Draft the migration guide a breaking change owes its consumers
A migration guide exercised against a real consumer before it is published.
The ticket
Write the migration guide for a breaking change and validate it against a real consumer.
Acceptance criteria
- Every step is exercised against a sample consumer
- Before and after code is shown for each change
- Automatable steps point at a codemod or a command
- Behaviour changes that need judgement are called out separately
What lands as proof
A sample consumer migrated by following the guide exactly, which surfaces the steps the author took for granted.
Why teams defer it
- The author knows the change too well to notice the assumed steps.
- It has to be written before the release and is easiest to write after, which is the wrong way round.
Questions
- What does the agent actually change?
- The ticket is scoped to one outcome: write the migration guide for a breaking change and validate it against a real consumer. Work that serves that outcome is in scope, and anything outside it is left for a separate ticket, so the pull request stays reviewable.
- How do I know the work is done?
- The pull request carries the evidence, not only the diff. Here that means guide exercised end to end against a sample consumer, so a reviewer can confirm the result without reproducing the work locally.
- How much oversight does this need?
- The run stops once the plan is written. Somebody reads the approach and approves it before any code exists, which is the cheapest moment to redirect the work.