5ebbe67ebd9da015eb44e30cf802ae18e1c56fd3
10 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin Foley
|
254b01d2af |
docs: drop contributor screenshot requirement in favor of cutter.sh bot (#8409)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Contributors follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and the PR template when opening pull requests > - Those docs still tell contributors to manually capture and attach before/after screenshots for UI changes > - That requirement is now redundant: the `cutter.sh` bot automatically captures and posts before/after UI screenshots to every PR > - Asking contributors to also do it by hand adds friction and produces duplicate screenshots > - This pull request removes the manual screenshot obligation from `CONTRIBUTING.md` and the PR template, and documents that `cutter.sh` handles it > - The benefit is a clearer, lower-friction contribution flow that matches how screenshots actually get posted today ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue. Underlying change: Our contributor docs and PR template instructed contributors to attach before/after screenshots for any UI change. We now run a bot (`cutter.sh`) that automatically captures and posts before/after UI screenshots to the PR, so the manual step is no longer needed. This change removes the manual requirement and instead documents that the bot handles screenshots, asking contributors to simply describe the visible change. ## What Changed - `CONTRIBUTING.md`: removed the "Before / After screenshots" requirement from the Path 2 PR checklist and from the "Writing a Good PR message" section; both now explain that the `cutter.sh` bot posts UI screenshots automatically and ask contributors to describe the visible change instead. - `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md`: updated the Verification guidance to note that `cutter.sh` posts before/after screenshots automatically, and removed the "include before/after screenshots" item from the checklist. - Issue templates were intentionally left unchanged — they only offer screenshots as an optional "if helpful" field, never a requirement. ## Verification - Docs-only change; no code paths affected. - `grep -rin "screenshot" CONTRIBUTING.md .github/` confirms no screenshot *requirement* remains — only the new `cutter.sh` wording and the optional "if helpful" fields in issue templates. - Render `CONTRIBUTING.md` and the PR template to confirm the wording reads cleanly. ## Risks Low risk — documentation-only change. No build, runtime, or migration impact. ## Model Used Claude (Anthropic), model `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking with tool use. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (docs-only; no tests apply) - [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable (N/A — docs-only) - [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 (pending CI) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending review) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
a2abebee07 |
docs: require descriptive, instance-free PR branch names (#8312)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Contributions flow through GitHub PRs against `paperclipai/paperclip`, but most contributors author their work inside their own private Paperclip instance > - That tooling names a working branch after the internal issue/task — e.g. `PAPA-42-why-did-this-break` > - When that branch is pushed for a PR, the public PR's head branch carries instance-local context: it's not meaningful to reviewers and leaks instance-derived identifiers > - We just documented the issue-reference side of this (#8292), but said nothing about branch names > - This pull request adds a **Branch Naming** section to `CONTRIBUTING.md` and a matching PR-template checklist item, telling contributors to rename branches to descriptive, change-scoped names before pushing > - The benefit is public PRs whose branch names describe the change and contain no instance-local details ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8311 Refs: #8292 ## What Changed - `CONTRIBUTING.md`: new **Branch Naming** subsection — rename instance-named branches (e.g. `PAPA-42-...`) to descriptive, change-scoped, kebab-case names before pushing, with examples and the rename commands. - `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md`: new checklist item asserting the branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id or instance-derived details. ## Verification Docs-only change. Rendered Markdown locally and confirmed the new **Branch Naming** section and the new checklist item appear as intended. This PR's own branch (`docs/contributor-branch-naming`) follows the new guidance. No code paths affected. ## Risks Low risk — documentation and PR-template text only; no runtime, build, or schema impact. Automatically renaming branches at push time in the tooling is intentionally out of scope and tracked as separate follow-up work. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.7 (claude-opus-4-7), extended thinking, agentic tool use via Claude Code. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [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] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] 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> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
8a062be94d |
