## 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
## 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>
Add a required "Model Used" section to the PR template so contributors
document which AI model (with version, context window, reasoning mode,
and other capability details) was used for each change. Also adds a
corresponding checklist item.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Address Greptile feedback — the sparse 3-line placeholder could
lead to shallow thinking paths. Expanded to 6 lines with guiding
brackets and added "Aim for 5–8 steps" hint in the comment.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Devin Foley