Devin Foley
a2abebee07
## 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>
100 lines
3.9 KiB
Markdown
100 lines
3.9 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. For UI changes, include before/after screenshots.
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
-
|
||
|
||
## 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
|
||
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots
|
||
- [ ] 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
|