prepare-providers-documentation

---
name: prepare-providers-documentation
description: >
  Replace the manual commit-by-commit classification step in
  `breeze release-management prepare-provider-documentation` with AI-driven
  classification. For each provider with pending changes, analyze every PR
  (batched into one sub-agent per provider, not one per PR), pay special
  attention to potentially breaking
  changes by inspecting the actual diff, scope multi-provider PRs to the
  current provider's slice, ask the release manager when uncertain, and
  apply version bumps + changelog entries. Use during the regular provider
  release cycle as an alternative to the interactive breeze prompts.
license: Apache-2.0
---
<!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
     https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 -->

# Prepare Providers Documentation (AI-driven)

This skill replaces the manual commit-by-commit classification step that the
release manager normally performs when running
`breeze release-management prepare-provider-documentation`. Instead of asking
the release manager to type `d`/`b`/`f`/`x`/`m`/`s`/`v` for each commit, the
skill drives the classification itself — inspecting every PR (with extra care
for potentially breaking changes), scoping multi-provider PRs to the slice
that touched the current provider, and asking the release manager only when
genuinely uncertain.

The skill keeps the existing breeze tooling as the source of truth for
template generation. Claude only owns the classification + version bump +
changelog entries; everything else (`__init__.py`, `README.rst`,
`pyproject.toml`, `conf.py`, `get_provider_info.py`, `index.rst`) is still
regenerated by `breeze release-management prepare-provider-documentation
--reapply-templates-only`.

> [!IMPORTANT]
> This is a release-manager workflow. It mutates `provider.yaml` and
> `changelog.rst` for many providers in one pass. Always run on a clean
> working tree (or in a dedicated branch) and let the release manager review
> the diff before committing.

---

## When to Use This Skill

Use during the regular provider release cycle, in place of either of:

```shell
breeze release-management prepare-provider-documentation
breeze release-management prepare-provider-documentation --incremental-update
```

…when the release manager wants Claude to classify the changes instead of
doing it by hand. The skill covers the same scope: classifying changes,
bumping versions, generating changelog sections, reapplying templates, and
folding new commits into an already-prepared release PR (incremental
update).

Two entry points:

- **Initial run** — classify everything from scratch for a new release.
  Follow Phases 1–5 below.
- **Incremental update** — extend an existing release PR with commits that
  landed on `main` since the changelog was first generated (typical when
  rebasing a release PR before merging). Skip ahead to the
  **Incremental Update** section after Phase 5.

Either entry point runs in one of two **release shapes**. Establish which one
applies before starting — the incremental flow behaves differently in each:

- **Wave** (the default) — the regular cycle that releases *every* provider
  with pending changes. The provider list is an **output** of the run, so it
  may legitimately grow between the initial cut and the merge.
- **Ad-hoc** — a release deliberately scoped to a fixed provider list (the
  release manager named a subset, or set `DISTRIBUTIONS_LIST`). The provider
  list is an **input** and must not grow on its own.

Ask the release manager if it is not obvious, and record the answer —
Incremental Phases 2 and 3.6 branch on it.

Do **not** use this skill for:

- `--only-min-version-update` runs (these don't need classification — just
  run breeze directly).
- Releasing from a non-`main` base branch unless you also pass the right
  `--base-branch` to the breeze invocations described below.
- Removing providers (state changes belong in a separate PR).

---

## Inputs You Need Before Starting

Ask the release manager (and confirm by reading the answers back) for:

1. **`RELEASE_DATE`** in `YYYY-MM-DD` (or `YYYY-MM-DD_NN`) format, e.g.
   `2026-04-26`. This is what breeze stamps into
   `providers/.last_release_date.txt`.
2. **Base branch** — defaults to `main`. Only override when releasing from a
   provider-specific branch (e.g. `provider-cncf-kubernetes/v4-4`).
3. **Subset of providers**, if any. By default, classify every provider that
   has pending changes since its last release tag. If the release manager
   wants a subset (or has set `DISTRIBUTIONS_LIST`), use that list.
4. **Include flags**: whether to include `--include-not-ready-providers`
   and/or `--include-removed-providers`.

Set the environment for the session:

```bash
export RELEASE_DATE=<date>
# Optional, scopes everything to a subset
export DISTRIBUTIONS_LIST="<provider1> <provider2> ..."
```

Make sure the `apache-https-for-providers` git remote exists and is up to
date — running breeze the first time below will recreate and fetch it.

---

## Workflow

The skill runs in five phases. Mark tasks with `TaskCreate` for each phase
and tick them off as you go — the release manager wants to see progress.

### Phase 1 — Discover and pre-classify pending changes (deterministic)

The source of truth for "what changed since last release" is the same git
query breeze uses internally: commits between the latest release tag for that
provider (`providers-<id>/<version>`) and `apache-https-for-providers/<base-branch>`,
restricted to the provider's own folders.

Run the **deterministic classifier** — it discovers every provider with pending
changes **and** pre-classifies each commit with hard-coded, high-confidence
rules, flagging only the genuinely ambiguous ones as `needs_llm`. No random
answers, nothing to discard:

```bash
breeze release-management classify-provider-changes \
    --base-branch main \
    --output-file /tmp/provider-changes.json
# scope to a subset by appending provider ids, e.g. ... amazon cncf.kubernetes
```

The JSON it writes:

```json
{
  "base_branch": "main",
  "providers": {
    "amazon": {
      "current_version": "9.29.0",
      "commits": [
        {"hash": "c2dbd7a75a", "pr": "67987", "subject": "Fix IDC domain S3 path resolution",
         "classification": "needs_llm", "reason": "no high-confidence deterministic rule matched"},
        {"hash": "abc123", "pr": "68087", "subject": "Bump the edge-ui-package-updates group ...",
         "classification": "misc", "reason": "dependency bump (subject starts with 'Bump')"}
      ]
    }
  }
}
```

How to read it:

- Providers under `providers` have pending changes (these need attention).
- `classification ∈ {documentation, skip, misc}` are **decided by rules — take
  them as-is**, no sub-agent needed (doc-only → `documentation`, test/example
  only → `skip`, `Bump …` dependency bump → `misc`).
- `classification == needs_llm` → **Phase 3 decides** with a sub-agent. These are
  the only commits that need LLM analysis.
- A provider with a `note`/`error` (e.g. a brand-new provider with no prior
  release tag) → treat as an **initial release** and classify by hand.

> [!NOTE]
> The classifier is deliberately conservative: `Fix …`/`Add …` subjects are
> **not** auto-classified (an "Add …" can be a breaking change), so they come
> back as `needs_llm`. The rules live in `classify_change_deterministically`
> (`dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/prepare_providers/provider_documentation.py`).

