Agentic Release notes

Stepwise Development Plan

Enterprise Agentic Pipeline for API Change Notes

Step 1 — Formalize scope & contracts (do this first)

Goal: Eliminate ambiguity before engineering starts.

Actions

Define what qualifies as an API change (public endpoints, DTOs, OpenAPI, versioned contracts).

Define the exact structure of the output file (sections, metadata, wording constraints).

Define change severity categories (breaking / non-breaking / informational).

Define confidence thresholds and publication rules.

Deliverables

Written API-change definition

Output contract (schema + example)

Acceptance metrics

Quality Gate

Stakeholders (API owners + business) agree that the output format is correct.

Step 2 — Normalize historical data into a golden dataset

Goal: Establish ground truth and evaluation baseline.

Actions

Convert last 50 human-written releases into structured records:

Release ID

API notes

Referenced JIRA IDs

Mentioned API elements (best-effort)

Classify changes by type and severity.

Extract canonical phrasing patterns.

Deliverables

Versioned “golden dataset”

Label definitions and mapping rules

Quality Gate

Domain experts confirm historical normalization reflects reality.

Step 3 — Define system boundaries & trust model

Goal: Decide where determinism ends and probabilistic reasoning begins.

Actions

Declare deterministic vs non-deterministic components.

Define what the agent is allowed to do.

Define fail-closed behavior (what happens on uncertainty).

Decisions

Agent only summarizes and classifies; it does not fetch data.

Pipeline controls execution order.

Deliverables

Architecture decision record (ADR)

Quality Gate

Architecture review sign-off.

Step 4 — Build deterministic ingestion & filtering pipeline

Goal: Create a reproducible, auditable foundation.

Actions

Scan sprint-bounded commits.

Extract JIRA IDs (assumed reliable).

Filter candidate commits via deterministic heuristics:

Paths, file types

Signature changes

Spec deltas

Produce structured change artifacts.

Deliverables

Commit → API-delta mapping

Deterministic pipeline output

Quality Gate

Same input always produces same output.

Step 5 — Integrate selective JIRA enrichment

Goal: Add intent and context without overfetching.

Actions

Fetch JIRA summary + description only for filtered commits.

Normalize and sanitize text.

Link JIRA intent to code deltas.

Deliverables

Enriched structured context bundles

Quality Gate

JIRA outages or failures do not break the pipeline.

Step 6 — Back-test detection against historical releases

Goal: Validate correctness before adding agent logic.

Actions

Replay historical releases through the pipeline.

Compare detected API changes vs historical notes.

Measure precision, recall, and false positives.

Deliverables

Evaluation report

Tuned heuristic rules

Quality Gate

Detection metrics meet agreed thresholds.

Step 7 — Introduce bounded agent for summarization

Goal: Generate human-readable API notes safely.

Actions

Feed agent only structured context bundles.

Ground prompts with historical examples.

Enforce strict output schema.

Require confidence scoring and evidence references.

Deliverables

Agent output conforming to schema

Quality Gate

Invalid or low-confidence outputs are rejected automatically.

Step 8 — Validate agent outputs using historical replay

Goal: Prove agent behaves like human authors.

Actions

Run agent on historical releases.

Compare summaries to golden dataset.

Measure semantic similarity, verbosity, tone alignment.

Deliverables

Agent evaluation metrics

Approved prompt versions

Quality Gate

Agent meets or exceeds human similarity thresholds.

Step 9 — Add human-in-the-loop workflow

Goal: Maintain trust while capturing feedback.

Actions

Route outputs to reviewers based on confidence.

Allow edit, approve, or reject.

Capture edits as labeled feedback.

Deliverables

Review workflow

Audit logs

Quality Gate

All published notes are traceable to approvals.

Step 10 — Implement governance & auditability

Goal: Make the system enterprise-compliant.

Actions

Store:

Commits, JIRA data, diffs

Agent inputs/outputs

Prompt and model versions

Implement access controls and retention rules.

