lwip

name: lwip description: Create a new "Last Week in Pony" blog post from the open GitHub issue disable-model-invocation: true

Create a new "Last Week in Pony" blog post.

Critical: don't fabricate

Every factual claim in the post must come from a verifiable source: the issue or its comments, linked PRs/releases, git/gh history, or the user. This applies especially to characterizations — how long something existed, how widely it affected users, the history behind a fix, the severity of a bug. Don't invent backstory to make a routine item sound dramatic. Duration, impact, and history are factual claims; if you can't substantiate them, don't write them.

When you're tempted to add color about history, severity, or impact:

1. Verify first. Use gh issue view, gh pr view, gh release view, git log, release notes. The actual history is usually one command away.
2. Ask the user if you can't verify and the characterization adds value.
3. If neither, drop the characterization. A flat description of what happened beats a fabricated dramatic one. The hyperbolic-language rule ("flair in how things are said, not in inflating what they are") applies to phrasing. This rule applies to facts.

Turn it into an interview session if needed. The goal is correctness and narrative interestingness, not speed to getting a draft up. Multiple rounds of questions are fine.

Additional Notes

• Most items go under ## Items of Note as ### subsections. Top-level ## sections are reserved for highlighted items only. The default home for any item is Items of Note — only promote to ## when there's a specific reason. Things that warrant highlighting:
  • Changes in Pony team membership (new committers, new core team members, departures).
  • Libraries with a 0.1.0 release — describe what the library provides and why you'd want it. Don't cover libraries that haven't had a first release yet.
  • Major version bumps (1.0.0, 2.0.0, etc.) — cover what changed and why it matters.
  • Items explicitly flagged for highlighting in the issue comments.
• Every release goes in the ## Releases bullet list. When a release has noteworthy content (bug fixes affecting users, new features, breaking changes), it also gets a ### subsection under ## Items of Note with a short write-up. Read the release notes to determine what treatment a release warrants. Routine releases with nothing interesting just go in the list.
• New library sections should be feature overviews, not per-version changelogs. When a library has multiple releases in one week, describe what it does as a whole. Don't enumerate what changed in each version.
• Describe libraries and tools by what happens when you use them, not by listing their contents. "Load it and Claude has the actual capability rules in context instead of guessing" tells the reader more than "capabilities, subtyping rules, common gotchas." Lead with the experience of using it, not the inventory. Focus on what it does for the user, not project-internal motivations (why it was built, what larger effort it's part of).
• Re-establish context for libraries that evolve between posts. When covering a new release of something that appeared in a previous LWIP, bring forward the context the reader needs. Don't assume they remember last week's post. If hobby introduced actor-per-request handlers in 0.4.0 and this week's 0.5.0 adds interceptors that run before the handler actor is spawned, explain the model before referencing it.
• When referring to repos by short name in prose (not owner/repo format), use lowercase to match the actual repo name: ponyc, corral, ponyup, not Ponyc, Corral, Ponyup.
• The post is authored by seantallen. Write in first person ("I", "my"), not third person ("Sean", "his"). Third person is occasionally used as a joke but is not the default.
• Link targets should match what the link text describes. Don't link "Homebrew formula" to a Zulip thread about the formula — either link to the formula itself or use plain text.
• Be frugal with em dashes. A few per post is fine, but heavy use reads as AI-generated. Prefer periods, commas, colons, or parentheses when they work just as well.
• Issue comments are raw material, not copy. Turn them into flowing narrative. Avoid choppy sequences of disconnected sentences. But when the raw material has personality — colorful phrasing, genuine enthusiasm, humor — preserve and amplify it. Don't grind human voice down into flat declarative prose. Adapt it to fit the post's flow, but keep the energy.
• Every section should be narrative, not a topic inventory. A paragraph of independent facts separated by periods is just a bullet list without the bullets. Connect ideas: cause and effect, contrast, significance, what ties them together. The reader should feel a thread pulling them through, not a checklist they're being walked down. This applies everywhere — opening hooks, Items of Note subsections, release write-ups. If you could turn the paragraph into bullets and lose nothing, it needs rewriting.
• Keep voice consistent between adjacent sections. When two sections cover similar content (two new tools, two related libraries), they should read the same way.
• Use "ponyc" not "ponylang/ponyc" in prose and section headings. Only use ponylang/ponyc in the releases list.
• The opening should match the energy of the week. LWIP is community outreach and a hypefest. Not sales — genuine excitement. When there's a lot going on, the opening should convey that. Let the reader know whether it was a big week or a quiet one. Gab with them a little before diving in. If there are three big things happening, be excited about three big things happening. A flat "Let's get into it" after a stacked week undersells the content and the community behind it.
• ## RFCs section (when applicable) goes after ## Releases. Use ### subsections by status change (### New, ### Accepted, ### Final Comment Period, ### Implemented, etc.). Only include statuses that have entries that week.

Steps

Follow these steps:

1. Read editorial guidelines: Read the "Last Week in Pony" section in this project's AGENTS.md for format, tone, and domain-specific notes.

2. Study recent posts and voice calibration: Read the 2-3 most recent posts in docs/blog/posts/last-week-in-pony-*.md. Also read 2-3 posts from ~/code/seantallen/seantallen.com/content/posts/ to calibrate on Sean's personal writing voice. Key traits: he connects ideas into flowing narrative (not choppy fact sequences), tells you why things matter (not just what they are), shares opinions freely, uses natural asides and humor, and varies sentence length. The language is hyperbolic but the facts aren't — the flair is in how things are said ("gracing you with," "the whole thing"), not in inflating what they are. Don't write feature checklists ("X is supported. Y is supported.") — describe things the way you'd tell someone about them in conversation.

3. Find the open issue: Run gh issue list --repo ponylang/ponylang-website --label last-week-in-pony --state open to find the current issue, then read it with all comments.

4. Rotate the issue: Calculate the next Sunday from today's date. Create a new empty issue in ponylang/ponylang-website titled Last Week in Pony - {next Sunday: Month Day, Year}, add the last-week-in-pony label, and pin it. Then remove the last-week-in-pony label from the current week's issue, unpin it, and close it. The old issue is done once we've read it.

5. Read release notes: For any release items in the issue, fetch the release notes (e.g., gh release view TAG --repo ORG/REPO) and evaluate whether the release has noteworthy content deserving its own section.

6. Verify and ask clarifying questions: Before writing, list every characterization you intend to make about history, severity, duration, or impact. For each, verify it from sources (issue/PR/release notes, git log, gh) or ask the user. Also ask about anything vague or missing context. Batching into one round is fine when everything is straightforward, but turn it into an interview session if you need to — correctness and narrative interestingness beat draft speed.

7. Write the draft: Create the post following the format in AGENTS.md. Use the date from the issue title for the filename and front matter.

8. Review loop: a. Spawn a reviewer subagent (using Task tool, subagent_type "general-purpose") with the copy-editing prompt from AGENTS.md. Pass the full draft content. The reviewer has no conversation history — give it everything it needs in the prompt. b. For each finding: incorporate changes you agree with; if you disagree, present the dispute to the user for a ruling. c. If any changes were made, spawn a new reviewer on the updated content. d. Repeat until a reviewer comes back clean. e. If 3 rounds pass without a clean result, ask the user whether to continue. Check in every 3 rounds thereafter.

9. Commit and PR: Create a branch, commit the new post with the message Last Week in Pony - Month Day, Year, and open a PR. Report the PR URL to the user.