# 🤖 Review brief: the platform changelog spec

You are reviewing `docs/superpowers/specs/2026-10-06-platform-changelog-design.md`
in this repo (carlos/platform), at the commit you are run on. You are the
independent second reader; the author is Claude.

The website it renders on is a separate checkout at
`/home/paulca/github.com/carlosframework/website` (read `AGENTS.md`,
`eleventy.config.js`, `hack/sync-docs.mjs`, `hack/check-docs.mjs` there).

## Fixed: do not reopen

The four rulings at the top of the spec are Paul's. Report only where the
mechanism fails to honour them, not whether they are right.

## What to look for

1. **Wrong facts.** Check every claim in "What exists" against the repo:
   run `git log --first-parent`, `git for-each-ref refs/amadan/closed`
   (may need `git fetch origin '+refs/amadan/closed/*:refs/amadan/closed/*'`
   first; if you cannot fetch, say so), and read `internal/docsite`.
2. **Mechanisms that produce wrong output.** Branch-name parsing, the
   own-commit ranges (squash with tombstone, two-parent merge, direct),
   credit resolution, discussion-number filtering, docs-link derivation,
   notes parsing across both shapes. Name a concrete commit or tag in
   this repo where the rule gives a wrong or misleading line.
3. **Privacy and accuracy on a public page.** Anything that could publish
   an email address, a private repo link, or credit the wrong person.
4. **Gaps the gate misses.** What could be wrong in the committed JSON
   and still pass `changelog_test.go` and the website's check.
5. **Scope.** Anything that should be cut.

## Output

A numbered list of findings, each with severity (P1 breaks the page or
publishes something wrong; P2 misleading or fragile; P3 nit), the spec
line it is about, the evidence (command and output, or file:line), and a
proposed fix. Then a one-line verdict: accept, accept with fixes, or
reject. Do not edit any file.