docs: forbid internal Paperclip issue references in PRs (#8293)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Contributions flow through GitHub PRs against `paperclipai/paperclip`, but most contributors author their work inside their own private Paperclip instance > - Those instances mint instance-local issue ids and deep links (`PAPA-123`, `/PAP/issues/...`, `agent://...`, localhost/tailnet URLs) that only the author can open > - When contributors paste those references into a public PR, reviewers hit clutter and broken links and have to ask for cleanup > - There was no written guidance telling contributors (human or agent) to keep those references out > - This pull request adds that guidance to `CONTRIBUTING.md` and surfaces it as a PR-template checklist item plus an inline hint > - The benefit is cleaner PRs that reference only public, openable GitHub issues/PRs, with internal context restated in plain English ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8292 ## What Changed - `CONTRIBUTING.md`: new **No Internal Issue References** subsection explaining what to leave out (internal ticket ids, instance UI/deep links, localhost/tailnet URLs) and to restate useful context in plain English; added a cross-reference sentence from the existing "Link Issues or Describe Them In-PR" guidance. - `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md`: new checklist item, plus an inline hint in the Linked Issues comment block, directing contributors to reference only public GitHub issues/PRs. ## Verification Docs-only change. Rendered Markdown locally and confirmed the new `#no-internal-issue-references` anchor resolves from the cross-reference link, and that the template checklist item appears in the rendered list. No code paths affected. ## Risks Low risk — documentation and PR-template text only; no runtime, build, or schema impact. An optional automated CI gate was intentionally deferred to a follow-up to avoid regex false positives. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.7 (claude-opus-4-7), extended thinking, agentic tool use via Claude Code. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [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] 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> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
d5889919a9 |
feat(commitperclip): widen linked-issue gate, add dedup-search check (#7632)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Contributor onboarding leans on a small set of CI gates
("commitperclip") that read PR metadata and enforce the rules in
CONTRIBUTING.md
> - We recently landed two new contributor rules: every PR must either
link an existing issue or inline an issue-template-shaped description,
and the author must affirm they searched for duplicate PRs first
> - The existing `check-pr-linked-issue` gate only accepted
`Fixes/Closes/Resolves #N`, and there was no gate at all for the
dedup-search affirmation, so the new rules were unenforced
> - This pull request widens the linked-issue gate (accept `Refs #N`,
accept inline template-shaped descriptions) and adds a new dedup-search
gate wired into `run-quality-gates`
> - The benefit is that the rules we ask contributors to follow are now
mechanically enforced, lowering review noise without raising contributor
friction
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #4260 — the PR cited in the original rule discussion, whose body is
the canonical example of the inline-issue-description shape this gate
now accepts.
**Problem or motivation**
The repo recently adopted two contributor rules: (1) link the issue your
PR fixes or inline a description in the issue-template shape, and (2)
confirm you searched for duplicate PRs before opening one. Neither rule
was enforced — the existing linked-issue check only matched
`Fixes/Closes/Resolves #N`, and nothing looked for the dedup-search
affirmation. Reviewers had to remember and re-state the rules by hand on
every PR.
**Proposed solution**
Widen `check-pr-linked-issue.mjs` and add a new
`check-pr-dedup-search.mjs` so commitperclip enforces the rules already
documented in CONTRIBUTING.md and the PR template:
- Accept `Refs #N` as a valid link verb alongside `Fixes`, `Closes`,
`Resolves`.
- Accept a PR body with an inline issue-template-shaped description (≥3
fields matched against the bug, feature, or adapter templates) as a
valid alternative to a linked issue.
- New `check-pr-dedup-search.mjs` looks for a checked checkbox affirming
the author searched for similar/duplicate/prior PRs, wired into
`run-quality-gates.mjs` with the same skip/override semantics as the
other gates.
**Alternatives considered**
- A single regex over the whole PR body looking for issue-template field
names — rejected, too brittle and gave no useful error message when it
failed. The per-field counter lets us tell the author exactly how many
template fields we matched and which template they're closest to.
- Making the dedup-search check live inside `check-pr-linked-issue` —
rejected, the two rules are orthogonal and a separate gate gives a
cleaner error message and respects `[skip-quality-gates]` independently.
**Roadmap alignment**
This is contributor-workflow plumbing for rules that already landed on
`master`. It is not a roadmap feature and does not overlap with planned
core work.
## What Changed
- `check-pr-linked-issue.mjs`: accept `Refs #N`; add
`hasInlineIssueDescription` (per-template field counter, ≥3 fields) so a
fully inlined description satisfies the gate.
- `check-pr-dedup-search.mjs`: new gate, looks for a checked
dedup-search checkbox in the PR body, with clear failure guidance.
- `run-quality-gates.mjs`: wire the new gate in alongside the existing
checks.
