Devin Foley
254b01d2af
## 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
99 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
99 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
## Thinking Path
|
||
|
||
<!--
|
||
Required. Trace your reasoning from the top of the project down to this
|
||
specific change. Start with what Paperclip is, then narrow through the
|
||
subsystem, the problem, and why this PR exists. Use blockquote style.
|
||
Aim for 5–8 steps. See CONTRIBUTING.md for full examples.
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work
|
||
> - [Which subsystem or capability is involved]
|
||
> - [What problem or gap exists]
|
||
> - [Why it needs to be addressed]
|
||
> - This pull request ...
|
||
> - The benefit is ...
|
||
|
||
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
|
||
|
||
<!--
|
||
Required. Pick ONE of the following two paths:
|
||
|
||
(A) Issue exists — tag each linked issue with `Fixes: #123`, `Closes #123`,
|
||
or `Refs #123`. Include duplicates and closely related issues too.
|
||
|
||
Only reference PUBLIC GitHub issues/PRs here. Do NOT paste internal,
|
||
instance-local Paperclip references — ticket ids like PAPA-123 / PAP-224,
|
||
/PAP/issues/... or agent://... links, or localhost/tailnet URLs. Other
|
||
contributors cannot open them. See CONTRIBUTING.md → "No Internal Issue
|
||
References".
|
||
|
||
(B) No issue exists — describe the underlying problem here, following the
|
||
relevant issue template so reviewers get the same fields:
|
||
• Bug: .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml
|
||
• Feature: .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml
|
||
• Adapter: .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/adapter_request.yml
|
||
|
||
See CONTRIBUTING.md → "Link Issues or Describe Them In-PR".
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
-
|
||
|
||
## What Changed
|
||
|
||
<!-- Bullet list of concrete changes. One bullet per logical unit. -->
|
||
|
||
-
|
||
|
||
## Verification
|
||
|
||
<!--
|
||
How can a reviewer confirm this works? Include test commands, manual
|
||
steps, or both.
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
-
|
||
|
||
## Risks
|
||
|
||
<!--
|
||
What could go wrong? Mention migration safety, breaking changes,
|
||
behavioral shifts, or "Low risk" if genuinely minor.
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
-
|
||
|
||
> 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
|
||
|
||
<!--
|
||
Required. Specify which AI model was used to produce or assist with
|
||
this change. Be as descriptive as possible — include:
|
||
• Provider and model name (e.g., Claude, GPT, Gemini, Codex)
|
||
• Exact model ID or version (e.g., claude-opus-4-6, gpt-4-turbo-2024-04-09)
|
||
• Context window size if relevant (e.g., 1M context)
|
||
• Reasoning/thinking mode if applicable (e.g., extended thinking, chain-of-thought)
|
||
• Any other relevant capability details (e.g., tool use, code execution)
|
||
If no AI model was used, write "None — human-authored".
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
-
|
||
|
||
## Checklist
|
||
|
||
- [ ] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change
|
||
- [ ] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details)
|
||
- [ ] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work
|
||
- [ ] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above
|
||
- [ ] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template
|
||
- [ ] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs)
|
||
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
|
||
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
|
||
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable
|
||
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
|
||
- [ ] 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
|
||
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge
|