Re0 Release

Run this repo's shipping and releasing checklist on a pending change, then tag and publish once confirmed.

Goal

Make "prepare and ship a release" a single deliberate command instead of re-deriving the shipping and releasing checklist by hand every time. It runs sip when installed, applies commit-economy directly, and never auto-fires another user-invoked skill. It treats "commit" and "tag + push" as two separately-staked moments: a commit stays local and reversible, tag + push is the one step that goes public.

Workflow

1. Confirm shipping readiness against the pending diff — every applicable item from AGENTS.md's Shipping checklist except the version bump and the sip run, which are steps 2 and 3 here:
   • any new or changed SKILL.md has the right shape (frontmatter name+description, disable-model-invocation only if user-invoked, body sections Goal/Workflow/Rules/Verification);
   • the README and every localized copy under docs/readme/ list it accurately, with the right invocation column and in the roster's logical order — the same order held across plugin.json, scripts/catalog.cjs, and re0-upgrade's catalog, kept in lockstep with reorder; the README's Problem removes-list and Fixes narrative include it only if it carries the thesis (most skills earn neither — both are curated);
   • plugin.json registers its path;
   • any rename appends an old -> new row to re0-upgrade's deprecations checklist, in release order;
   • shared cross-skill rules (edit-safety, negatives-as-corpus, commit-economy) stay coherent across every copy that carries them. Report any gap and stop rather than guessing past it.
2. Classify the version bump: a new skill is minor; a fix or docs-only change is patch; a skill removed with no replacement path is major. For an enhancement to an existing skill — the boundary case — decide by kind, not size: relative to the skill's own prior spec, was the old behavior wrong (a fix → patch; new plumbing that only serves a fix stays patch) or correct but narrower / missing a dimension (a new capability a user newly reaches for → minor)? State that answer, not just the bump.
3. Run sip if it is installed, and apply its findings. If it is not installed, run its checks directly in order — cold-read (shower), truth checks only when there is a claim or an eval (factchk/mandela), consistency (ssotize audit first, consolidation only after approval), then tidy (re0) — and apply what they find.
4. Bump package.json's version to the classification from step 2.
5. Draft the commit message to commit-economy — one bullet per real, durable change with supporting edits folded in, nothing the diff or version already proves, no co-author tags, matched to the local log's own shape or, absent one, a subject and one - bullet per change on a single unwrapped line — from the first draft, not appended to across edits. If a commit already exists and needs cleanup, ask the human to run re0-git; do not invoke it automatically.
6. Ask for explicit confirmation, then commit.
7. Write .re0/release/RELEASE_NOTES.local.md — a gitignored, never-shipped local scratch file that rides the signed tag as its message — to this house style: one ## heading naming the release's durable idea, not the version; one short present-tense paragraph of what is true now; only the sections the release earns (### New, ### Also, ### The catalog (N skills) only when the roster needs re-mapping, ### Install always last as an indented block); each externally-contributed change credited inline with its PR number and author handle ((#123, @handle)); skill names and paths in backticks; nothing the tag or version already proves.
8. Ask for a second, separate confirmation before tagging and pushing — this is the one step that goes public. Then: git tag -s vX.Y.Z -F .re0/release/RELEASE_NOTES.local.md --cleanup=verbatim, confirm git tag -v vX.Y.Z reports a good signature, push main, push the tag.
9. Watch the triggered release workflow to completion; report success or the actual failure, never assume it landed. If it failed, fix the cause and re-run it. A tag the author cut wrong (its message, signature or target) is deleted and re-cut at the same version rather than rolled forward to a new one; the version moves on only when a published artifact is wrong. Never finish the workflow's work by hand.
10. Once success is confirmed, close out each external contribution the release landed: whoever reviewed it approves the PR before closing it — a contribution squashed or rebuilt into the release is closed, not merged, so the approval is what records it as accepted rather than rejected — and the closing comment carries the credit the release notes gave it. Any collaborator or maintainer with review access can do this; it is not tied to one reviewer.
11. Then retire the shipped cycle: move its .re0/iteration/<version>-<workname>/ folder into .re0/iteration/completed/<version>-<workname>/, unrenamed. .re0/ is gitignored and never tracked, so use a plain filesystem move (mv), never git mv — the latter fails outright on an untracked path. Skip this step only when the cycle was never planned with re0-plan and has no matching iteration folder.

Rules

• Never invent or assume a CLI command or flag; verify it against official docs or a real run before writing it into a step you will execute.
• The push is the whole manual step. Never run a step the release workflow owns — publishing, titling the release page — by hand, least of all to rescue a failed run; re-cutting the author's own defective tag (step 9) is the one exception, and it is pushed again so the workflow still does the rest. A hand-run step drops what the workflow adds beyond the artifact (a signed provenance attestation, a title convention, a dist-tag) while still looking like a good release, so nothing fails and only a comparison against the previous release reveals it.
• If the pending diff mixes unrelated concerns, say so and propose a split before drafting a message — don't let one commit's message do a diff's job.
• Never push before the local version match holds (package.json equals the tag about to be created); the CI check is a backstop, not the first line of defense.
• negatives-as-corpus — retirement moves the iteration folder, never deletes it. If the release fails or is rolled back, leave the folder live rather than retiring a cycle that didn't actually ship.

Verification

Before finishing:

1. package.json's version matches the tag.
2. The commit message reads as a clean handoff on its own, without the diff.
3. Release notes follow the house style and mention only what this release earns.
4. The pushed tag's triggered workflow run completed successfully — confirmed, not assumed.
5. No step the workflow owns was run by hand, including to rescue a failed run.
6. Each external contribution the release landed had its PR approved before it was closed, with the credit comment attached.
7. The shipped cycle's iteration folder was retired into .re0/iteration/completed/, or correctly skipped because none existed.
8. Report any skipped step or unresolved gap.