Deliverables

Audit trail

Compliance documentation

Quality Gate

System passes internal audit review.

Step 11 — Gradual automation rollout

Goal: Reduce human effort safely.

Actions

Auto-publish low-risk, high-confidence changes.

Keep breaking changes always reviewed.

Monitor drift and error rates.

Deliverables

Automation policy

Monitoring dashboards

Quality Gate

Error rates remain below defined thresholds.

Step 12 — Continuous improvement

Goal: Sustain quality over time.

Actions

Periodic historical replay with new data.

Prompt and heuristic tuning.

Confidence threshold adjustments.

Deliverables

Versioned improvements

Updated evaluation reports

Quality Gate

No regression in quality metrics.

----------------------------------

1. Evidence-first artifacts (treat evidence as a product)

Suggestion:
Persist evidence bundles as first-class, versioned artifacts.

What this means

Every pipeline run produces an immutable “evidence package” containing:

Commit SHAs + diffs

Extracted API deltas

JIRA summary + description snapshot

Pipeline version + ruleset version

Why it matters

You can re-run the agent without touching Git or JIRA again

Auditors and reviewers can inspect facts independently of the AI

Enables deterministic replay and regression testing

Enterprise pattern

Separate fact collection from interpretation.

2. Two-pass classification before summarization

Suggestion:
Split reasoning into classification → summarization, even if both use the same model.

Pass 1: Classification

Is this an API change?

Change type?

Breaking vs non-breaking?

Confidence score

Pass 2: Summarization

Only runs if pass 1 succeeds

Uses classification outputs as constraints

Why it matters

Reduces hallucinations

Enables partial automation (e.g., auto-publish non-breaking changes)

Makes evaluation easier and more explainable

3. Confidence as a computed value, not a model guess

Suggestion:
Treat confidence as a composite score, not just an LLM output.

Combine

Heuristic confidence (deterministic)

Historical similarity score

Model confidence

JIRA intent clarity score (e.g., explicit “API change” mention)

Why it matters

Prevents over-trusting the model

Enables predictable automation policies

Easier to justify decisions to stakeholders

4. Negative capability testing (explicit “should NOT happen” cases)

Suggestion:
Create a test suite of known non-API changes.

Examples:

Internal refactors

Logging changes

Performance optimizations

Test-only commits

Why it matters

Enterprise failures often come from false positives, not false negatives

Business teams lose trust faster from noise than from missing items

Pattern

Measure false positives as aggressively as recall.

5. Human language alignment layer

Suggestion:
Introduce a language normalization step before final output.

What it does

Enforces:

Verb tense

Terminology (“consumer” vs “client”)

Severity words (“breaking”, “minor”)

Strips speculative phrasing (“might”, “appears”)

Why it matters

Business users care about consistency more than intelligence

Prevents stylistic drift across releases

6. Drift detection on process, not just model

Suggestion:
Monitor drift in inputs and behavior, not only outputs.

Track:

Average commits per release

Average API deltas per release

JIRA description length

Agent confidence distribution

Why it matters

Codebase evolution breaks heuristics silently

Organizational process changes (e.g., worse commit messages) degrade quality

Enterprise lesson

Most AI failures are upstream data failures.

7. “What changed since last run?” awareness

Suggestion:
Maintain a release memory.

What it enables

Detect repeated changes to the same API

Collapse noisy updates into a single coherent note

Prevent duplicate reporting across releases

Why it matters

Humans naturally reason across time; pipelines do not unless designed

8. Safe degradation paths

Suggestion:
Define explicit downgrade modes.

Examples:

JIRA unavailable → produce notes without intent but flag

Model unavailable → produce structured diff summary only

Heuristics uncertain → force human review

Why it matters

Enterprise systems must degrade gracefully, not fail hard

9. Separation of “release assembly” from “change detection”

Suggestion:
Treat “release notes assembly” as a distinct stage.

Why

One API change may span multiple commits

One commit may touch multiple APIs

Release notes need aggregation logic, not just detection

This avoids the trap of “one commit → one note”.

