if file_path ends with "CHANGELOG.md":
    → Inform user of hard permission block
    → Explain release-please workflow
    → Suggest conventional commit approach

if file is package manifest AND edit touches version field:
    → Warn about release-please management
    → Explain why manual edits cause conflicts
    → Offer to edit OTHER fields (but not version)
    → Provide conventional commit template

if user request contains keywords: "version", "release", "bump", "changelog":
    → Proactively explain release-please workflow
    → Check if files in scope are protected
    → Suggest proper approach before attempting edits

⚠️ CHANGELOG.md Protection Active

I cannot edit CHANGELOG.md files - they're protected by Claude Code's permission
system because they're managed by release-please automation.

**Why this matters:**
Manual edits to CHANGELOG.md cause merge conflicts with automated release PRs,
breaking your release workflow.

**Proper workflow:**
1. Make your changes with conventional commit messages:
   - feat: adds new features (minor version bump)
   - fix: bug fixes (patch version bump)
   - chore: maintenance tasks (no version bump)
   - BREAKING CHANGE: breaking changes (major version bump)

2. Release-please automatically:
   - Detects conventional commits
   - Generates CHANGELOG entries
   - Creates a release PR with version bumps
   - Tags releases when PR is merged

**Example commit:**

**Need to override?**
For emergency fixes, temporarily edit ~/.claude/settings.json:
1. Comment out the CHANGELOG.md deny rules
2. Make your edits
3. Re-enable protection

⚠️ Version Field Protection Warning

I notice you're asking me to modify the version field in [file_name]. This field
is typically managed by release-please automation.

**Current version:** [current_version]
**Requested change:** [requested_change]

**Why manual edits are problematic:**
- Creates merge conflicts with release-please PRs
- Can cause version numbering inconsistencies
- Bypasses conventional commit history tracking

**I can help in two ways:**

1. **Automated approach (recommended):**
   I'll help you craft a conventional commit message that will trigger the
   appropriate version bump when release-please creates its next release PR.

   For [requested_change], you should use:
   - `feat:` for minor version bump
   - `fix:` for patch version bump
   - `feat!:` or `BREAKING CHANGE:` for major version bump

2. **Manual override (emergency only):**
   If you absolutely need to manually set the version (e.g., aligning with
   external requirements), I can edit other fields in [file_name] but will
   skip the version field. You'll need to edit that manually or temporarily
   disable the skill protection.

Which approach would you prefer?

📋 Release-Please Files Detected

I've identified several release-please managed files in the scope of this
refactoring:

**Protected files found:**
- plugins/dotfiles-core/CHANGELOG.md (hard block)
- plugins/dotfiles-toolkit/.claude-plugin/plugin.json (version field)
- [other files...]

**My approach:**
✅ I'll refactor all other files as requested
⚠️ I'll skip protected files and explain why
📝 I'll provide a summary of skipped changes

**If you need version/changelog updates:**
I'll generate appropriate conventional commit messages that will trigger
release-please to make those changes automatically.

Should I proceed with this approach?

feat(scope): brief description

Detailed explanation of what was added and why.
Can be multiple paragraphs.

Refs: #issue-number

fix(scope): brief description

Explanation of the bug and how it was fixed.

Fixes: #issue-number

feat(scope)!: brief description

BREAKING CHANGE: Explanation of what breaks and migration path.

Details about the new behavior.

Refs: #issue-number

chore(scope): brief description

Maintenance work that doesn't affect functionality.
Examples: dependency updates, refactoring, docs.

undefined

undefined

undefined

undefined