minor-release-highlights

name: minor-release-highlights description: Proposes 2–3 high-level feature-set themes for a minor or point release compared to the previous minor—user-facing capability or UX shifts, not patches or commit lists. Use when cutting release notes, tagging a minor/point version, summarizing “what changed since x.y.0”, or when the user asks for dot/minor release messaging.

Minor / point release highlights

Scope (what this is)

• In scope: Themes that mark a line in the sand versus the previous minor (e.g. 2.4.x vs 2.3.x): new workflows, expanded product surface, UX model shifts, defaults that change how people work.
• Out of scope: Individual commits, PR laundry, long bugfix bullets, dependency bumps listed for their own sake, internal refactors unless they clearly change user capabilities.

Semver anchor: “Dot” often means patch (x.y.Z). Patch releases are usually fixes and small deltas; 2–3 major “feature set” themes are a better fit for minor (x.Y.0) or an intentional “small release” milestone. If the user is cutting only a patch, say so and offer either (a) one light “themes” paragraph only if the delta truly warrants it, or (b) a short “fixes and polish” framing instead of inventing false epics.

Best practices

1. Compare to the last minor baseline — Establish the previous minor tag or CHANGELOG section for x.(Y-1).0 (or agreed baseline). Everything you cite should be since that baseline, not “recent work.”
2. Exactly two or three themes — Fewer than two rarely earns a minor story; more than three dilutes the message. Each theme is a named capability story, not a bucket of tickets.
3. User- or operator-visible — Prefer outcomes analysts, admins, or integrators experience (screens, APIs, workflows, limits, guarantees). Defer infra-only items unless they unlock a new class of use (e.g. “reliability for 24/7 schedules”).
4. No fake major — Language should reflect meaningful but bounded change: not a rebranding, not “everything is new,” not deprecation of entire product lines unless that is true.
5. Evidence over invention — Ground themes in merged changes, docs, CHANGELOG, or routes/UI you can point to. If evidence is thin, label proposals tentative and say what would confirm them.
6. Name themes for scanning — Each theme: short title (3–8 words) + one paragraph (what changed, who it helps, why it matters) + optional examples (concrete screens, endpoints, or commands).

Anti-patterns

• Themes that are just “bugs fixed” or “dependency updates.”
• One theme per commit or per PR.
• Vague labels (“improvements”, “enhancements”) without a capability claim.
• Treating a patch bump as a minor marketing release without user-visible substance.

Workflow for the agent

1. Confirm release type — Minor vs patch vs “small release” tag; confirm comparison baseline (previous minor version or date).
2. Gather delta — CHANGELOG, git range vs tag, release notes draft, or user-provided scope; prioritize behavioral and surface-area changes.
3. Cluster — Group related changes into 2–3 narratives (workflow, scope, UX paradigm, integration contract, etc.).
4. Propose — Output themes with titles + paragraphs; do not dump commit hashes or exhaustive lists unless the user asks.
5. Sanity check — Each theme should answer: “What could a user do or feel after this release that they could not (or barely) do before?”

Output shape (template)

Use this structure when presenting to the user:

## Release highlights (vs vX.(Y-1).0)

**Theme 1 — [Title]**
[One paragraph: capability / UX shift, primary audience, concrete touchpoints.]

**Theme 2 — [Title]**
[...]

**Theme 3 — [Title]** *(omit if only two themes are justified)*
[...]

**Not emphasized in this pass** (optional one line)
[Brief note: e.g. routine fixes, internal cleanup, deps — unless user wants detail.]

Triggers

User says things like: minor release, point release, dot version, what’s new since, release notes themes, high-level changelog for a version bump that is not a major.