10. Kill switches & feature flags (non-optional)

Suggestion:
Everything agentic should be behind flags:

Auto-publish on/off

Agent on/off

Confidence thresholds

Why it matters

You will need to disable parts quickly

Builds trust with senior stakeholders

11. Identity pipeline + replay = enterprise superpower

Combine:

Idempotent pipeline

Evidence bundles

Historical replay

This gives you:

Deterministic debugging

Compliance confidence

Safe iteration on prompts and heuristics

Most “AI failures” happen because teams can’t replay the past.

12. Design principle to remember

Your agent is replaceable.
Your pipeline is the product.

If you design for:

Reproducibility

Evidence-first processing

Controlled autonomy

…you’ll end up with a system senior architects trust.

-------------------------------------

Problem Statement

Build an enterprise-grade autonomous / agentic workflow that generates API change notes for each release by analyzing Git commits and associated JIRA issues.
The output is a file containing 1–2 line summaries of API changes, intended for business and non-technical stakeholders, and distributed to the team.

Functional Requirements
Input Sources

Git repository

Commits belonging to a specific sprint or release window

Commits almost always contain a JIRA issue ID in the commit message

JIRA

JIRA tickets are fetched only for JIRA IDs extracted from commits

It is not possible or desirable to fetch all JIRA tickets

Processing Logic

Pull Git repository

Identify commits within the sprint/release

Filter commits that appear related to API changes

Extract code changes introduced by those commits

Fetch corresponding JIRA issues (using extracted JIRA IDs)

Connect code changes with JIRA descriptions

Summarize API changes into concise human-readable text

Aggregate summaries into a single output file

Send the file to the relevant team

API Change Scope

Focused on public API changes

API changes may include:

Endpoint changes

Request/response contract changes

Public DTO or interface changes

OpenAPI / specification changes

Non-API changes (e.g., refactoring, internal logic, tests) are out of scope unless they affect the public API

Output Requirements

A single file per release

Contains short (1–2 line) summaries of API changes

Written for business and API consumers

Includes traceability information (e.g., linked JIRA ID, commit reference)

Generated automatically but may support human review

Intended for distribution to stakeholders after generation

Historical Data

50 previous releases already exist

API change notes for these releases were written by humans

Historical data can be used as:

Reference behavior

Ground truth for evaluation

Validation baseline for automation

Architectural Constraints

Enterprise-grade quality required

Auditability and traceability are required

Idempotent pipeline behavior is required

Re-running the pipeline with the same inputs should produce the same outputs

Agentic behavior must be controlled and bounded

Deterministic processing preferred where possible

Technology Constraints

Primary implementation language: Java

Cloud environment available: GCP

Preference for cloud-agnostic design

No hard dependency on vendor-specific AI platforms

Integration with:

Git

JIRA (via API or MCP)

Workflow Characteristics

Commit messages are the primary entry point for identifying relevant JIRA issues

JIRA is used for contextual enrichment, not discovery

API change detection occurs before JIRA enrichment

Reasoning and summarization are part of the workflow

Output must be suitable for enterprise consumption and governance

Quality & Governance Constraints

Traceability from output → JIRA → commits → code changes

Ability to replay historical releases

Ability to evaluate system output against historical human-generated releases

Support for human-in-the-loop review

Clear separation between:

Deterministic pipeline stages

Probabilistic / agentic reasoning stages

Non-Goals (Explicit or Implicit)

No requirement to fetch or index all JIRA tickets

No requirement to allow agents to directly access Git or JIRA

No requirement for full autonomous publishing without governance

No requirement for implementation-level detail at this stage
----------------------------------
Step-by-Step PoC Plan (with Explicit Enterprise Path)
Step 1 — Lock problem definition & PoC boundaries

Purpose: Prevent scope creep and ensure results are interpretable.

