## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, and
`github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` is the public intake for bugs and
feature work
> - PR #7575 (just merged) shipped a first cut of
`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/`: bug / feature / adapter forms plus a chooser
config that disables blank issues — enough to stop greeting filers with
an empty textarea
> - Reviewing [PR
#4189](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/4189) surfaced
additional, complementary items worth landing now rather than later: PII
handling (logs and config paste fields routinely contain agent
transcripts, encrypted-secrets paths, and tokens), richer environment
capture for bugs (install method, adapters, DB mode, access context),
and a subsystem picker on feature/enhancement so the queue can be
filtered by area
> - Items 7–10 from #4189 (CONTRIBUTING.md change, AGENTS.md §11,
`require-issue-link.yml`, GitHub Discussions contact link) are
intentionally deferred — each is its own decision and belongs in a
separate, focused PR
> - The auto-label workflow that earlier revisions of this branch
included was dropped per reviewer feedback — labeling on issue open is a
separate concern from the template content and should land (if at all)
in its own PR
> - This pull request extends the merged templates with PII warnings + a
mandatory privacy checkbox on `bug_report.yml`, additional optional env
fields, a required subsystem dropdown on `feature_request.yml`, and two
net-new templates (`enhancement.yml`, `docs_issue.yml`)
> - The benefit is that newly filed issues land with enough environment
context and subsystem hint to triage on first read, and paste-field PII
is gated by an explicit reviewer-readable checkbox
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #7575
PAPA-521 (follow-up). This is the second half of the issue-templates
work — PR #7575 shipped the baseline, this PR adopts items 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 6 from PR #4189 on top. Item 5 (auto-label workflow) was dropped per
reviewer feedback.
## What Changed
- `bug_report.yml` — added PII privacy notice with redaction guidance
and anonymizer links; pre-submission preflight checkboxes; optional
fields for install method, adapter checkbox list (Claude Code / Codex /
Cursor / Droid / Hermes / external plugin / core), database mode (PGlite
/ external Postgres), and access context (board / agent); inline PII
warnings on the logs and config paste fields; mandatory privacy
checklist at submission time
- `feature_request.yml` — added a required subsystem dropdown (`server/`
· `ui/` · `packages/db` · `packages/shared` · `packages/adapters` ·
`packages/plugins` · cross-cutting · unsure)
- `enhancement.yml` — new template for improvements to existing
behaviour, with current-vs-proposed-behaviour fields and a required
breaking-changes field
- `docs_issue.yml` — new lightweight doc-issue form (type / location /
description / suggestion)
No workflow changes in this PR.
## Verification
- All 4 changed YAML files round-trip through `js-yaml` cleanly
- Diff vs. master: 4 files changed, +254/-3 (`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/`
only)
- Post-merge reviewer steps:
1. Visit `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/new/choose` — expect
five template cards (bug, feature, enhancement, adapter, docs) and the
existing Discord/Roadmap contact links; no "Open a blank issue" option
2. Open each template in turn — required fields should block submission
when empty (in particular: privacy checklist on the bug form, subsystem
dropdown on feature/enhancement, breaking-changes field on enhancement)
## Risks
- Low risk overall. Files are `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/` config only — no
runtime effect on the server, UI, CLI, or any package, and no workflows
touched
- If a YAML form has a schema quirk that `js-yaml` accepts but GitHub's
form renderer rejects, GitHub silently falls back to a blank issue for
that template. The reviewer render check above is the mitigation
> 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
Claude Opus 4.7 — provider Anthropic, exact model ID `claude-opus-4-7`,
extended-thinking + tool use, running inside the Paperclip Claude Code
harness.
## 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 (refs #7575, #4189)
- [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 (n/a —
`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/` content only; `js-yaml` parse check run
instead)
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable (n/a — repo has no
test coverage for `.github/` content)
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (n/a — only the GitHub.com "New issue" page is affected;
render check happens post-merge on github.com)
- [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 open)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(greploop will run after open)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Devin Foley
a4fa0eaf5e