The range the classifier reports is not fixed for the whole run — it widens once
a provider actually gets a version bump:

> [!WARNING]
> **A version bump supersedes the provider's doc-only marker — re-run discovery
> after Phase 4a.** When `docs/.latest-doc-only-change.txt` is present the
> classifier starts the range at that commit, so anything older (earlier doc-only
> changes, tooling churn) is hidden for as long as the provider has no pending
> release. That is correct while nothing ships — but the moment the provider gets
> a real version bump the marker no longer applies, and those commits are part of
> what the release publishes.
>
> Re-run `classify-provider-changes` **after** bumping versions and fold in every
> commit that newly appears; otherwise the release silently drops doc-only
> entries that were only ever suppressed by the marker. The tell is a provider
> whose commit count grows between two runs without any new merges. Observed in
> the 2026-08-01 wave: `cohere` gained #69649, `dbt.cloud`/`presto`/`trino` gained
> #69478, and `papermill` gained #68322 — all invisible in the first pass.

Then regenerate the auto-generated build files (this does **no** classification,
so nothing random is produced):

```bash
breeze release-management prepare-provider-documentation \
    --reapply-templates-only --release-date "$RELEASE_DATE"
git checkout -- $(git diff --name-only -- '**/provider.yaml' '**/changelog.rst')
```

This leaves the regenerated build files (`__init__.py`, `README.rst`,
`pyproject.toml`, `conf.py`, `get_provider_info.py`, `index.rst`) in place and
discards only the changelog/version files Claude is about to rewrite itself.

### Phase 2 — Per-provider commit list

For each provider in **Success** from Phase 1, get the same commit list that
breeze would have shown. From the repo root:

```bash
PROVIDER_ID=<dotted.id>      # e.g. amazon, cncf.kubernetes
PROVIDER_PATH=$(echo "$PROVIDER_ID" | tr '.' '/')   # folder path: cncf/kubernetes
PROVIDER_TAG=$(echo "$PROVIDER_ID" | tr '.' '-')    # tag segment: cncf-kubernetes
# Pick the latest *final* release tag. Two gotchas the tag pattern must handle:
#  * dotted provider ids use HYPHENS in tag names (providers-cncf-kubernetes/<ver>),
#    even though the source folder uses slashes — build the tag prefix from
#    PROVIDER_TAG, not PROVIDER_PATH;
#  * skip the sentinel upper-bound tags (providers-<id>/99.98.0, /99.99.0) and rc
#    tags — git's default version sort orders "1.2.0rc1" AFTER "1.2.0", so a bare
#    `head -n1` would otherwise select a sentinel or a release candidate.
LAST_TAG=$(git tag --list "providers-${PROVIDER_TAG}/*" --sort=-v:refname \
    | grep -vE '/99\.9[0-9]\.' | grep -vE 'rc[0-9]+$' | head -n1)
git log --pretty=format:'%H %h %cd %s' --date=short \
    "${LAST_TAG}..apache-https-for-providers/main" \
    -- "providers/${PROVIDER_PATH}/"
```

> [!WARNING]
> This git query is a convenience for building the per-provider commit list, but
> the **authoritative set is what breeze prints in the Phase 1 "Commit" tables**
> for each provider. The tag-based range can still diverge from breeze when a
> provider's most recent *final* tag is not the last actually-published release
> (for example, a wave commit bumped the version on `main` but the published
> baseline is older), which makes breeze include repo-wide commits this query
> misses. When the two disagree, trust breeze's list and reconcile against it
> before classifying.

Capture the full hash, short hash, date, subject, and `#NNNN` PR number for
each commit. Note that some old providers also have legacy paths under
`airflow/providers/<id>/` — include those when present (consult
`provider_details.possible_old_provider_paths` semantics by checking the
provider's `provider.yaml` history if needed).

### Phase 3 — Classify the PRs (inline, or batched per-provider sub-agents)

For each commit, classify it into one of:

| Code | Meaning                                        | Version bump   |
| ---- | ---------------------------------------------- | -------------- |
| `d`  | Documentation-only                             | none (patch if combined) |
| `b`  | Bug fix                                        | patch          |
| `f`  | Feature                                        | minor          |
| `x`  | Breaking change                                | major          |
| `m`  | Misc (deps, refactors, internal only)          | patch          |
| `s`  | Skip (test/CI/example only — no user impact)   | none           |
| `v`  | Min Airflow version bump                       | minor (treated as misc + bump) |

#### Take the deterministic classifications from Phase 1

`classify-provider-changes` (Phase 1) already classified every commit it could
with hard-coded rules. Read `/tmp/provider-changes.json` and:

- Use any commit whose `classification` is `documentation`, `skip`, or `misc`
  **as-is** — these map to `d`, `s`, `m` respectively; no sub-agent needed.
- Only commits with `classification: needs_llm` go to a sub-agent (below).

The deterministic rules (doc-only → `d`, test/example-only → `s`, `Bump …`
dependency bump → `m`) are exactly the cheap cases — now computed once by
breeze (`classify_change_deterministically`) instead of re-derived here. If you
ever need the min-Airflow-bump case (`v`), that one is still a `needs_llm`
judgement: a sub-agent should flag it when a PR bumps the provider's minimum
Airflow version.

> [!NOTE]
> A `needs_llm` commit can still be classified as `skip` by the LLM. The
> deterministic classifier only catches test/example-only changes by looking
> at which files were modified in the commit. PRs that change build tooling,
> packaging infrastructure, or breeze templates (files under `dev/breeze/`,
> `scripts/`, etc.) and only regenerate template-generated files in the
> provider slice (e.g. `README.rst`, `index.rst`, `pyproject.toml`) are NOT
> caught by the deterministic rules but should still be classified as `skip`
> — they have zero user-facing impact on the provider package itself.

That rule cuts one way only. Read the next one before applying it.

> [!WARNING]
> The converse trap: a PR is **not** `skip` merely because its subject
> describes tooling. `provider.yaml` is a **source** file, never a regenerated
> one — anything it declares (`connection-types`, `conn-fields`,
> `ui-field-behaviour`, `extra-links`, `hook-class-names`, dependencies) ships
> to users through `get_provider_info.py`, so a change to it is `misc` at
> minimum. `get_provider_info.py` moving *because `provider.yaml` moved* is
> therefore not "regenerated metadata" in the sense above. Worked example:
> `Fix conn-fields check crash for nested provider packages (#70224)` fixes a
> prek check under `scripts/ci/prek/`, and in the same commit declares a new
> `Verify SSL` connection-form field for `atlassian.jira` — `misc`, not `skip`.
> Classify from the provider-scoped diff, never from the subject.

