changelog-from-commits
Skill53 starsChanged 54 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when cutting a release, writing a CHANGELOG entry, or summarizing what changed since a tag — when the repo's commits follow (or mostly follow) Conventional Commits and a mechanically-accurate section breakdown beats a model's reading of the diff.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- sharklandy/claude-code-starter-kittheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- rockscy/solo-skillstheir own version, first seen Apr 30, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- rockscy/solo-skills★ 8same name
- sharklandy/claude-code-starter-kit★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- llms.txtllms.txt
- capability-auditSkill
- deterministic-checksSkill
- doc-link-auditSkill
- find-promptSkill
- skill-auditSkill
- capability-auditSkill
- changelog-from-commitsSkill
- deterministic-checksSkill
- doc-link-auditSkill
- find-promptSkill
- skill-auditSkill
The file
Files
Changelog From Commits
Overview
Parses git log against the Conventional Commits spec and prints a categorized changelog: Features, Fixes, Performance, Refactoring, Docs, Tests, Build, CI, Chore, Other, plus a BREAKING CHANGES section pulled from ! markers and BREAKING CHANGE: footers. Deterministic — the categorization is a fact about the commit message, not a judgment call, so a script produces it more reliably than a model re-reading commit subjects.
Core principle: A changelog section is either correct (matches the commit's own declared type) or it silently drops/miscategorizes a change. Parsing is not the place for approximation.
Usage
bash ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/generate.sh [from-ref] [to-ref]from-refdefaults to the most recent tag, or the repo's root commit if there are no tags.to-refdefaults toHEAD.- Requires a git repository; exits 2 if run outside one.
- Prints Markdown to stdout — pipe into a file, or paste directly into
CHANGELOG.md.
bash ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/generate.sh v1.2.0 HEAD > /tmp/new-entries.md
bash ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/generate.sh # since the last tag, to HEADWhat it gets right and what it doesn't
Reliable: type(scope)!: subject parsing, breaking-change detection (! or a BREAKING CHANGE: footer), section grouping, short-hash linking, merge commits excluded automatically.
Falls back to "Other": any commit whose subject doesn't start with a known Conventional Commits type (feat/fix/perf/refactor/docs/test/build/ci/chore) — including free-text subjects like "Initial plan" or "Add X". A repo that doesn't consistently use Conventional Commits will produce a large "Other" section; that's an honest signal about the commit history, not a script bug. See it happen: run this against this library's own pre-2.0 history and most entries land in Other because they predate the Conventional Commits convention adopted later.
Not attempted: rewriting or improving commit subjects, deduplicating near-identical entries, or inferring a type the author didn't declare.
After generating
The script produces raw categorized entries — it does not write prose framing, a version header, or a date. Add those yourself (or ask the active agent to), and edit any "Other" entries that deserve reclassification before they ship in a release. Don't paste the raw output into CHANGELOG.md as the final section without a pass over "Other" and "BREAKING CHANGES" — those two sections are exactly where a human or model read adds real value on top of the deterministic parse.
Remember
Categorization is deterministic; the narrative framing around it (a version header, a "why" sentence, what to call out) is not. Do the first with the script, the second with judgment.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

