chore: prepare 0.15.2 release

[steipete]

Prepare the authorized 0.15.2 patch release. Date the existing Unreleased notes for 2026-09-07, preserving the Highlights line and impact ordering, and synchronize the canonical version, generated Swift constant, and bundle versions.

The merged fixes passed the combined 753-test suite and signed-CLI proof during preparation. Version/changelog validation and independent P0–P2 autoreview pass. The release workflow will run only after this PR is merged and CI is green on the resulting main commit.

The native audio PR #278 remains outside this release pending inline playback proof.

[clawsweeper]

🦞👀
ClawSweeper picked this up.

Pull request received. I will update this pull request when review starts.

ClawSweeper review complete

ClawSweeper finished reviewing this revision. The review result is being finalized.

View the workflow run.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed September 7, 2026, 4:49 AM ET / 08:49 UTC.

ClawSweeper review

What this changes

Prepares version 0.15.2 by dating the existing changelog section and synchronizing the canonical version, generated Swift constant, and macOS bundle versions.

Merge readiness

✅ Ready for maintainer review

This is a focused, consistent release-preparation PR with no blocking findings. The pinned main branch still reports 0.15.1, so the change remains necessary; collaborator-authored work is also protected from automatic closure.

Priority: P3
Reviewed head: 6cd1b798a288fb932c5374a9f579e0b9b8054ef5

Review scores

Measure	Result	What it means
Overall readiness	🐚 platinum hermit (4/6)	A normal, focused release-preparation patch whose metadata agrees with the documented contract.
Proof confidence	🌊 off-meta tidepool	Not applicable: This collaborator-authored metadata PR is exempt from the external contributor proof gate and changes no authority boundary; reported signed-CLI and test results were not independently rerun.
Patch quality	🐚 platinum hermit (4/6)	No actionable review findings were identified.

Verification

Check	Result	Evidence
Real behavior	Not applicable	Not applicable: This collaborator-authored metadata PR is exempt from the external contributor proof gate and changes no authority boundary; reported signed-CLI and test results were not independently rerun.
Evidence reviewed	6 items	Exact introduced change: The pinned comparison contains only five line replacements across four files: the release heading and four version values. Existing release-note content and runtime logic are unchanged. Release contract: The release documentation requires matching canonical/generated versions and exactly one dated changelog section. The inspected patch satisfies those requirements; publication follows merge and green main CI. Generated metadata and consumers: The generator derives the Swift constant and both bundle version fields from MARKETING_VERSION. CLI and RPC status consume that constant, and Package.swift embeds the plist in the macOS executable.
Findings	None	None.
Security	None	None.

How this fits together

imsg uses a canonical version file to generate its CLI version and macOS bundle metadata. The release process consumes those values and the dated changelog when preparing signed distribution artifacts.

flowchart LR
  A[Canonical version] --> B[Version generator]
  B --> C[CLI and RPC version]
  B --> D[macOS bundle metadata]
  E[Dated changelog] --> F[Release preparation]
  C --> F
  D --> F
  F --> G[Distribution artifacts]

Loading

Before merge

None.

Agent review details

Security

None.

Review metrics

None.

Technical review

Best possible solution:

Keep the synchronized release metadata and use the documented release workflow after merge and successful main CI.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Not applicable: this PR prepares release metadata rather than fixing a newly reported runtime defect.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes. Updating the canonical version together with its generated outputs and dating the existing notes matches the repository's release contract.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning medium; reviewed against 14c8c13539a9.

Labels

Label changes:

• add P3: This is bounded release metadata maintenance without changes to runtime behavior.
• add rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• add status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: This collaborator-authored metadata PR is exempt from the external contributor proof gate and changes no authority boundary; reported signed-CLI and test results were not independently rerun.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is bounded release metadata maintenance without changes to runtime behavior.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: This collaborator-authored metadata PR is exempt from the external contributor proof gate and changes no authority boundary; reported signed-CLI and test results were not independently rerun.

Evidence

What I checked:

• Exact introduced change: The pinned comparison contains only five line replacements across four files: the release heading and four version values. Existing release-note content and runtime logic are unchanged. (version.env:1, 6cd1b798a288)
• Release contract: The release documentation requires matching canonical/generated versions and exactly one dated changelog section. The inspected patch satisfies those requirements; publication follows merge and green main CI. (docs/RELEASING.md:20, 6cd1b798a288)
• Generated metadata and consumers: The generator derives the Swift constant and both bundle version fields from MARKETING_VERSION. CLI and RPC status consume that constant, and Package.swift embeds the plist in the macOS executable. (scripts/generate-version.sh:4, 6cd1b798a288)
• Main and latest release remain at 0.15.1: Both the pinned main version.env and local v0.15.1 version.env contain MARKETING_VERSION=0.15.1. The supplied GitHub snapshot identifies v0.15.1 as the latest release. (version.env:1, 14c8c13539a9)
• Release-area routing history: Available main-branch history records Peter Steinberger across successive version preparations and the shared release-workflow adoption. Historical blame and some parent-tree reads failed because missing Git objects could not be fetched; no source-line introduction attribution is claimed. (version.env, 646ea7af9616)
• Discussion and validation scope: The complete supplied PR body describes an authorized patch release and reports 753 tests plus signed-CLI preparation proof. Those results were not independently executed during this read-only review. It explicitly excludes fix: make native audio messages playable inline #278, which addresses separate native audio behavior. (6cd1b798a288)

Likely related people:

• steipete: Suggested for follow-up; no historical authorship or introduction is verified. (role: unverified routing candidate; confidence: low)

Rating scale

Score	Internal tier	Crab rank	Meaning
6/6	S	🦀 challenger crab	Exceptional readiness
5/6	A	🦞 diamond lobster	Very strong readiness
4/6	B	🐚 platinum hermit	Good normal PR; ordinary maintainer review
3/6	C	🦐 gold shrimp	Useful, but confidence is limited
2/6	D	🦪 silver shellfish	Proof or implementation needs work
1/6	F	🧂 unranked krab	Not merge-ready
N/A	NA	🌊 off-meta tidepool	Rating does not apply

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality.
Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics.

Workflow

• ClawSweeper keeps one durable marker-backed review comment per issue or PR.
• Re-runs edit this comment so the latest verdict, findings, and automation markers stay together instead of adding duplicate bot comments.
• A fresh review can be triggered by eligible @clawsweeper re-review comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
• PR/issue authors and users with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on an open PR or issue to request a fresh review only.
• Maintainers can also comment @clawsweeper review to request a fresh review only.
• Fresh-review commands do not start repair, autofix, rebase, CI repair, or automerge.
• Maintainer-only repair and merge flows require explicit commands such as @clawsweeper autofix, @clawsweeper automerge, @clawsweeper fix ci, or @clawsweeper address review.
• Maintainers can comment @clawsweeper explain to ask for more context, or @clawsweeper stop to stop active automation.