#### Classify the `needs_llm` commits — batched per provider, not one agent per PR

Only the commits the classifier returned as `needs_llm` still need a sub-agent.
Classification is the token-heavy part of this skill, so spend sub-agents
sparingly. Do **not** spawn one sub-agent per PR — that is one agent per
commit and balloons to hundreds of agents on a normal release wave. Pick the
smallest fan-out that fits the volume:

- **Few `needs_llm` commits remain (≲ 15 across all providers) → classify inline.**
  Read each PR and its provider-scoped diff yourself, in this context. Spawn no
  sub-agents at all.
- **More than that → one sub-agent per provider.** Each agent classifies that
  provider's *entire* remaining `needs_llm` list in a single pass. This is the
  natural unit: multi-provider PRs are classified independently per provider
  anyway (see Cross-Cutting Rules), and one provider-scoped agent amortizes
  the breaking-change checklist across all of that provider's commits instead
  of paying a fresh agent spin-up per commit. Only split a provider across
  more than one agent when its remaining list is large (> ~25 commits) — chunk
  it then. This keeps the sub-agent count at roughly the number of providers
  with pending changes, not the number of commits.

Use the `Explore` agent type — they need read-only access. Brief each
sub-agent with its provider and the whole batch of commits it owns:

```
Classify a batch of Apache Airflow provider PRs for ONE provider.

Provider:  <provider-id>      (path: providers/<provider-path>/)
Commits to classify (<N>) — one row per PR:
  #<NNNN>  <full-hash>  <subject>
  #<MMMM>  <full-hash>  <subject>
  …(this provider's full remaining list)

For EACH commit above:
1. Read the PR's title, body, and labels:
   `gh pr view <NNNN> --json title,body,labels,files`
2. Read the diff for the slice of the PR that touched
   providers/<provider-path>/ only:
   `gh pr diff <NNNN> -- 'providers/<provider-path>/**'`
   (When the PR touches multiple providers, you only care about the slice
   for THIS provider — ignore the others when classifying.)
3. Decide a single classification:
   - documentation: only docs/comments/typos in the provider slice
   - bugfix:        fixes incorrect behavior, no API changes
   - feature:       adds new capability, parameter, operator, sensor, hook,
                    or extends an existing one in a backwards-compatible way
   - breaking:      see "Breaking-change checklist" below
   - misc:          dependency bumps, internal refactors, type-hint
                    cleanups, no user-visible behavior
   - skip:          only tests/examples/CI for this provider's slice,
                    OR changes that only touch build tooling, packaging
                    infrastructure, or template-generated files (e.g.
                    README.rst, index.rst, pyproject.toml regeneration,
                    flit/sdist config, breeze templates) — even when
                    those files live under the provider path. If the
                    PR's actual code changes are entirely in dev/breeze/
                    or similar tooling and the provider-scoped diff is
                    limited to regenerated docs/metadata, classify as
                    skip. NEVER skip a slice that touches
                    provider.yaml — that is a source file whose
                    contents ship in get_provider_info.py
                    (connection-types, conn-fields,
                    ui-field-behaviour, extra-links, dependencies),
                    so it is misc at minimum even when the PR's
                    headline change is tooling.
   - min_airflow_bump: explicitly bumps the minimum Airflow version pin
4. Set BREAKING_RISK to "maybe" whenever the diff has any signal from the
   breaking-change checklist below, even if you think the author intended
   otherwise.

Output one row per commit and nothing else, in this exact pipe format
(<N> rows for <N> commits):

   #<NNNN> | <documentation|bugfix|feature|breaking|misc|skip|min_airflow_bump> | <high|medium|low> | <none|maybe|yes> | <one-sentence justification>

A change is only breaking if the thing it breaks was **released**. Removing,
renaming, or altering a symbol/behavior that was *introduced in this same
unreleased wave* (i.e. the feature was added in one pending commit and
changed in another, both after the provider's last release tag) is NOT a
breaking change — users never received the old form, so there is nothing to
break. Before classifying any removal/rename as breaking, confirm the affected
symbol existed at the last released version:
`git show providers-<id>/<last-version>:providers/<path>/... | grep <symbol>`
(or grep the last release tag). If it isn't there, treat the change as part of
delivering the new feature (feature/misc), not breaking. A within-wave rename
of a brand-new operator or plugin is feature-shaped, not a major bump.

Breaking-change checklist (any of these → BREAKING_RISK >= maybe; usually
breaking unless clearly behind a deprecation shim) — **each item assumes the
affected symbol/behavior shipped in a released version, per the rule above**:
  * Public class/function/method removed or renamed
    in the **public interface** of the provider — i.e. files under
    `providers/<path>/src/**/{hooks,operators,sensors,triggers,
    notifications,decorators,executors}/**`, the provider's
    top-level package `__init__.py`, plus anything imported by
    `provider.yaml` (`hook-class-names`, `extra-links`, etc.).
    Internal helpers (e.g. `utils/`, `_internal/`, `pod_manager.py`,
    or any module not re-exported from the package or referenced
    in `provider.yaml`) are NOT breaking on their own. NOT in tests/.
  * Required parameter added to a public constructor or operator __init__
  * Default value of a public parameter changed
  * Return type or signature of a public method changed
  * `extra_dejson` / connection-form fields removed or renamed
  * Behavior change in `execute()`, `poke()`, `get_conn()` that produces
    different results for the same inputs
  * Minimum Python or Airflow version bumped (separate: that's
    min_airflow_bump unless the bump excludes a previously supported version
    of a provider's hard dependency, in which case it's also breaking)
  * Removed deprecation: a previously-deprecated symbol is now deleted
  * Schema change in stored data (xcom, connection, asset metadata,
    or the serialized state/context of a `BaseTrigger` subclass —
    deferred tasks survive provider upgrades only if the trigger's
    `serialize()` payload stays compatible)

Do NOT trust the PR title alone — read the diff. A PR titled "Refactor X"
that removes a public method is breaking. A PR titled "BREAKING: rename
foo" that only renames a private symbol is not. A PR that renames a public
class introduced earlier *in this same unreleased wave* is not breaking
either — the old name was never released (see the released-only rule above).
```

Collect every sub-agent's rows (and any you classified inline) into one
classification table for Phase 3.5.

### Phase 3.5 — Confirm with the release manager

Print a per-provider summary in this exact format (so the release manager
can scan it quickly):

```
Provider: amazon
Current version: 9.12.0
Most-impactful change: feature → next version: 9.13.0

Commits (12):
  abc1234  d   high   docs: fix S3 example                                  #65000
  def5678  b   high   Fix retry on transient SQS error                      #65010
  9ab0123  f   high   Add wait_for_completion to AthenaOperator              #65020
  4cd5678  x   med    Remove deprecated S3Hook.list_objects                  #65030  ⚠ BREAKING
  7ef9012  m   high   Bump aiobotocore to 2.13                              #65040
  ...
Uncertain: 2 commits below — please confirm:
  4cd5678  x   med    Remove deprecated S3Hook.list_objects (#65030)
    Why: list_objects is documented as deprecated since 8.0.0 but never
    raised DeprecationWarning, so removal may surprise users.
  abc4321  ?   low    "Refactor Athena client" (#65060)
    Why: PR description says non-breaking but diff changes the default
    region resolution from env to provider extras.
```

Always escalate to the release manager when:

- `CONFIDENCE: low` from any sub-agent.
- `BREAKING_RISK: maybe` but the sub-agent classified as anything other than
  `breaking`.
- Same PR appears in multiple providers and got different classifications
  across them — explain why and let the RM call it.
- Most-impactful change is `breaking` (major bump): always reconfirm
  explicitly before applying. Major bumps are never silent.

If the release manager corrects a classification, **save it** in your
classification table and re-derive the most-impactful change.

### Phase 4 — Apply classifications

For each provider, in order:

#### 4a. Bump the version in `provider.yaml`

Open `providers/<provider-path>/provider.yaml`, find the `versions:` block,
and prepend the new version. The bump rule (most-impactful classification
across all commits for this provider, computed in Phase 3.5):

| Most-impactful           | Bump          |
| ------------------------ | ------------- |
| `breaking`               | major (X+1.0.0) |
| `feature`                | minor (X.Y+1.0) |
| `min_airflow_bump`       | minor (X.Y+1.0) |
| `bugfix`                 | patch (X.Y.Z+1) |
| `misc`                   | patch (X.Y.Z+1) |
| `documentation` only     | no bump — handle as doc-only (see below) |
| `skip` only              | no bump — nothing to do |

Also update `source-date-epoch:` to the current `int(time.time())`.

For **doc-only** providers, do not bump the version. Instead, write the
latest commit hash from the doc-only batch into
`providers/<provider-path>/docs/.latest-doc-only-change.txt` (newline
terminated). This is what breeze checks on the next release to know the
provider hasn't really changed.

#### 4b. Write the changelog entry

Open `providers/<provider-path>/docs/changelog.rst`. Insert a new section
*above* the most recent existing version section. The exact format must
match `dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/templates/CHANGELOG_TEMPLATE.rst.jinja2`
— don't paraphrase it. The skeleton:

```rst
<NEW_VERSION>
<dots matching length of NEW_VERSION>

.. note::
    This release of provider is only available for Airflow X.Y+ as explained in the
    Apache Airflow providers support policy <https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/PROVIDERS.rst#minimum-supported-version-of-airflow-for-community-managed-providers>_.

Breaking changes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* ``<commit subject for breaking change> (#NNNN)``

Features
~~~~~~~~

* ``<commit subject for feature> (#NNNN)``

Bug Fixes
~~~~~~~~~

* ``<commit subject for bugfix> (#NNNN)``

Misc
~~~~

* ``<commit subject for misc/min_airflow_bump> (#NNNN)``

Doc-only
~~~~~~~~

* ``<commit subject for doc> (#NNNN)``

.. Below changes are excluded from the changelog. Move them to
   appropriate section above if needed. Do not delete the lines(!):
   * ``<commit subject for skip> (#NNNN)``
```

Rules:

- A `.. note::` block at the top of the version section (directly under the
  `<dots>` underline, before the first `~~~` header) is used in two distinct
  situations. Include it whenever **either** applies — combine the wording
  into a single note, or stack two notes, when both do:
  - **Airflow min-version bump** — when the bump was driven by a
    `min_airflow_bump` (or by a `breaking` whose breaking aspect *is* the
    Airflow min bump), use the support-policy wording shown in the skeleton.
  - **Breaking change** — for **every** `breaking` classification (major
    bump, including a `0.x` minor that ships a breaking change), add a note
    explaining *what* breaks and *how users should adapt* (the migration
    path). Write it from the PR description and the actual diff, not as a
    restatement of the commit subject — the reader must learn how to react
    without opening the PR. This mirrors the standing changelog convention
    ("only add notes … when there are some breaking changes and you want to
    add an explanation to the users on how they are supposed to deal with
    them"). The bullet under `Breaking changes` still lists the commit
    subject as usual; the note is in addition to it, not a replacement.
- Drop a section entirely if it has no entries (e.g. no `Breaking changes`
  section if there were none — don't leave an empty header).
- The `.. Below changes are excluded ...` block at the end is required even
  if empty. Lines under it use the indented `   * ``...``` form (three-space
  indent, double backticks).
- Subjects must be the original commit subject with backticks replaced by
  single quotes (matches `message_without_backticks`). Don't paraphrase.
- **Exception — rewrite subjects written in project-internal language.** The
  don't-paraphrase rule keeps you honest about *what* shipped; it does not
  oblige you to publish a subject the reader cannot act on. The changelog is
  read by users, not by us. Rewrite the entry — keeping every `(#NNNN)` — when
  the subject is only meaningful inside the project:
  - **Spell out internal abbreviations.** `KPO`, `DFP`, `TI`, `RTIF`, `OL` and
    friends are our shorthand. Write ``Add '--min-completed-minutes' to
    'cleanup-pods' to prevent KubernetesPodOperator race condition (#70595)``,
    not ``… to prevent KPO race condition (#70595)``.
  - **Name what a grouped dependency bump actually changed.** Dependabot group
    subjects such as ``Bump the fab-ui-package-updates group across 1 directory
    with 3 updates (#70604)`` tell the reader nothing. Read the PR diff and list
    the packages with their versions: ``Bump prettier to 3.9.6, stylelint to
    17.14.1, webpack to 5.109.0 (#70604)``. A single-package bump still needs
    its target version: ``Bump eslint to 10.8.0 (#70697)``.
  - **Describe the user-visible effect, not the internal mechanic.** ``Remove
    noqa:S101 from production code (#70378)`` names a lint directive; the reader
    wants ``Mark asserts under 'TYPE_CHECKING' in 'DocumentLoaderOperator'
    (#70378)``.
  - **Drop our test vocabulary.** A system test is just an example Dag to the
    user, so ``Remove hard-coded deferrable crawler run from example_glue system
    test (#70206)`` becomes ``Remove hard-coded deferrable crawler run from
    example_glue (#70206)``.

  Rewrite the *wording*, never the *claim* — do not describe behaviour that did
  not ship. When a subject is too vague to rewrite honestly, read the PR diff
  before writing the entry.
- **Exception — collapse within-wave "add then rename/rework" chains into one
  net entry.** When several pending commits are steps toward *one* net change —
  a feature added in one PR and renamed or reworked in a later PR, both since
  the last release (the released-only situation from Phase 3) — do **not** list
  the intermediate steps as separate entries. A reader who never saw the
  released intermediate form gets no context from ``Add X listener (#a)`` under
  Features plus ``Rename X to Y (#b)`` under Misc. Write a **single** entry that
  describes the **net user-facing change** and references **all** related PRs,
  placed in the section of the most-impactful step. Real example: #68082 added
  a Kafka listener and #70014 renamed it to the Kafka Event Producer in the same
  wave → ``Add Kafka Event Producer publishing DagRun and TaskInstance
  state-change events (#68082, #70014)`` under Features (and *no* separate Misc
  "Rename …" line). This is the changelog counterpart of the unreleased-feature
  classification rule: classify the rename as non-breaking (Phase 3) **and**
  describe only what shipped, naming every PR involved.
- **Capitalize the first letter of every entry**, not only after stripping a
  Conventional Commit prefix. Contributors sometimes write a lowercase subject
  (`derive keycloak oauth redirect_uri …`) or a pseudo-scope
  (`cncf-kubernetes: fix …`); the changelog convention is a leading capital, so
  render them as ``Derive keycloak oauth redirect_uri …`` /
  ``Cncf-kubernetes: fix …``.
- **Strip Conventional Commit prefixes** before writing to the changelog.
  If the subject starts with a prefix like `feat:`, `fix:`, `chore:`,
  `docs:`, `refactor:`, `ci:`, `test:`, `perf:`, `build:`, or `style:`
  (with or without a scope in parentheses, e.g. `fix(amazon):`), remove
  the prefix and capitalize the first letter of the remaining text.
  Example: `refactor: Fix _is_http_client_closed ...` →
  `Fix _is_http_client_closed ...`. Airflow does not use Conventional
  Commits and these prefixes should not appear in changelogs.
- **Send no-PR release-tooling commits to the excluded block**, even when the
  Phase 1 deterministic classifier labeled them `documentation`. Subjects like
  ``Prepare … providers release/documentation …`` and ``Hide non-user-facing
  entries from ad-hoc provider release notes`` (often with no `(#NNNN)` suffix
  because they were committed directly) are release plumbing, not user-facing
  changes — a `(#NNNN)`-less line in a visible section reads as a mistake. Put
  them under the `.. Below changes are excluded …` block. breeze's deterministic
  classification can even be inconsistent for the same commit across providers,
  so normalize to excluded.
- Always keep the `(#NNNN)` PR suffix (or, for a collapsed chain, the
  comma-separated list of all involved PRs).
- **Order entries within each section by merge order, newest first** — the exact
  order `git log` printed them in Phase 1. `CHANGELOG_TEMPLATE.rst.jinja2`
  iterates the changes without sorting, so that order *is* the format. It is
  **not** descending PR number: a long-lived PR merged late carries a low number
  and still belongs at the top (real example: `#64274` sits second in amazon
  9.32.0's `Features`). Don't re-sort by PR number and don't group by theme.
  The excluded block follows the same order. A collapsed chain — one entry
  naming several PRs — sits at the position of its **first** commit, which is
  when the change became relevant, not at the position of the later rework.
- **Never adopt an entry a contributor pre-wrote at the top of
  `changelog.rst`** — above the first version header — without checking its PR
  number against `git log`. Those blocks are written before the PR merges, so
  the number in them is a guess and is often wrong or nonexistent. Keep the
  prose, replace the reference with the real merge commit's `(#NNNN)`.

#### 4c. Regenerate templates with breeze

Once **all** providers have their `provider.yaml` and `changelog.rst`
updated, run:

```bash
breeze release-management prepare-provider-documentation \
    --reapply-templates-only \
    --skip-git-fetch \
    --release-date "$RELEASE_DATE"
```

This regenerates `__init__.py`, `README.rst`, `pyproject.toml`, `conf.py`,
`get_provider_info.py`, and `index.rst` for every provider — picking up the
new versions you just wrote. It will not touch `changelog.rst`.

> [!NOTE]
> `commits.rst` per provider is also stable template content (the actual
> commit list is rendered at doc-build time via the
> `airflow-providers-commits` directive). It will be regenerated on the
> next full release. No action needed here.

#### 4d. Resolve `# use next version` inter-provider pins

Contributors can defer an inter-provider dependency bump by pinning it in
`pyproject.toml` with a trailing `# use next version` comment, instead of
hard-coding a version that does not exist yet. Now that the versions are
bumped, resolve those pins:

```bash
breeze release-management update-providers-next-version
```

This rewrites every `# use next version` dependency to the just-bumped
version of the referenced provider and removes the comment. Pins whose
referenced provider already has a final release tag are left alone (the
"next version" is then a future release); when only release candidate tags
exist the pin is updated with a warning, revert it if that provider is in
vote rather than re-cut in this release.

> [!IMPORTANT]
> **Run this every time, before opening the PR — even when you believe no
> provider uses the comment** (the command is a safe no-op when none do).
> Skipping it ships the wave with stale lower bounds on inter-provider
> dependencies; once the PR is merged the only remedy is a separate
> follow-up PR. This is the "Update versions of dependent providers to the
> next version" step in `dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDERS.md` — it lives between
> doc preparation and PR creation, so it is easy to forget when the skill
> hands back to the regular release workflow.

**Provider dependency-bump CI guard.** Every `>=` bump this produces (and any
inter-provider `>=` bump made during the wave, e.g. a `breaking` provider that
dependents must now require) trips the `check_provider_dependency_bumps`
selective-check (`dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/utils/selective_checks.py`),
which fails CI with *"Provider dependency version bumps detected that should
only be performed by Release Managers!"*. That guard exists to stop
**contributors** from silently changing inter-provider `>=` floors; for a
release wave the bumps are legitimate. The release PR **must carry the
`allow provider dependency bump` label** to bypass it — every prior "Prepare
providers release …" PR carries this label. Tell the release manager to add
the label to the PR (it re-triggers the check via the `labeled` event); the
bumps are not a mistake to revert.

