Best possible solution:

Land the placeholder only when the draft maintainer decision is ready, keeping versioned polished release notes as follow-up docs and leaving release-owned CHANGELOG.md generation untouched.

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

Not applicable; this is a docs placeholder PR, not a bug report. I verified current main lacks the release-notes route and the PR head adds it.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes for the docs shape: one archive route, one navigation entry, and one glossary entry are the narrowest maintainable surface. The remaining question is the maintainer timing decision for publishing an empty archive page.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against e87b0df67575.

Label changes:

• add P3: This is a low-risk docs placeholder and navigation update with no runtime behavior impact.
• 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: Real behavior proof is not required because this PR only changes files under docs/.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a low-risk docs placeholder and navigation update with no runtime behavior impact.
• 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: Real behavior proof is not required because this PR only changes files under docs/.

PR surface:

Docs +29. Total +29 across 3 files.

What I checked:

• Protected maintainer PR state: Live PR metadata shows the PR is open, draft, mergeable, authored by a repository member, and labeled docs, maintainer, and size: XS. (4a4b0d8cf5f2)
• Release-notes page content: The PR head adds a page with front matter, placeholder archive copy, and raw-history links to GitHub releases and CHANGELOG.md. Public docs: docs/releases/index.md. (docs/releases/index.md:1, 4a4b0d8cf5f2)
• Docs navigation placement: The PR head places releases/index at the top of the existing Reference -> Release and CI group, before maturity and release-policy pages. Public docs: docs/docs.json. (docs/docs.json:1861, 4a4b0d8cf5f2)
• Glossary coverage: The PR head adds the new short docs label Release notes to the zh-CN glossary, matching the docs i18n rule that new titles and short nav labels should have glossary coverage. Public docs: docs/.i18n/glossary.zh-CN.json. (docs/.i18n/glossary.zh-CN.json:627, 4a4b0d8cf5f2)
• Current main behavior: Current main has the Release and CI group but no docs/releases page or releases/index navigation entry, so the PR is not obsolete on main. Public docs: docs/docs.json. (docs/docs.json:1861, e87b0df67575)
• Related docs precedent: Existing docs already point readers to the GitHub changelog for what changed in the latest version, so the placeholder's raw-history links are consistent with current docs behavior. Public docs: docs/help/faq-first-run.md. (docs/help/faq-first-run.md:235, e87b0df67575)

Likely related people:

• vincentkoc: Recent merged work moved maturity docs into the Release and CI navigation and recent release-policy commits touch the same release-docs area. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 318f95417a82, fb9dc867b160; files: docs/docs.json, docs/reference/RELEASING.md)
• hxy91819: Recent merged work on the same zh-CN glossary file is relevant to reviewing the new localized short docs label. (role: recent i18n glossary contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 9a82b60024b5; files: docs/.i18n/glossary.zh-CN.json)

• 🦀 challenger crab: rare, exceptional readiness with strong proof, clean implementation, and convincing validation.
• 🦞 diamond lobster: very strong readiness with only minor maintainer review expected.
• 🐚 platinum hermit: good normal PR, likely mergeable with ordinary maintainer review.
• 🦐 gold shrimp: useful signal, but proof or patch confidence is still limited.
• 🦪 silver shellfish: thin signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work.
• 🧂 unranked krab: not merge-ready because proof is missing/unusable or there are serious correctness or safety concerns.
• 🌊 off-meta tidepool: rating does not apply to this item.

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.

• 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.