- `CONTRIBUTING.md`: "Before You Start: Search First" callout pointing
at the PR-template checkbox the gate enforces.
- Tests: unit tests for `Refs #N`, the inline-description threshold
(bolded labels, plain labels, headings), and the dedup-search gate
across checked/unchecked/missing/skip-prefix paths.
## Verification
- `node --test .github/scripts/tests/check-pr-linked-issue.test.mjs` →
all pass
- `node --test .github/scripts/tests/check-pr-dedup-search.test.mjs` →
all pass
- Full repo test matrix: 116/116 pass locally
For the gate itself, this PR exercises both new code paths: the body
inlines a feature-template-shaped description with ≥3 matched fields,
and the dedup-search checkbox below is checked.
## Risks
Low risk. The change is contributor-CI plumbing — no runtime or
migration impact. The widened linked-issue gate is strictly more
permissive (it can only flip prior FAILs to PASS), and the new
dedup-search gate honors the existing `[skip-quality-gates]` prefix, so
an author can always bypass it the same way as the other gates if
needed.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`), extended-thinking enabled, tool use
for filesystem + shell.
## 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
- [ ] 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>
|
||
|
Devin Foley
|
b5f37f11eb |
docs(contributing): search-first, linked issue, gates + Greptile bar (#7522)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - CONTRIBUTING.md and the PR template are the entry point for new contributors and set quality expectations for every PR > - Today they don't tell contributors to search for duplicate/related work first, don't require a linked GitHub issue, and don't spell out the merge bar (gates green + Greptile 5/5) > - Letting duplicate or under-reviewed PRs land creates extra work for reviewers and erodes quality > - This PR updates CONTRIBUTING.md and the PR template to require a search-first workflow, a linked issue, a clear merge bar, and explicit encouragement to help other contributors land their PRs > - The benefit is fewer duplicate PRs, easier triage, higher-quality merges, and a kinder collaboration culture ## What Changed - `CONTRIBUTING.md`: added a "Before You Start: Search First" section directing contributors to search GitHub for duplicate PRs and related issues, with a note that a fresh PR is okay if an old one is dead and would be painful to merge. - `CONTRIBUTING.md`: require every PR to link a GitHub issue in the body, plus references to related/duplicate PRs and issues. - `CONTRIBUTING.md`: added a section encouraging contributors to help finish other people's PRs, thank collaborators, and be kind. - `CONTRIBUTING.md`: tightened the merge bar — all Paperclip CI gates must be green and Greptile must be 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups. - `CONTRIBUTING.md` + `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md`: updated the thinking-path opener to "Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work" (consistent across examples and template). - `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md`: checklist gains items for duplicate/related search, linked issue, gates green, and the Greptile 5/5 bar. ## Verification - Docs-only change. Reviewed both files render correctly on GitHub. - No code or tests affected; no CI behavior change beyond the new checklist items contributors are asked to tick. ## Risks - Low risk. Documentation and template only — no runtime impact. Stricter contributor expectations may slow some PRs in the short term. ## Model Used - Claude, `claude-opus-4-7` (extended thinking, tool use). ## Related - Issue: #4188 — "Add issue templates and enforce issue-link check on PRs" (the linked-issue requirement here is a step toward what #4188 asks for, done in CONTRIBUTING/template rather than CI). - Prior PR: #4260 — "docs: expand CONTRIBUTING.md and add issue templates" (open; different scope — issue templates + broader expansion. This PR is narrower and focused on the search-first + merge-bar updates.) ## 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 linked the GitHub issue this PR addresses (and any related/duplicate issues) - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (docs-only change; no tests to run) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (N/A — docs) - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A — docs) - [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 (will verify after push) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending review) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
e458145583 |
docs: add public roadmap and update contribution policy for feature PRs (#3835)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - As the project grows, more contributors want to build features — which is great > - Without a public roadmap or clear contribution guidance, contributors spend time on PRs that overlap with planned core work > - This creates frustration on both sides when those PRs can't be merged > - This PR publishes a roadmap, updates the contribution guide with a clear path for feature proposals, and reinforces the workflow in the PR template > - The benefit is that contributors know exactly how to propose features and where to focus for the highest-impact contributions ## What Changed - Added `ROADMAP.md` with expanded descriptions of all shipped and planned milestones, plus guidance on coordinating feature contributions - Added "Feature