### Phase 5 — Validate

Run the same checks the release manager would run:

```bash
# RST lint + license headers + ruff on Python files
prek run --from-ref main --hook-stage pre-commit

# Spot-check that provider.yaml versions parse
breeze release-management prepare-provider-documentation \
    --reapply-templates-only --skip-git-fetch \
    --release-date "$RELEASE_DATE"   # idempotent — should be a no-op diff
```

Then `git diff --stat` and walk the release manager through the diff
provider-by-provider:

- Confirm the version in `provider.yaml` matches the bump rule.
- Confirm `changelog.rst` has the right sections populated.
- **Check for misplaced top-level note blocks.** Each provider's
  `changelog.rst` has a standing `.. NOTE TO CONTRIBUTORS:` RST comment
  near the top (above all version sections). If you detect any `.. note::`
  directive that is NOT nested under a specific version section (i.e. it
  appears before the first version header, or between the `Changelog`
  heading and the first version), notify the release manager immediately —
  it likely means a breaking-change or min-version note was accidentally
  written at the wrong indentation level or position.

  Two variants to check for, both seen in the 2026-08-01 wave:
  - **Already misplaced on the base branch.** A contributor adds a note for
    their own change directly under the `Changelog` header instead of inside
    the version section it belongs to, so it renders page-wide. Move it into
    the section that ships the change (`google` #70869).
  - **Pushed out of place by your own prepend.** When a note was sitting above
    the first version header and you prepend a new section, the note ends up
    *between* your new excluded block and the previous version — still wrong,
    but no longer above the first header, so a scan that only looks at the top
    of the file misses it (`openai` #69506). Check **inside every section you
    touched** that no `.. note::` appears after the
    `.. Below changes are excluded …` marker; a note belongs directly under the
    version underline, before the first `~~~` header.

  The same applies to a bare `Breaking changes` / `Features` / … heading sitting
  above the first version header: a contributor pre-wrote it, and it must be
  folded into the new version section with its PR reference corrected (Phase 4b).
- Confirm Phase 4d ran: no `# use next version` comment remains where the
  referenced provider was bumped in this wave.
- **If any inter-provider `>=` floor changed** (Phase 4d resolved a pin, or a
  `breaking` provider forced a dependent to require its new major), tell the
  release manager the PR needs the `allow provider dependency bump` label —
  otherwise the `check_provider_dependency_bumps` CI check fails with
  *"Provider dependency version bumps detected that should only be performed
  by Release Managers!"*. `git diff` the changed `pyproject.toml` files for
  `apache-airflow-providers-*` `>=` changes and list them for the RM.
- **Reconcile every new section against `git log` — this gate is mandatory.** Run

  ```bash
  python3 dev/check_changelog_entries.py --fix
  ```

  It compares each provider's newest section against the commits actually being
  released and exits non-zero on four defects that eyeballing the diff misses:

  | Code | Meaning | Action |
  | --- | --- | --- |
  | `MISSING` | a released commit has no entry | classify and add it (Phase 3 + 4b) |
  | `UNKNOWN` | an entry cites a PR outside the release range | replace with the real `(#NNNN)` |
  | `SECTION` | heading is not one of the template's five | move the entry under a template heading |
  | `ORDER` | entries are off merge order | repaired by `--fix` |

  Re-run it after **any** rebase of the release branch. A rebase silently pulls
  new provider commits into the release range without touching `changelog.rst`,
  and that is exactly how a shipped change ends up undocumented. Only `ORDER`
  is auto-repairable — resolve every other code by hand before handing off.
- **Scan the new changelog sections for these entry defects** — grep the lines
  you added: (1) a bullet whose text starts with a lowercase letter → capitalize
  it (Phase 4b); (2) a bullet in a *visible* section (Features / Bug Fixes /
  Misc / Doc-only) with no `(#NNNN)` suffix → usually no-PR release-tooling that
  belongs in the excluded block (Phase 4b); (3) an "add then rename" pair for
  the same feature left as two separate entries → collapse into one net entry
  naming both PRs (Phase 4b); (4) an internal abbreviation (`KPO`, `DFP`, `TI`,
  `RTIF`, `OL`) or the phrase "system test" → rewrite in user-facing language
  (Phase 4b); (5) a dependency bump that names no version, or a Dependabot group
  subject of the form "… group … with N updates" → replace with the actual
  packages and versions from the PR diff (Phase 4b). Reviewers reliably catch
  all of these, so fix them before handing off.
- Flag anything where Phase 3.5 had to escalate, so the RM can double-check.

Stop here. Do not commit, do not push — the release manager opens the PR
themselves following the regular release workflow in
`dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDERS.md`. Make sure Phase 4d
(`update-providers-next-version`) has been run before that PR is opened, and
that the PR carries the `allow provider dependency bump` label whenever any
inter-provider `>=` floor changed (see Phase 4d).

---

## Incremental Update

Use this flow when the release PR has already been opened (changelog and
version bumps applied via Phases 1–5) and the release manager rebases it
to pick up commits that landed on `main` after the original classification.
This is the equivalent of `breeze release-management
prepare-provider-documentation --incremental-update`, but driven by the
same AI classification logic as the initial run.

On a **wave**, "extend" is not only about the providers already in the PR: a
provider that had nothing pending when the wave was cut can pick up a
user-facing change before the PR merges, and the flow below is responsible for
surfacing it rather than letting the release ship without it.

> [!IMPORTANT]
> Run on the **release PR branch** *after* rebasing onto the latest base
> branch. Do not start the incremental flow on a clean checkout — it needs
> the prior classifications already written into `changelog.rst` to
> diff against.

### Incremental Phase 1 — Refresh the apache remote

```bash
breeze release-management prepare-provider-documentation \
    --reapply-templates-only \
    --release-date "$RELEASE_DATE"
```

This re-fetches `apache-https-for-providers/<base-branch>` and regenerates
the auto-generated build files for every provider — picking up any
upstream template changes that landed since the original PR was opened.
It does **not** touch `provider.yaml` or `changelog.rst`.

### Incremental Phase 2 — Detect unrecorded commits across **all** providers

> [!IMPORTANT]
> On a **wave**, sweep **every** provider — not just the ones already in the
> release PR. A provider that had nothing pending when the wave was cut can
> acquire its first user-facing change hours later, and iterating only over
> providers that already have a new version section can never discover it: it
> has no section to extend. That provider then stays invisible for the rest of
> the release. This is an observed miss, not a hypothetical one — see the
> worked example at the end of this phase.

