Community recipe · Tool workflows

Draft release notes from merged changes

Source-backed example. Practical decision guidance is proposed and untested; this is not a full implementation guide.

The problem

Release owners need to turn scattered merged changes into an accurate account of what users should know.

Agent job

Group merged pull requests from a selected period, add contributor credits and prepare source-linked release notes for review.

Expected output

A categorized release-note draft with change links and contributor credits.

Where this framing comes from

Core problem: Editorial purpose framing
Agent job: Editorial purpose framing
Expected output: Editorial purpose framing
Relevant job roles: Editorial purpose framing
Benefit type: Editorial purpose framing

Editorial framing and outcome limits

Describes the task’s purpose and intended output; measured benefit, safe unsupervised operation and successful delivery are not established by this framing.

Editorial synthesis based on the linked source. This framing does not add evidence of successful delivery or results.

Case-specific decision guidance · untested

Case-specific decision guidance and first checks are original proposals. The linked source supports the attributed task; this added guidance has not been executed.

Read the attributed source evidence and original caveats below ↓

Why use this

A release owner may need to turn many merged pull requests into an understandable account of user-visible changes. Merge status alone does not reveal whether a change belongs in the release, was reverted or needs a breaking-change warning.
This job could prepare categorized notes with source links and contributor attribution for review. Keeping scope and uncertainty explicit helps the owner avoid publishing internal noise or omitting important migration information.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment: Interpret user impact, group related changes and distinguish features, fixes and breaking behavior from implementation-only work.
Simpler alternative: Use manually maintained changelog fragments when contributors already supply complete release notes.
Unsuitable when: The workflow would announce a release, expose confidential changes or infer shipped status without review.

Proposed inputs

Name
Merged-change manifest
Owner
Maintainer
Minimum scope
Approved time window, target branch and pull-request metadata
Quality check
Check reversions, backports and release inclusion
Name
Release conventions
Owner
Release owner
Minimum scope
Categories, audience and credit rules
Quality check
Define confidential exclusions and migration-note needs

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum: Read supplied change summaries and draft notes privately; no repository commands, scheduled announcements or publication.
Compatibility unknowns: Current repository metadata, release mapping, delivery tools and runtime compatibility are unknown.
External actions requiring approval: Posting draft announcements, publishing notes, repository writes and recurring notifications requires explicit authorized destination and scope.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact: Source-linked release-note candidate with categories, contributor credits and unresolved release/migration questions.
Critical checks: Verify inclusion and reversions; preserve breaking-change implications; check credits; distinguish merged from deployed/shipped.
Missing output evidence: This overlay adds no new output inspection, execution or validation; consult the referenced canonical source outcome limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

Signal
A reverted feature remains in the notes
Why it matters
Users are promised unavailable behavior
Proposed response
Trace reversion history and remove or explain the entry.
Signal
An internal rename hides a public compatibility change
Why it matters
The release omits needed migration context
Proposed response
Ask the maintainer about external impact before categorization.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work: Define release scope and editorial conventions.
Ongoing review: Owner reviews user impact, confidentiality and credits before any announcement.
Unknowns: Metadata completeness, release mapping, review effort and service costs are unknown.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status: proposed_unexecuted
Synthetic fixture: Invent five merged-change summaries including a reverted feature, documentation update and potential breaking rename; draft categories only.
Acceptance checks: Flag reversion and compatibility uncertainty; preserve sources; send no announcement.
Stop conditions: Stop if release inclusion or disclosure permission cannot be verified.

Limits

Release-note drafts cannot establish deployment status, complete change coverage or correctness of migration advice.

Tasks: Writing & content Research & discovery Documents & files

Useful for: Software developer Product manager

Editorial relevance from the title and source-supported actions; not evidence of the operator’s occupation.

OpenClawIndependent testing: No

Editorial candidate. This is source-backed reporting or a documented workflow. BotCurrent has not independently tested this task. A proposed Canadian adaptation is not evidence of a Canadian deployment or compliance certification.

Original source

https://github.com/OthmaneBlial/awesome-openclaw-examples/blob/main/examples/runnable/03-release-notes-pilot/README.md ↗

Attributed to: Othmane BLIAL / repository contributors

Community recipe

Original action type: tool_action
What the source supports: Collects merged pull requests within a named time window, groups changes into features, fixes, documentation and breaking changes, adds contributor credits and prepares source-linked release notes.
Source outcome limits: This community recipe describes a procedure; it does not prove successful execution or independently reproduced results.
Evidence attribution caveat: This community recipe describes a procedure; it does not prove successful execution or independently reproduced results.
Source approval description: Source says to keep repository flow read-only pending human review. Cron script automatically announces the draft to the configured delivery target.
Named tools: OpenClaw; github, summarize and slack skills; gh; jq; isolated cron
Model or version: Unknown
Publication date: Unknown
Source last checked: 2026-10-14
Demonstrated in Canada: Unknown
Canadian availability: Unknown
Proposed Canadian adaptation: Check English/French release needs and Canadian customer-facing terminology; keep private repository content within approved recipients.
Recommended approval boundaries: Approve repository scope and exact internal draft destination. Review migration notes, contributor credits and confidential details before public release.