ora-284-opencode-prompt-pad
3 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin Foley
|
9d1f1f5e33 |
revert(ci): remove dependabot dependency grouping (#7560)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so its automation and CI surfaces need to stay reliable enough for agent-driven maintenance work. > - Dependabot configuration is part of that maintenance path because it determines how dependency updates reach the repo and CI. > - PR #7483 changed `.github/dependabot.yml` to group all npm patch/minor updates by dependency type. > - That immediately produced a 26-package grouped PR that was difficult to merge and contradicted the board's decision to return to one-PR-per-bump. > - This pull request reverts only the grouping behavior while preserving the rest of the Dependabot schedule, labels, limits, and ignore rules. > - The benefit is a narrower, more reviewable Dependabot flow that restores the previous operational behavior without changing unrelated CI settings. ## What Changed - Removed the npm `groups:` block from `.github/dependabot.yml`. - Left the existing weekly schedule, labels, open PR limit, and major-version ignore rules unchanged. - Isolated the revert onto a clean branch containing only commit `446453516c` so this PR does not include unrelated local CI work. ## Verification - `ruby -e 'require "yaml"; YAML.load_file(".github/dependabot.yml")'` - `git diff --check origin/master..PAPA-522-revert-dependabot-grouping` - Inspect the PR diff and confirm only `.github/dependabot.yml` changed. ## Risks - Low risk. This only removes the grouping stanza and restores previous Dependabot behavior. - Operationally, this returns to a higher number of smaller Dependabot PRs, which is the intended tradeoff for easier mergeability and triage. > 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 via the local `codex_local` Paperclip adapter, GPT-5-based coding agent backend with tool use and shell execution enabled. The exact backend model ID/context window is not exposed by this adapter run. ## 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 - [ ] 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 - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
69e513efe1 |
ci(dependabot): bundle npm patch/minor updates by dependency type (#7483)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Dependabot keeps the JS/TS dependency tree up to date so the agents and UI run on supported package versions > - When a sibling package family shares peer dependencies (lexical core + `@lexical/*`, `@codemirror/*`, `@radix-ui/*`, `@assistant-ui/*`, etc.), bumping one without the others leaves the lockfile with two installed copies of the core package > - That trips TypeScript: nodes from one version are not assignable to types from the other, and the UI build fails — observed concretely on PR #7330 (lexical 0.35 → 0.45) once PAPA-490 stopped masking it > - The first cut (per-scope `groups` for each sibling-package family) works but requires maintenance whenever a new scope is added > - This pull request goes broader: it groups *all* npm patch/minor updates by dependency type (production vs development), so any sibling-package family is bundled regardless of scope > - The benefit is a single weekly PR per dep type, no per-scope maintenance, and no more partial peer bumps ## What Changed - Replaced the lexical-specific `groups` entry with two type-based groups in `.github/dependabot.yml`: - `production-dependencies`: bundles all patch/minor `dependencies` updates into one PR - `development-dependencies`: bundles all patch/minor `devDependencies` updates into one PR - Majors continue to land as individual PRs (and are already ignored by the existing `version-update:semver-major` rule). ## Verification - After merge, the next Dependabot run (Monday 06:00 weekly, or on `@dependabot recreate`) should open at most two new npm PRs — `chore(deps): bump the production-dependencies group` and `chore(deps-dev): bump the development-dependencies group` — each combining many bumps. The existing per-package PRs (#7318–#7331) will be closed and superseded by the grouped PRs. - Sanity-check by inspecting the resulting lockfile diff: `lexical` and `@lexical/link` should always move together to the same version. ## Risks - Low risk for CI config itself. The trade-off is larger weekly PRs that are harder to bisect when one bump breaks the batch — but Dependabot also publishes per-package failure reports inside the grouped PR, so triage stays tractable. - If a future package genuinely needs to stay ungrouped (e.g. a noisy one that breaks often), it can be moved out via `exclude-patterns` on the group. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), claude-opus-4-7, tool-use enabled. ## 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — N/A, YAML-only CI config change - [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable — N/A - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots — N/A - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — N/A - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
brandonburr
|
96feaa331a |
feat(commitperclip): add automated PR quality and security gates (#6469)