Re-run the deterministic classifier over the full provider set — the same
command as Phase 1 of the initial run, with **no** provider ids appended:

```bash
breeze release-management classify-provider-changes \
    --base-branch main \
    --output-file /tmp/provider-changes.json
```

Then reduce its output to commits **not yet recorded** in the matching
provider's changelog. A commit is unrecorded when its `#NNNN` PR number
appears nowhere in `providers/<provider-path>/docs/changelog.rst` — the same
predicate breeze uses internally (see the `_generate_new_changelog` append
branch in
`dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/prepare_providers/provider_documentation.py`):

```bash
python3 - <<'EOF'
import json, pathlib

data = json.loads(pathlib.Path("/tmp/provider-changes.json").read_text())
for provider_id, info in sorted(data["providers"].items()):
    base = pathlib.Path("providers") / provider_id.replace(".", "/")
    changelog = base / "docs" / "changelog.rst"
    seen = changelog.read_text() if changelog.exists() else ""
    doc_only = base / "docs" / ".latest-doc-only-change.txt"
    doc_hash = doc_only.read_text().strip() if doc_only.exists() else ""
    for commit in info.get("commits", []):
        pr = commit.get("pr")
        # Substring match, NOT "(#NNNN)": a collapsed within-wave entry reads
        # "(#68082, #70014)", which an exact-suffix match would report as new.
        if pr and f"#{pr}" in seen:
            continue
        if not pr and commit["subject"].replace("`", "'") in seen:
            continue
        if doc_hash and commit["hash"].startswith(doc_hash[:10]):
            continue
        print(f"{provider_id}\t{commit['hash'][:10]}\t#{pr}\t"
              f"{commit['classification']}\t{commit['subject']}")
EOF
```

Split the result into two buckets. A provider is **already in the wave** iff
its `provider.yaml` changed on this branch:

```bash
git diff --name-only <base-branch>..HEAD -- '**/provider.yaml' \
  | sed 's|providers/||; s|/provider.yaml||' | tr '/' '.' | sort
```

- **Bucket A — already in the wave.** Fold the unrecorded commits into the
  existing version section: continue through Incremental Phases 3 → 3.5 → 4a.
- **Bucket B — not in the wave.** The provider has unrecorded commits but no
  new version section, so it is a candidate to *join*. Classify it
  (Incremental Phase 3), then take it to **Incremental Phase 3.6**.
- **Bucket C — in the wave but no longer warranting a release.** The sweep
  above only finds commits *missing* from a wave; this bucket is the opposite
  direction, and nothing else in the flow looks for it. A provider that review
  has since concluded is internal-only or documentation-only still carries the
  version bump and changelog section written by the initial run, so it would
  still be built and uploaded to PyPI. Find these by re-reading the entries of
  each in-wave provider's newest changelog section: if every entry is
  `Doc-only`, or review reclassified the last remaining non-doc entry as
  documentation, the provider should leave the wave.

  Drop it back with the dedicated command rather than editing the files by
  hand — it restores `provider.yaml` and `changelog.rst` to their released
  state and writes the marker in one step:

  ```bash
  breeze release-management prepare-provider-documentation --mark-doc-only <provider-id>
  ```

  Then commit `providers/<provider-path>/docs/.latest-doc-only-change.txt`.
  **Ask the release manager before doing it** — taking a provider out of a wave
  is their decision, and a `Misc` entry that merely *looks* internal may still
  be something they want released.

Most Bucket B rows are ordinary noise — repo-wide tooling and test commits
that correctly keep a provider out of the release. A Bucket B provider whose
unrecorded commits are **all** `skip` stays out silently; escalate only when
at least one classifies as something other than `skip`.

If a provider has zero unrecorded commits, skip it.

> [!NOTE]
> **Worked example — the miss this phase exists to prevent.** In the
> 2026-07-22 wave, `atlassian.jira` had nothing pending when the wave was cut
> at 22:15. PR #70224 merged at 03:41 the next morning, adding a `Verify SSL`
> conn-field to `providers/atlassian/jira/provider.yaml`. The branch was
> rebased past that commit and an incremental fold-in ran — but because
> `atlassian.jira` had no version section, the old per-wave-provider loop
> never looked at it, and the provider was still missing from the release PR
> a day later. The full sweep above surfaces it; Phase 3.6 asks about it.

### Incremental Phase 3 — Classify the new commits

Same logic as Phase 3 of the initial run — including the auto-classify
heuristic for docs/test-only changes and the batched classification (inline
when few commits remain, otherwise one sub-agent per provider) with the
breaking-change checklist. Incremental runs usually have only a handful of new
commits, so prefer classifying them inline rather than spawning any sub-agent.
The output is a per-provider table mapping each new commit hash to a
classification.

### Incremental Phase 3.5 — Decide whether to escalate the version bump

Compute the most-impactful classification across **both** the existing
classified commits in the changelog **and** the new ones. If the most
impactful is now stronger than what's already in `provider.yaml`, the
version needs to be re-bumped. The escalation table:

| Was bumped to | Now most-impactful is | Action                                  |
| ------------- | --------------------- | --------------------------------------- |
| patch         | `feature`             | re-bump to next minor (X.Y+1.0)         |
| patch         | `min_airflow_bump`    | re-bump to next minor (X.Y+1.0)         |
| patch / minor | `breaking`            | re-bump to next major (X+1.0.0)         |
| minor         | `feature`             | no change — already minor               |
| anything      | `bugfix` or `misc`    | no change                               |

A re-bump means: replace the prepended version in `provider.yaml` AND
update the version header in `changelog.rst`'s new section to match.

**Always confirm a re-bump with the release manager** — explicitly state
the old version, the new version, and which incoming commit forced the
escalation. Don't silently re-bump.

### Incremental Phase 3.6 — Ask before adding a provider to the wave

Every Bucket B provider (Incremental Phase 2) with at least one unrecorded
commit classified as something other than `skip` is a provider the release is
currently missing. **Never add one silently, and never drop one silently —
always ask.** The release manager owns the scope of the release; your job is
to make sure the choice is made deliberately rather than by omission.

On an **ad-hoc** release the answer is usually "leave it out" — the provider
list is a fixed input — but still surface it, so the release manager knows the
change exists and needs a later release.

Ask once per provider. State what landed, why it is user-facing, when it
landed relative to the cut, and the version consequence of each option:

> Provider `atlassian.jira` is **not** in this wave, but PR #70224 ("Fix
> conn-fields check crash for nested provider packages", merged 2026-07-23
> 03:41 — about 5h after the wave was cut) added a `Verify SSL` conn-field and
> `ui-field-behaviour` to its `provider.yaml`. That is shipped metadata: it
> changes the Jira connection form. Its other pending commits (#67978, #68991)
> are test/template-only.
> **Add it to the wave** (3.3.4 → 3.3.5, most-impactful `misc`), or **leave it
> out** and let the change ride the next release?

