Best for
- Projects whose changelog is a raw commit dump
- Communicating breaking changes without support-ticket storms
- Keeping internal and customer-facing notes consistent without double work
What you give it
- The raw material: commits, merged PRs, closed tickets since last release
- The audience(s): developers, end users, or both
What you get back
- Notes organised by what it means to the reader, not by your repo structure
- Breaking changes at the top with migration steps, loudly
- Audience-fitted versions from one pass: technical for developers, benefit-led for users
How it works
- Reads the real changes — commits, diffs, tickets — and filters what no reader needs.
- Translates implementation into effect: what can readers do now, what stops hurting.
- Elevates breaking changes with concrete migration steps and honest effort estimates.
- Names fixes by their symptom so sufferers recognise their bug.
- Keeps the voice and format consistent release over release, per audience.
Example
You: Here are 84 commits since v2.3. Write the release notes.
Result: Grouped into: 2 breaking changes (top, with before/after migration snippets), 5 features written as what-you-can-now-do, 11 notable fixes with their symptom named ('dates no longer shift by a day across time zones'), internals summarised in one line — plus a short customer-email version in the same pass.
Limits — please read
- Commit quality bounds archaeology; cryptic histories mean questions back to you.
- It drafts; claims about risky changes should get a maintainer's eye before publishing.
- Marketing superlatives are refused on purpose — credibility is the asset.