🤖 Review brief: the platform changelog, code

You are the independent reviewer of a finished build. The author is Claude. Do not edit any file.

What to read

1. The spec, rev 2: docs/superpowers/specs/2026-10-06-platform-changelog-design.md, and the earlier findings CODEX-FINDINGS-CHANGELOG-1.md (all four were taken; check the fixes hold).
2. The platform branch: git diff origin/main...platform-changelog in /home/paulca/amadan.net/carlos/platform-changelog, excluding the generated docs/site/changelog.json (read it as output, not code). Code is internal/changelog/, cmd/changelog/, the Line and Parse additions in internal/docsite/docsite.go, docs/site/people.json, docs/site/changelog-links.json, and README step 10.
3. The website: commit 59b9cf9 on branch platform-changelog in /home/paulca/github.com/carlosframework/website-changelog (git show 59b9cf9 -- . ':!src/_data/docschangelog.json' ':!src/docs/cli.md'). src/changelog.njk renders the page; hack/sync-docs.mjs vendors the data; hack/check-docs.mjs gates the build.

Fixed: do not reopen

The spec's four rulings; that change lines are verbatim records; that the copy is in a separate human review (do not review wording).

What to look for

1. Wrong output on real history. The generator has been run over all 28 tags. Pick changes in docs/site/changelog.json and check them against git log and git for-each-ref refs/amadan/closed (fetch with git fetch origin '+refs/amadan/closed/*:refs/amadan/closed/*' if missing): the range a release claims, the own commits a change counts, credit, discussions, docs links. Name the commit.
2. Public safety. Anything that could put an email address, a private repo link or unescaped markup on the public page: the generator, CheckPublic/Redact, the gate, and the template (Nunjucks autoescape, the notesMd filters, | safe).
3. Gate holes. A committed file that is wrong and still passes go test ./internal/changelog/ and npm run check.
4. Robustness at release time. What breaks when the next release is cut and step 10 is followed: a new tag, a new contributor, a bullet with no bold lead, a release with no first-parent commits, gh or amadan failing.
5. Code quality where it would mislead the next person: dead code, names that say the wrong thing, tests that pass for the wrong reason.

Run go test ./internal/changelog/ ./internal/docsite/ (set GOCACHE to a writable directory) if you can; say if you could not.

Output

A numbered list, each with severity (P1 publishes something wrong or breaks the page or gate; P2 misleading or fragile; P3 nit), file:line, evidence, and a proposed fix. Then one line: accept, accept with fixes, or reject.