Record the answer. If the release manager says **add**, the provider follows
the *initial-run* application path rather than the append path — see
Incremental Phase 4b.

### Incremental Phase 4 — Apply the new entries

#### 4a. Providers already in the wave — append to the existing section

For each new commit, insert into the existing latest-version section of
`changelog.rst` under the right header:

| Classification         | Section                |
| ---------------------- | ---------------------- |
| `breaking`             | `Breaking changes`     |
| `feature`              | `Features`             |
| `bugfix`               | `Bug Fixes`            |
| `misc`                 | `Misc`                 |
| `min_airflow_bump`     | `Misc`                 |
| `documentation`        | `Doc-only`             |
| `skip`                 | excluded block at end  |

If the section header doesn't exist yet (e.g. previously there were no
breaking changes, but a new commit introduced one), create the header
above the next existing section, matching the order in
`CHANGELOG_TEMPLATE.rst.jinja2`:
`Breaking changes` → `Features` → `Bug Fixes` → `Misc` → `Doc-only`.

Insert each entry at its **merge-order position** within the section — new
commits are newer than everything already there, so they go at the *top*, not
appended at the bottom. Appending is what drifts incremental providers off the
format; `check_changelog_entries.py --fix` repairs it either way, so run it
after this phase.

If you re-bumped the version in Incremental Phase 3.5, also add or remove the
`.. note::` block about the Airflow min version requirement to match the
new bump kind.

If a new commit is classified `breaking`, add (or extend) a `.. note::` at the
top of the version section explaining what breaks and how users should adapt,
exactly as in the breaking-change note rule in the initial run's Phase 4b.

#### 4b. Providers joining the wave — apply the initial-run path

A provider the release manager confirmed in Incremental Phase 3.6 has no new
version section yet, so there is nothing to append to. Run the steps of the
**initial run's Phase 4** for that provider only:

- **initial-run 4a** — prepend the new version to `provider.yaml` and refresh
  `source-date-epoch`. Reuse the epoch the rest of the wave already carries
  (`grep -h source-date-epoch` across the providers this branch bumped) so the
  release stays on a single value rather than gaining a stray third one.
- **initial-run 4b** — write a complete new version section in
  `changelog.rst`: the classified commits under their headers, **every**
  `skip` commit in the `.. Below changes are excluded …` block, and a
  `.. note::` if the bump is breaking or a min-Airflow bump.
- **initial-run 4c** — re-run `--reapply-templates-only` so the joining
  provider's `__init__.py`, `README.rst`, `pyproject.toml`, `index.rst` pick
  up the new version. Expect a diff for exactly that provider and no other.
- **initial-run 4d** — re-run `update-providers-next-version`: a `# use next
  version` pin pointing at the joining provider must now resolve.

### Incremental Phase 5 — Validate

Same as Phase 5 of the initial run plus an extra check: confirm there are
no leftover "Please review …" markers from a prior interactive
`breeze release-management prepare-provider-documentation
--incremental-update` run. If any are present (someone ran the breeze
incremental flow before invoking this skill), remove them as part of the
final pass. Then walk the diff with the release manager.

Also confirm that **every Bucket B provider from Incremental Phase 2 was
either added or explicitly declined** by the release manager — none dropped
by omission. Re-run the Phase 2 sweep after applying; the only providers it
should still report are ones whose unrecorded commits are all `skip`, plus any
the release manager deliberately left out.

If the incremental run bumped a provider to a *new* version (Incremental
Phase 3.5) or added one to the wave (Incremental Phase 3.6), re-run Phase 4d
(`update-providers-next-version`) as well — a `# use next version` pin on that
provider must resolve to the freshly bumped version before the rebased PR is
pushed.

---

## Cross-Cutting Rules

### PRs covering multiple providers

When a single PR touches several providers (e.g.
`Add Python 3.14 Support (#63520)` touches dozens), classify it
**independently per provider**. The same PR can be `feature` in one provider
(a real new capability) and `misc` in another (just a constraint bump in
`pyproject.toml`). Always scope the diff inspection (whether inline or in a
per-provider sub-agent) to the current provider's path:

```bash
gh pr diff <NNNN> -- 'providers/<provider-path>/**'
```

If the per-provider classifications come back different, do NOT try to
"reconcile" them — that's a feature, not a bug. The release manager wants
each provider's changelog to reflect what changed in *that* provider.

### Asking the release manager — phrasing

When you ask, state your best guess and the alternative explicitly:

> Provider `amazon`, commit `4cd5678` ("Remove deprecated `S3Hook.list_objects`"
> #65030): I classified this as **breaking** because the symbol is removed
> from the public API in `providers/amazon/src/airflow/providers/amazon/aws/hooks/s3.py`,
> even though the PR description says "deprecated since 8.0.0". Confirm
> **breaking** (major bump 9.x → 10.0.0) or override to **misc** (patch)?

Don't ask vague yes/no questions ("is this breaking?"); always offer the
two alternatives with the version-bump consequence.

### Things you must NOT do silently

- Bump major version without explicit confirmation from the release manager.
- Add a provider to the wave — or leave one out — without asking
  (Incremental Phase 3.6). Scope is the release manager's call, and a
  provider dropped by omission is as much a silent decision as one added.
- Reclassify a commit the RM already confirmed.
- Skip commits that don't fit a category — flag them as `?` and ask.
- Edit `commits.rst`, `index.rst`, `__init__.py`, `README.rst`,
  `pyproject.toml`, `conf.py`, `get_provider_info.py` directly. Those are
  template-generated by breeze.
- Run `git add` or `git commit` — the release manager owns the PR.

### When to give up and fall back to interactive breeze

If the per-provider commit count is huge (50+) **and** the sub-agents come
back with `low` confidence on most of them (typically because the diffs
require deep domain knowledge), tell the release manager you're stopping
the AI classification and recommend they run the regular interactive
`breeze release-management prepare-provider-documentation` for that
specific provider. Don't try to power through guesswork — the wrong
classification at major-bump granularity is worse than a slower manual run.

---

## References

- `dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/prepare_providers/provider_documentation.py`
  — the breeze module this skill replaces (classification + changelog
  generation). Read this when in doubt about format.
- `dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/templates/CHANGELOG_TEMPLATE.rst.jinja2`
  — exact format for the changelog section you write in Phase 4b.
- `dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDERS.md` §"Convert commits to changelog entries
  and bump provider versions" — the human workflow this skill automates.
- `PROVIDERS.rst` §"Upgrading minimum supported version of Airflow" —
  policy for `min_airflow_bump` classifications.

More agent context in apache/airflow

13 other files this repository gives its agents.