Software_development_department changelog
install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/tranhieutt/software_development_department
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/tranhieutt/software_development_department "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/.claude/skills/changelog" ~/.claude/skills/tranhieutt-software-development-department-changelog && rm -rf "$T"
manifest:
.claude/skills/changelog/SKILL.mdsource content
When this skill is invoked:
- Read the argument for the target version or sprint number. If a version is given, use the corresponding git tag. If a sprint number is given, use the sprint date range.
1b. Check git availability — Verify the repository is initialized:
- Run
to confirm git is availablegit rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree - If not a git repo, inform the user and abort gracefully
-
Read the git log since the last tag or release:
git log --oneline [last-tag]..HEADIf no tags exist, read the full log or a reasonable recent range (last 100 commits).
-
Read sprint reports from
for the relevant period to understand planned work and context behind changes.production/sprints/ -
Read completed design documents from
for any new features that were implemented during this period.design/docs/ -
Categorize every change into one of these categories:
- New Features: Entirely new business systems, modes, or content
- Improvements: Enhancements to existing features, UX improvements, performance gains
- Bug Fixes: Corrections to broken behavior
- Balance Changes: Tuning of business logic values, difficulty, economy
- Known Issues: Issues the team is aware of but have not yet resolved
-
Generate the INTERNAL changelog (full technical detail):
# Internal Changelog: [Version] Date: [Date] Sprint(s): [Sprint numbers covered] Commits: [Count] ([first-hash]..[last-hash]) ## New Features - [Feature Name] -- [Technical description, affected systems] - Commits: [hash1], [hash2] - Owner: [who implemented it] - Design doc: [link if applicable] ## Improvements - [Improvement] -- [What changed technically and why] - Commits: [hashes] - Owner: [who] ## Bug Fixes - [BUG-ID] [Description of bug and root cause] - Fix: [What was changed] - Commits: [hashes] - Owner: [who] ## Balance Changes - [What was tuned] -- [Old value -> New value] -- [Design intent] - Owner: [who] ## Technical Debt / Refactoring - [What was cleaned up and why] - Commits: [hashes] ## Known Issues - [Issue description] -- [Severity] -- [ETA for fix if known] ## Metrics - Total commits: [N] - Files changed: [N] - Lines added: [N] - Lines removed: [N]
- Generate the USER-FACING changelog (friendly, non-technical):
# What is New in [Version] ## New Features - **[Feature Name]**: [User-friendly description of what they can now do and why it is exciting. Focus on the experience, not the implementation.] ## Improvements - **[What improved]**: [How this makes the product better for the user. Be specific but avoid jargon.] ## Bug Fixes - Fixed an issue where [describe what the user experienced, not what was wrong in the code] - Fixed [user-visible symptom] ## Balance Changes - [What changed in user-understandable terms and the design intent. Example: "Healing potions now restore 50 HP (up from 30) -- we felt users needed more recovery options in late-product encounters."] ## Known Issues - We are aware of [issue description in user terms] and are working on a fix. [Workaround if one exists.] --- Thank you for playing! Your feedback helps us make the product better. Report issues at [link].
- Output both changelogs to the user. The internal changelog is the primary working document. The user-facing changelog is ready for community posting after review.
Guidelines
- Never expose internal code references, file paths, or developer names in the user-facing changelog
- Group related changes together rather than listing individual commits
- If a commit message is unclear, check the associated files and sprint data for context
- Balance changes should always include the design reasoning, not just the numbers
- Known issues should be honest -- users appreciate transparency
- If the git history is messy (merge commits, reverts, fixup commits), clean up the narrative rather than listing every commit literally
Protocol
- Question: Reads version or sprint number from argument; verifies git repo availability before starting
- Options: Skip — both internal and user-facing versions always generated
- Decision: Skip
- Draft: Both changelogs shown in conversation before saving
- Approval: "May I write to
?"production/releases/[version]/changelog.md
Output
Deliver exactly:
- Internal changelog — developer-facing, grouped by category (Features, Fixes, Performance, etc.)
- User-facing changelog — user-friendly language, no internal references
- Both saved to
andproduction/releases/[version]/changelog.mdchangelog-user.md - Excluded items count — internal-only changes omitted from user version