Fixes #6470 ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is an open-source AI agent platform receiving a high volume of community PRs — currently 2,398 open > - The contributor experience is broken: PRs sit for months with no feedback, contributors don't know why they're stuck, and maintainers spend review time on PRs that are missing basics > - Common problems: no linked issue, no test coverage, incomplete PR template, manually-edited lockfile — all catchable before human review > - At the same time, accepting untrusted PRs from unknown contributors is a real attack surface: malicious packages, secret injection, tampering with CI scripts, and code touching the sensitive paths from the April security advisories > - This PR adds automated gates that run on every PR: quality failures get a clear comment telling contributors exactly what to fix, security concerns are silently flagged as draft advisories and block merge via a pending check run > - The benefit is a dramatically faster feedback loop for good-faith contributors and a meaningful security layer for the maintainers reviewing them ## What Changed - **`.github/workflows/commitperclip-review.yml`** — new workflow using `pull_request_target` (runs in base branch context, has secrets, never executes PR code). Runs quality gates + security gates on every PR open/update. - **`.github/dependabot.yml`** — weekly automated dependency vulnerability PRs for npm and GitHub Actions. - **`.github/scripts/get-bot-token.mjs`** — generates a short-lived commitperclip installation token from `COMMITPERCLIP_KEY` secret. - **`.github/scripts/run-quality-gates.mjs`** — orchestrates 5 quality gates, posts/updates a single consolidated comment on the PR. - **`.github/scripts/check-pr-template.mjs`** — validates all 5 required template sections, Thinking Path depth (≥3 sentences), Model Used not placeholder. - **`.github/scripts/check-pr-linked-issue.mjs`** — requires `Fixes #NNN` or issue URL in PR body. - **`.github/scripts/check-pr-test-coverage.mjs`** — requires at least one test file in the diff. - **`.github/scripts/check-pr-lockfile.mjs`** — blocks manual `pnpm-lock.yaml` edits (only the refresh bot may change it). - **`.github/scripts/check-pr-dependencies.mjs`** — informational comment when new npm packages are added. - **`.github/scripts/check-pr-security.mjs`** — 6 silent security checks: secret patterns, CI workflow tampering, build script changes, supply chain (new packages in lockfile), suspicious test patterns (outbound network/shell exec/env var reads), and changes to the 9 sensitive path prefixes from the April advisories. When any fire: creates a draft security advisory + sets `security-review` check to `in_progress` (blocks merge). When clean: sets `security-review` to `success`. - **`actions/dependency-review-action@v4`** — per-PR dependency vulnerability check (fails if new dep has known CVE). - **44 unit tests** across all gate modules (`node:test`, no external deps). ## Verification Run all unit tests locally: ```bash node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs ``` Expected: 44 pass, 0 fail. End-to-end: open a PR missing the template, linked issue, and test files → commitperclip posts a consolidated comment listing all failures. Open a PR with all gates satisfied → `✅ All checks passing` comment posted, all check runs green. ## Risks **`pull_request_target` security model:** This workflow runs in base branch context and has access to secrets. It explicitly checks out `ref: master` (never PR code) and reads the PR diff via GitHub API only — no PR code is ever executed. This is the correct pattern for running secret-bearing checks on fork PRs; deviating from it (e.g. checking out the PR branch) would be a security vulnerability. **False positives on security gates:** The sensitive-path gate flags any PR touching the 9 path prefixes from the April advisories. Legitimate fixes to those paths will trigger draft advisories. This is intentional — those paths warrant a human look regardless. The `security-review` check can be manually resolved by a maintainer once reviewed. **commitperclip not yet installed:** Until the app is installed on this repo and the `COMMITPERCLIP_KEY` secret is added, the workflow will fail on the token generation step. The quality gate comment won't post, but Dependency Review will still run independently. ## Model Used Claude Sonnet 4.5, 200k context window, extended thinking enabled, tool use: read/edit files, bash execution, GitHub API calls ## 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 run tests locally and they pass (44/44) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (44 unit tests across all gate modules) - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A — CI only) - [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 --- ## One-time setup needed from you, Dotta 1. **Install commitperclip app** on this repo: https://github.com/apps/commitperclip/installations/new 2. **Add `COMMITPERCLIP_KEY`** as a repository secret (Actions → Secrets) — ask @brandonburr for the key 3. **Add `security_advisories: write` and `checks: write`** to the commitperclip app permissions (commit-capital org → Settings → Apps → commitperclip → Permissions) 4. **Install Socket.dev** from GitHub Marketplace for supply chain scanning 5. **Branch protection** (optional but recommended): require `commitperclip-review` and `security-review` checks to pass before merge ## Dashboard integration note The `commitperclip-review` check run result maps cleanly to your PR triage dashboard. A single filter on your Worker: ```javascript const gatesCheck = checkRuns.find(r => r.name === 'commitperclip-review'); if (gatesCheck?.conclusion === 'failure') return null; // filter from queue ``` For security flags: `GET /repos/paperclipai/paperclip/security-advisories?state=draft` — advisory titles include `PR #NNN` for cross-referencing. PRs with a matching draft advisory have `security-review` in `in_progress` state (grey spinner, can't merge via branch protection). --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@devinfoley.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |