Best for
- The release going out Thursday that still has no notes
- Turning a sprint's merge list into something customers can read
- Keeping the notes honest about what actually shipped
What you give it
- The release's changes (commits, merged PRs, tickets) and the audience channel
What you get back
- The draft: changes grouped and translated into reader impact, trivia filtered out
- The callouts done right: anything breaking or behaviour-changing up top with its steps
- Channel-fitted versions: the in-app note, the email, the docs page — same facts, right length each
How it works
- Works from the real change list, verifying the ambiguous against the diff — notes describe what shipped, not what was planned.
- Leads with what readers must know: breaking or behaviour-visible changes first, features by benefit, fixes by symptom.
- Filters by reader relevance: internal changes compress to a line or vanish; a reader's attention is the budget.
- Produces per-channel versions from one fact set, so the email and the in-app note cannot disagree.
Example
You: Draft Thursday's release notes from these 23 merged changes.
Result: The draft: the headline feature explained by what it lets users do (two sentences, a pointer to the how-to), the behaviour change in date filtering called out with before/after (it is the one support would have heard about Friday), six fixes listed by symptom, nine internal changes compressed to nothing (readers do not care about dependency bumps), and the in-app short version plus the email version from the same facts. Review found one claim to soften — the 'faster exports' needed its caveat about very large files. Shipped with the release.
Limits — please read
- One release, drafted; the ongoing changelog discipline across releases is the bigger practice (an editor agent pairs well).
- Claims about performance or reliability get verified or softened; notes are a promise surface.
- The voice matches samples you provide; without them it stays clean and neutral.