Critical gaps: new public surface with zero documentation coverage
      - Common gaps: features with reference-only coverage (no how-to or tutorial)
      - Stale diagrams: architecture diagrams with entity names that drifted from the code
      - Each item should include a one-line description of what's missing and which Diataxis
        quadrant would fill it (e.g., "⚠️ `/new-skill` — has reference in AGENTS.md but no
        how-to example in README")

   If there are any documentation debt items, suggest adding a `docs-debt` label to the PR.

4. Write the updated body back:

**If GitHub:**
```bash
gh pr edit --body-file /tmp/gstack-pr-body-$$.md
```

**If GitLab:**
Read the contents of `/tmp/gstack-pr-body-$$.md` using the Read tool, then pass it to `glab mr update` using a heredoc to avoid shell metacharacter issues:
```bash
glab mr update -d "$(cat <<'MRBODY'
<paste the file contents here>
MRBODY
)"
```

5. Clean up the tempfile:

```bash
rm -f /tmp/gstack-pr-body-$$.md
```

6. If `gh pr view` / `glab mr view` fails (no PR/MR exists): skip with message "No PR/MR found — skipping body update."
7. If `gh pr edit` / `glab mr update` fails: warn "Could not update PR/MR body — documentation changes are in the
   commit." and continue.

**PR/MR title sync (idempotent, always-on):**

PR titles must always start with `v<VERSION>` — same rule as `/ship`. If Step 8 bumped VERSION after `/ship` had already created the PR, the title is now stale. This sub-step fixes it.

1. Read the current VERSION:

```bash
V=$(cat VERSION 2>/dev/null | tr -d '[:space:]')
```

If `VERSION` does not exist or is empty, skip this sub-step entirely.

2. Read the current PR/MR title:

**If GitHub:**
```bash
CURRENT_TITLE=$(gh pr view --json title -q .title 2>/dev/null || true)
```

**If GitLab:**
```bash
CURRENT_TITLE=$(glab mr view -F json 2>/dev/null | jq -r .title 2>/dev/null || true)
```

If `CURRENT_TITLE` is empty (no open PR/MR), skip with message "No PR/MR found — skipping title sync."

3. Compute the corrected title using the shared helper (single source of truth — same one `/ship` uses):

```bash
NEW_TITLE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-pr-title-rewrite.sh "$V" "$CURRENT_TITLE")
```

The helper handles three cases: title already correct (no-op), title has a different `v<X.Y.Z.W>` prefix (replace it), or title has no version prefix (prepend one).

4. If `NEW_TITLE` differs from `CURRENT_TITLE`, update it:

**If GitHub:**
```bash
gh pr edit --title "$NEW_TITLE"
```

**If GitLab:**
```bash
glab mr update -t "$NEW_TITLE"
```

5. If the edit command fails: warn "Could not update PR/MR title — documentation changes are still in the commit." and continue. Do not block on title sync failure.

**Structured doc health summary (final output):**

Output a scannable summary showing every documentation file's status:

```
Documentation health:
  README.md       [status] ([details])
  ARCHITECTURE.md [status] ([details])
  CONTRIBUTING.md [status] ([details])
  CHANGELOG.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 /ship
- Skipped — file does not exist

If the coverage map from Step 1.5 identified any gaps, append:

```
Documentation coverage:
  [entity]         [reference] [how-to] [tutorial] [explanation]
  /new-skill       ✅          ❌       ❌         ❌
  --new-flag       ✅          ✅       ❌         ❌

Diagram drift:
  ARCHITECTURE.md: "FooProcessor" renamed to "BarProcessor" in code — diagram may be stale
```

If all coverage is complete and no diagrams drifted, output: "Coverage: all shipped features have adequate documentation."

---

## 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. Even if already bumped, check whether it covers the full scope of changes.
- **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 CLAUDE.md.
- **Coverage map informs, never generates.** The Diataxis coverage map flags gaps for the PR body
  and future work. It does NOT auto-generate missing documentation pages or sections. When gaps
  are found, suggest `/document-generate` as the follow-up skill.
- **Diagram drift is advisory.** Flag stale architecture diagrams in the PR body but do not
  auto-edit ASCII art or Mermaid blocks — they require human judgment to update correctly.
- **Voice: friendly, user-forward, not obscure.** Write like you're explaining to a smart person
  who hasn't seen the code.