chore: prepare 0.15.3 release

[steipete]

Prepare patch release 0.15.3 for the bridge ownership fix from #284, with the ordered Highlights and contributor credit from #285.

Date the changelog section 2026-09-07 and synchronize version.env, the generated Swift version constant, and bundle metadata to 0.15.3. No runtime code changes are included, and #278 remains excluded under its existing playback-proof hold.

Validation: all four version files agree, git diff --check passes, and independent autoreview is clean. The release workflow will be dispatched only after this preparation is merged and CI is green on the exact main commit. Publication of 0.15.3 is authorized.

[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, 1:35 PM ET / 17:35 UTC.

ClawSweeper review

What this changes

Dates the 0.15.3 changelog and synchronizes the release version, CLI version constant, and macOS bundle metadata.

Merge readiness

✅ Ready for maintainer review

This release preparation remains necessary: pinned main still reports 0.15.2. The focused metadata update has no identified correctness blocker, and collaborator-authored work is protected from automatic closure.

Priority: P3
Reviewed head: 76e08eff77656096eb102443ce84eb524634ae3f

Review scores

Measure	Result	What it means
Overall readiness	🐚 platinum hermit (4/6)	A focused, consistent release preparation with no identified patch defects.
Proof confidence	🌊 off-meta tidepool	Not applicable: This collaborator-authored metadata update is exempt from contributor runtime proof; source inspection confirms the existing generator and CLI version consumers remain consistent.
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 update is exempt from contributor runtime proof; source inspection confirms the existing generator and CLI version consumers remain consistent.
Evidence reviewed	6 items	Verified introduced scope: The independently inspected pinned delta changes only four release files, with five added and five removed lines; all version values agree on 0.15.3. Existing generation contract: The generator reads MARKETING_VERSION and writes both Version.swift and the two bundle version fields; the proposed values follow that existing contract. Still needed on pinned main: Pinned main contains MARKETING_VERSION=0.15.2; the supplied release snapshot identifies v0.15.2 as the latest release. Neither establishes completed 0.15.3 preparation.
Findings	None	None.
Security	None	None.

How this fits together

imsg exposes Messages functionality through a CLI and RPC interface. Its version generator turns version.env into CLI and bundle metadata, while the changelog describes the release contents.

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

Loading

Before merge

None.

Agent review details

Security

None.

Review metrics

Metric	Value	Why it matters
Release metadata	4 files; 5 additions, 5 deletions	The entire introduced delta is version synchronization and changelog dating.

Technical review

Best possible solution:

Keep release metadata synchronized through the existing generator and publish the authorized patch through the established release workflow.

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

Not applicable: this PR prepares release metadata rather than reporting a runtime defect.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes: updating the version source and its generated outputs together follows the repository's existing release pattern without introducing a competing mechanism.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning medium; reviewed against d82abe153921.

Labels

Label changes:

• add P3: This is a bounded release bookkeeping update with no runtime implementation changes.
• 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 update is exempt from contributor runtime proof; source inspection confirms the existing generator and CLI version consumers remain consistent.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a bounded release bookkeeping update with no runtime implementation changes.
• 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 update is exempt from contributor runtime proof; source inspection confirms the existing generator and CLI version consumers remain consistent.

Evidence

What I checked:

• Verified introduced scope: The independently inspected pinned delta changes only four release files, with five added and five removed lines; all version values agree on 0.15.3. (version.env:1, 76e08eff7765)
• Existing generation contract: The generator reads MARKETING_VERSION and writes both Version.swift and the two bundle version fields; the proposed values follow that existing contract. (scripts/generate-version.sh:4, 76e08eff7765)
• Still needed on pinned main: Pinned main contains MARKETING_VERSION=0.15.2; the supplied release snapshot identifies v0.15.2 as the latest release. Neither establishes completed 0.15.3 preparation. (version.env:1, d82abe153921)
• Release scope and authorization: Captured GitHub context confirms fix: give the injected bridge helper a single owner per container #284 and docs: prepare bridge ownership patch notes #285 are merged. This PR explicitly authorizes publication after merge and green main CI, and preserves the exclusion of fix: make native audio messages playable inline #278. (76e08eff7765)
• Release-area routing history: Main-branch history lists Peter Steinberger on the previous release preparations and current bridge release notes. Deeper blame and parent-diff inspection encountered unavailable historical objects and a DNS failure, so no source-line introduction attribution is asserted. (CHANGELOG.md, d82abe153921)
• Read-only validation: The pinned diff passes whitespace validation. Build, lint, and tests were not executed during this read-only review; captured CI was still running. The working tree remained clean. (76e08eff7765)

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.