Do

Write a one-page definition of:

What counts as an API change

Target audience (business/API consumers)

Output format (1–2 line summaries)

Choose:

One repository

1–2 recent releases or sprints

One API surface (e.g., REST controllers)

Skip (for PoC)

Multi-repo support

Multiple API styles

Carries to Enterprise

API-change definition

Output structure

Step 2 — Create a minimal golden dataset

Purpose: Establish objective comparison early.

Do

Select 5–10 historical releases from your 50

Extract:

Human-written API notes

Approximate commit ranges

Normalize notes into a simple structured format

Skip

Perfect commit ↔ note mapping

Full historical ingestion

Carries to Enterprise

Golden dataset format

Evaluation mindset

Step 3 — Implement minimal deterministic commit ingestion

Purpose: Ground everything in real signals.

Do

Pull commits for chosen release window

Extract JIRA IDs from commit messages (assumed reliable)

Store commit metadata and diffs

Skip

Caching

Idempotency guarantees

Retry logic

Carries to Enterprise

Commit ingestion logic

JIRA ID extraction rules

Step 4 — First-pass API-change heuristics

Purpose: Reduce noise before LLM involvement.

Do

Implement simple, explicit heuristics:

File paths (controllers, API packages)

Known annotations

OpenAPI spec file changes

Output a list of candidate API-change commits

Skip

AST diffs

Weighted scoring

Complex rule engines

Carries to Enterprise

Heuristic categories

Observed false positives/negatives

Step 5 — Lightweight JIRA enrichment

Purpose: Add intent and context cheaply.

Do

Fetch:

JIRA summary

JIRA description

Attach JIRA context to candidate commits

Skip

Caching

Rate-limit handling beyond basics

Carries to Enterprise

JIRA field selection

Linking strategy

Step 6 — Define structured input & output schemas

Purpose: Prevent PoC chaos and future rewrites.

Do

Define simple schemas:

Commit context

API delta

Agent output (summary, justification, confidence)

Validate outputs against schema

Skip

Versioning

Backward compatibility

Carries to Enterprise

Core data contracts

Step 7 — Single-pass agent summarization

Purpose: Validate LLM usefulness, not autonomy.

Do

One prompt

One agent

Provide:

Structured inputs

2–3 real historical examples

Generate:

1–2 line API summaries

Justification bullets

Skip

Multi-agent orchestration

Tool-calling

Confidence automation logic

Carries to Enterprise

Prompt patterns

Output structure

Step 8 — Manual evaluation against history

Purpose: Answer “Is this good enough?”

Do

Compare agent output to human notes:

Coverage

Accuracy

Tone alignment

Capture:

Missed changes

Hallucinations

Edits needed

Metrics (simple)

% of human changes detected

false positives

Reviewer usefulness rating

Carries to Enterprise

Evaluation criteria

Known failure modes

Step 9 — Iterate fast (tight PoC loop)

Purpose: Maximize learning, not code quality.

Do

Iterate on:

Heuristics

Prompt wording

Output phrasing

Re-run against same historical set

Skip

Refactoring for cleanliness

Performance tuning

Carries to Enterprise

Refined heuristics

Stable prompt templates

Step 10 — Produce PoC artifacts for decision-making

Purpose: Enable an informed “go / no-go”.

Deliver

Example generated API-change files

Side-by-side comparisons with human releases

List of failure modes

Quantified value estimate (time saved)

Carries to Enterprise

Business justification

Architectural confidence

Step 11 — Define explicit enterprise transition criteria

Purpose: Avoid PoC limbo.

Define

Minimum acceptable detection recall

Maximum tolerable false positives

Human approval rate threshold

Decision

Proceed to enterprise hardening only if criteria met

Carries to Enterprise

Quality gates

Step 12 — Transition to enterprise build (after PoC)

What changes

Add idempotent pipeline

Add audit logs

Add confidence-based automation

Add governance & security

Harden heuristics and diffing

What stays

Definitions

Schemas

Prompts

Evaluation framework

Historical dataset

Key principle (to keep yourself honest)

The PoC validates signal and behavior.
The enterprise build hardens what proved valuable.