chore: prepare 0.10.0 release

[steipete]

Finalize the accumulated changes as 0.10.0. The 38 Unreleased entries include new offline export commands, user-only API sync, privacy-policy enforcement, durable API/MCP retry work, retention fixes, SQL correctness, and the runtime refresh.

Use a minor version because the backlog adds user-facing features and documents compatibility restrictions. Preserve every changelog entry and contributor acknowledgment, lead with the user-facing controls, and keep the distinction between byte verification and permission to publish explicit.

The runtime candidate passed the full Crabbox gates, clean compiled CLI smoke, four-platform snapshot packaging, and a packaged Linux import/search/SQL/export round trip. This PR changes release notes only. The documented Release (unified) workflow owns tagging, signing, notarization, publication, and the Homebrew handoff after exact-head CI passes.

[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 22, 2026, 1:15 AM ET / 05:15 UTC (Revision 2).

ClawSweeper review

What this changes

Organizes the 38 accumulated changelog entries as release 0.10.0, adds highlights, and corrects the documented GoReleaser version.

Merge readiness

✅ Ready for maintainer review

The release-note preparation remains useful: main still labels these changes Unreleased. No actionable defect was found, and the latest revision correctly aligns the packaging version with CI.

Priority: P3
Reviewed head: 85e50be0bd849f88c3c0920db8f22943d5fbd29c

Review scores

Measure	Result	What it means
Overall readiness	🐚 platinum hermit (4/6)	A focused release-note update preserves existing content and matches the packaging configuration, with no actionable findings.
Proof confidence	🌊 off-meta tidepool	Not applicable: The collaborator-authored PR changes release prose only, so contributor runtime proof is not required; no stored-data contract changes are introduced.
Patch quality	🐚 platinum hermit (4/6)	No actionable review findings were identified.

Verification

Check	Result	Evidence
Real behavior	Not applicable	Not applicable: The collaborator-authored PR changes release prose only, so contributor runtime proof is not required; no stored-data contract changes are introduced.
Evidence reviewed	6 items	Introduced change: The pinned main-to-head diff changes only CHANGELOG.md: release heading, highlights, entry ordering, spacing, and the GoReleaser version. Entry preservation: An in-memory comparison counted 38 entries in both main’s Unreleased section and the proposed release section. All entries and acknowledgments are preserved apart from correcting GoReleaser 2.18.1 to 2.18.2; older release sections are identical. Re-review continuity: The previous review reported no findings. GitHub’s commit patch confirms that the subsequent commit only corrects GoReleaser to 2.18.2, matching the current snapshot CI configuration. The earlier blob was unavailable locally; the GitHub commit read resolved that comparison.
Findings	None	None.
Security	None	None.

How this fits together

Slacrawl’s changelog communicates changes to users of its local Slack archive CLI. Release preparation names and summarizes accumulated changes; the separate manual release workflow handles packaging and publication.

flowchart LR
 A[Accumulated changes] --> B[Release notes]
 B --> C[Version and highlights]
 C --> D[Manual release workflow]
 D --> E[Published release]
 E --> F[Users reviewing upgrades]

Loading

Before merge

None.

Agent review details

Security

None.

Review metrics

Metric	Value	Why it matters
Release entries preserved	38 before, 38 after	The release grouping preserves all accumulated entries and contributor acknowledgments.

Technical review

Best possible solution:

Keep the complete release notes and compatibility caveats, with publication handled by the documented unified release workflow.

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

Not applicable: this PR prepares release notes rather than repairing runtime behavior; the introduced diff and entry preservation were checked directly.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes: a focused changelog edit preserves the existing descriptions and publication boundary without changing release machinery.

AGENTS.md: not found in the target repository.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning medium; reviewed against 388197984ffc.

Labels

Label justifications:

• P3: This is release-note preparation with no executable or configuration 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: The collaborator-authored PR changes release prose only, so contributor runtime proof is not required; no stored-data contract changes are introduced.

Evidence

What I checked:

• Introduced change: The pinned main-to-head diff changes only CHANGELOG.md: release heading, highlights, entry ordering, spacing, and the GoReleaser version. (CHANGELOG.md:3, 85e50be0bd84)
• Entry preservation: An in-memory comparison counted 38 entries in both main’s Unreleased section and the proposed release section. All entries and acknowledgments are preserved apart from correcting GoReleaser 2.18.1 to 2.18.2; older release sections are identical. (CHANGELOG.md:7, 85e50be0bd84)
• Re-review continuity: The previous review reported no findings. GitHub’s commit patch confirms that the subsequent commit only corrects GoReleaser to 2.18.2, matching the current snapshot CI configuration. The earlier blob was unavailable locally; the GitHub commit read resolved that comparison. (CHANGELOG.md:79, 85e50be0bd84)
• Release ownership: CONTRIBUTING.md assigns official tagging, signing, notarization, publication, and Homebrew handoff to Release (unified). The patch does not change that workflow, executable code, or release permissions. (CONTRIBUTING.md, 85e50be0bd84)
• Current release: GitHub reports v0.9.1, published September 12, as the latest release. The inspected main changelog still uses Unreleased; this preparation is not already implemented there.
• Release-area routing history: Merged history includes Peter Steinberger’s v0.9.1 preparation and unified-release migration, and Vincent Koc’s v0.9.0 preparation and workflow pinning. These provide routing context beyond the current PR’s authorship. (CONTRIBUTING.md, 388197984ffc)

Likely related people:

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

History

Review history (1 earlier review cycle)

• reviewed 2026-09-22T05:09:43.687Z sha a83f8d8 :: needs maintainer review before merge. :: none

[steipete]

Landed as e2f5738 after exact-head CI passed at 85e50be: https://github.com/openclaw/slacrawl/actions/runs/35689732592. Required Linux/macOS tests, dependency/lint checks, release-check, Docker, CodeQL, and secret scanning all succeeded.

The final independent P0–P2 review was scoped-clean. All 38 release entries and contributor acknowledgments are retained; the older GoReleaser note now matches 2.18.2. The merged source tree matches the reviewed head.

The documented unified publication workflow is running: https://github.com/openclaw/slacrawl/actions/runs/35690420708. Used the existing organization-admin PR merge permission after the review and CI gates; no repository rules were changed.