Contributions" section to `CONTRIBUTING.md` explaining how to propose features (check roadmap → discuss in #dev → consider the plugin system) - Updated `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md` with a callout linking to the roadmap and a new checklist item to check for overlap with planned work, while preserving the newer required `Model Used` section from `master` - Added `Memory / Knowledge` to the README roadmap preview and linked the preview to the full `ROADMAP.md` ## Verification - Open `ROADMAP.md` on GitHub and confirm it renders correctly with all milestone sections - Read the new "Feature Contributions" section in `CONTRIBUTING.md` and verify all links resolve - Open a new PR and confirm the template shows the roadmap callout and the new checklist item - Verify README links to `ROADMAP.md` and the roadmap preview includes "Memory / Knowledge" ## Risks - Docs-only change — no runtime or behavioral impact - Contribution policy changes were written to be constructive and to offer clear alternative paths (plugins, coordination via #dev, reference implementations as feedback) ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex local agent (GPT-5-based coding model; exact runtime model ID is not exposed in this environment) - Tool use enabled for shell, git, GitHub CLI, and patch application - Used to rebase the branch, resolve merge conflicts, update the PR metadata, and verify the repo state ## 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 (N/A — docs only) - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A — no UI changes) - [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> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
2e09570ce0 |
docs: enforce Model Used section in PR descriptions (#2891)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Agents create pull requests as part of their development workflow > - The PR template already has a "Model Used" section (added in PR #2552) > - But agents were not filling it in because neither AGENTS.md nor CONTRIBUTING.md referenced it > - This PR updates both docs to explicitly require reading and filling in the full PR template, including Model Used > - The benefit is that every PR will now document which AI model produced the change, improving traceability and auditability ## What Changed - **CONTRIBUTING.md**: Added "Model Used (Required)" subsection under "PR Requirements (all PRs)" and listed it in the required sections enumeration - **AGENTS.md**: Added new "Section 10: Pull Request Requirements" instructing agents to read and fill in every section of the PR template when creating PRs (including Model Used). Renumbered "Definition of Done" to Section 11 and added PR template compliance as item 5. ## Verification - Review `CONTRIBUTING.md` — confirm "Model Used (Required)" subsection appears under PR Requirements - Review `AGENTS.md` — confirm Section 10 (Pull Request Requirements) lists all required PR template sections including Model Used - Review `AGENTS.md` — confirm Definition of Done item 5 references PR template compliance - No code changes, no tests to run ## Risks - Low risk — documentation-only changes. No code, schema, or behavioral changes. ## Model Used - **Provider**: Anthropic Claude - **Model ID**: claude-opus-4-6 (1M context) - **Capabilities**: Tool use, code execution, extended context ## 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 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 - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
dda63a4324 |
Update CONTRIBUTING.md to require PR template, Greptile 5/5, and tests (#2618)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Contributors submit pull requests to improve the codebase > - We have a PR template at `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md` that standardizes PR descriptions > - But PRs created via the API or other tooling sometimes bypass the template > - We also require Greptile automated review and passing tests, but this wasn't clearly documented > - This PR updates CONTRIBUTING.md to explicitly require use of the PR template, a 5/5 Greptile score, and passing tests > - The benefit is contributors have clear, upfront expectations for what a mergeable PR looks like ## What Changed - Added a new "PR Requirements (all PRs)" section to CONTRIBUTING.md with three subsections: - **Use the PR Template** — links to `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md` and explains it must be used even when creating PRs outside the GitHub UI - **Tests Must Pass** — requires local test runs and green CI - **Greptile Review** — requires 5/5 score with all comments addressed - Updated Path 1 and Path 2 bullet points to reference the PR template, Greptile 5/5, and CI requirements specifically - Updated "Writing a Good PR message" section to link to the PR template and clarify all sections are required ## Verification - Read the updated CONTRIBUTING.md and verify it clearly references the PR template, Greptile 5/5 requirement, and test requirements - Verify all links to `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md` resolve correctly ## Risks - Low risk — documentation-only change, no code affected ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic Claude - Model ID: claude-opus-4-6 (1M context) - Capabilities: tool use, code editing ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
2c747402a8 | docs: add PR thinking path guidance to contributing | ||
|
Aaron
|
049f768bc7 | Add Contributing guide |