The implement loop has no step that ships an intent once its work merges: abcd intent plan moves drafts to planned and abcd spec close moves planned to shipped, but nothing in the build-review-merge routine invokes the second, so an intent whose code is on main sits in planned indefinitely and launch ship composes the changelog only from terminal folders. Two intents delivering a BREAKING CLI change were about to be released with no changelog line, and the omission is invisible because the cut exits 0 - a planned intent is not a refusal, it is simply not seen

The implement loop has no step that ships an intent once its work merges: abcd intent plan moves drafts to planned and abcd spec close moves planned to shipped, but nothing in the build-review-merge routine invokes the second, so an intent whose code is on main sits in planned indefinitely and launch ship composes the changelog only from terminal folders. Two intents delivering a BREAKING CLI change were about to be released with no changelog line, and the omission is invisible because the cut exits 0 - a planned intent is not a refusal, it is simply not seen

Grounds

• pursued: the verb exists and the omission is procedural, so documenting the step where the loop is documented closes the gap without a design decision; a mechanical gate that refuses a merged intent whose spec is still open would be the durable fix and is left open as the question underneath