## Summary
- Adds `@nickyleach` as a codeowner alongside `@cryppadotta` and
`@devinfoley` on all 13 existing entries
- Grants approval rights on `.github/**`, release scripts, docs,
`skills/**`, and package files
## Thinking Path
The task is to give @nickyleach the same CODEOWNERS coverage as the
existing owners. The simplest approach is to append `@nickyleach` to
every existing entry in `.github/CODEOWNERS`. No new paths are
introduced — this is a pure access grant.
## What Changed
- `.github/CODEOWNERS`: added `@nickyleach` to all 13 path patterns
alongside the existing `@cryppadotta` and `@devinfoley` owners
## Verification
- Reviewed the diff: every existing CODEOWNERS line now includes
`@nickyleach` as a third owner
- GitHub will enforce the new ownership on future PRs touching the
covered paths
## Risks
- Low risk: CODEOWNERS is additive-only; no existing owner is removed
- The change takes effect immediately on merge — future PRs touching
covered paths will require @nickyleach approval (or any of the three
owners)
## Model Used
claude-sonnet-4-6
## Test plan
- [ ] Verify GitHub picks up the new CODEOWNERS entry and shows
@nickyleach as a required reviewer on future PRs touching these paths
Closes PAP-61
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Issue-thread interactions are one of the core ways agents pause for
structured board or user decisions.
> - Adding a new interaction kind currently requires coordinated changes
across shared contracts, server behavior, UI cards, fixtures,
CLI/MCP/plugin SDK helpers, and agent guidance.
> - The checkbox-confirmation rollout established a good end-to-end
pattern, but contributors needed a durable maintainer checklist for
repeating that work.
> - This pull request adds a developer/maintainer skill that captures
that workflow inside the repo under `.agents/skills`.
> - The benefit is a reusable implementation guide for future
interaction-card work without installing that guidance on runtime
Paperclip agents.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Paperclip issue: [PAP-10457](/PAP/issues/PAP-10457)
This PR documents the process for adding a new issue-thread interaction
family end-to-end. There is no GitHub issue for this Paperclip-internal
skill addition.
## What Changed
- Added `.agents/skills/create-issue-interaction-ui/SKILL.md` as a
developer/maintainer skill.
- Covered shared contract, server route/service behavior, UI card
wiring, fixtures/Storybook, CLI/MCP/plugin SDK helpers, agent guidance,
invariants, and focused verification.
- Referenced the checkbox-confirmation rollout (`4d5322c82`, PR `#7649`)
as the canonical worked example.
## Verification
- `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts`
- Reviewed the added skill markdown for scope, location, and workflow
completeness.
## Risks
Low risk. This is a documentation/skill-only change under
`.agents/skills`; it does not change runtime code, database schema, API
behavior, or installed production-agent guidance.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell and GitHub CLI tool
access. Exact hosted model variant and context-window size were not
exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The GitHub repository uses CODEOWNERS to enforce review requirements on critical files
> - Currently only release scripts and CI config are protected — package manifests are not
> - Dependency changes (package.json, lockfile) can introduce supply-chain risk if merged without review
> - This PR adds all package files to CODEOWNERS
> - The benefit is that any dependency change now requires explicit approval from maintainers
## What Changed
- Added root package manifest files (`package.json`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `pnpm-workspace.yaml`, `.npmrc`) to CODEOWNERS
- Added all 19 workspace `package.json` files (`cli/`, `server/`, `ui/`, `packages/*`) to CODEOWNERS
- All entries owned by `@cryppadotta` and `@devinfoley`, consistent with existing release infrastructure ownership
## Verification
- `gh api repos/paperclipai/paperclip/contents/.github/CODEOWNERS?ref=PAPA-41-add-package-files-to-codeowners` to inspect the file
- Open a test PR touching any `package.json` and confirm GitHub requests review from the listed owners
## Risks
- Low risk. CODEOWNERS only adds review requirements — does not block merges unless branch protection enforces it. New packages added in the future will need a corresponding CODEOWNERS entry.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Nicky Leach