Summary
platform_engineer/release_builder still tends to jump too quickly from release audit into workflow setup. It should first force the user to define the repository's release policy, then implement automation that matches that policy.
Problem
The current flow can produce a technically valid release pipeline while still missing critical product-level release decisions. Keystone exposed this gap.
Examples of policy questions that materially affect the implementation:
- release cadence
- version semantics for major/minor/patch
- stabilization model and duration
- backport policy
- hotfix policy
- merge-back policy
- publish targets
- stable vs unstable consumer guidance
Without these answers, the job can overfit to defaults or infer a release model from tooling rather than user intent.
Desired behavior
platform_engineer/release_builder should:
- detect which release-policy decisions are already explicit in repo docs and automation
- treat unresolved policy decisions as audit gaps
- ask the user to resolve those gaps before configuring automation
- record the chosen release policy in
release_docs.md
- ensure the resulting CI workflow, branch rules, and docs implement the chosen policy rather than implicit defaults
Acceptance criteria
audit_release explicitly reports unresolved release-policy questions
setup_release_pipeline refuses to proceed on implicit defaults when policy decisions remain ambiguous
- the workflow asks about cadence, version semantics, stabilization, backports, hotfixes, merge-back, publish targets, and stable vs unstable guidance when not already explicit
release_docs.md includes a dedicated release-policy section
- generated automation is validated against the chosen policy
Context
This came from running platform_engineer/release_builder against Keystone. The release branch mechanics were implemented, but the job should have interviewed the user more deeply about the release contract before writing the automation.
Summary
platform_engineer/release_builderstill tends to jump too quickly from release audit into workflow setup. It should first force the user to define the repository's release policy, then implement automation that matches that policy.Problem
The current flow can produce a technically valid release pipeline while still missing critical product-level release decisions. Keystone exposed this gap.
Examples of policy questions that materially affect the implementation:
Without these answers, the job can overfit to defaults or infer a release model from tooling rather than user intent.
Desired behavior
platform_engineer/release_buildershould:release_docs.mdAcceptance criteria
audit_releaseexplicitly reports unresolved release-policy questionssetup_release_pipelinerefuses to proceed on implicit defaults when policy decisions remain ambiguousrelease_docs.mdincludes a dedicated release-policy sectionContext
This came from running
platform_engineer/release_builderagainst Keystone. The release branch mechanics were implemented, but the job should have interviewed the user more deeply about the release contract before writing the automation.