Devin Foley
ec60da41ca
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Most of the inbound feedback loop lives in GitHub Issues: bugs, feature ideas, and new-adapter requests > - Today the "New issue" page is a blank textarea, which means reports arrive without a Paperclip version, without repro steps, and without a clear separation between adapter requests and feature requests > - That makes triage slow and routes a lot of low-information issues back to the requester for follow-up questions before any work can start > - This pull request adds `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/` with three YAML issue forms — bug, feature, adapter — plus a `config.yml` that disables blank issues and points contributors at Discord `#dev` and `ROADMAP.md` > - The benefit is that new issues come in with the fields a maintainer needs to triage on the first read, and feature requests are nudged toward the roadmap/Discord coordination path before they turn into uncoordinated PRs ## What Changed - Added `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml` — sets `blank_issues_enabled: false` and adds contact links for Discord `#dev` and the roadmap. - Added `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml` — required fields: what happened, expected behavior, repro steps, Paperclip version/commit, and a deployment-mode dropdown. Optional: Node version, OS, logs, additional context. - Added `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml` — required fields: problem/motivation, proposed solution. Optional: alternatives, ROADMAP.md alignment, additional context. - Added `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/adapter_request.yml` — required fields: agent/provider name, why useful, how invoked. Optional: willing-to-implement checkboxes, additional context. Field structure and labels are lifted from @amitdhanda48's earlier markdown-template proposal (#4260); this PR ports those four files to GitHub's YAML issue-form schema so required fields are enforced at submission time. The bundled `CONTRIBUTING.md` rewrite from that proposal is intentionally out of scope and left for a separate decision. ## Verification - `node -e "require('js-yaml').load(require('fs').readFileSync(f,'utf8'))"` against each of the four YAML files — all parse. - Diff against `master` is `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/` only: `git diff --stat master...HEAD` shows 4 files, +162 lines, 0 deletions. - Reviewer step: after merge, visit the repo's "New issue" page on GitHub and confirm the three forms render in the chooser, blank issues are disabled, and the Discord/roadmap contact links appear. ## Risks - Low risk. Files are GitHub-config only — they have no runtime effect on the server, UI, CLI, or any package. The only behavioral change is on github.com's "New issue" page. - If a YAML form has a schema mistake that `js-yaml` accepts but GitHub's form renderer rejects, GitHub silently falls back to a blank issue for that template. The mitigation is the post-merge render check above. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic) — `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 run tests locally and they pass (n/a — no code paths exercised by the test suite; YAML parse-check run instead) - [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable (n/a — repo has no test coverage for `.github/` config) - [ ] 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 - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
38 lines
1.3 KiB
YAML
38 lines
1.3 KiB
YAML
name: Feature request
|
|
description: Propose a new capability or improvement
|
|
labels: [enhancement]
|
|
body:
|
|
- type: markdown
|
|
attributes:
|
|
value: |
|
|
Feature work on core Paperclip is coordinated against `ROADMAP.md` and Discord `#dev`. Please skim those before filing — see [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md) for the full guidance.
|
|
- type: textarea
|
|
id: problem
|
|
attributes:
|
|
label: Problem or motivation
|
|
description: What are you trying to do that is currently difficult or impossible?
|
|
validations:
|
|
required: true
|
|
- type: textarea
|
|
id: solution
|
|
attributes:
|
|
label: Proposed solution
|
|
description: Describe the feature you'd like. How should it work?
|
|
validations:
|
|
required: true
|
|
- type: textarea
|
|
id: alternatives
|
|
attributes:
|
|
label: Alternatives considered
|
|
description: Other approaches you thought about and why you ruled them out.
|
|
- type: textarea
|
|
id: roadmap
|
|
attributes:
|
|
label: Roadmap alignment
|
|
description: Does this relate to anything in `ROADMAP.md`? Link the relevant section if so.
|
|
- type: textarea
|
|
id: context
|
|
attributes:
|
|
label: Additional context
|
|
description: Mockups, examples from other tools, related issues, etc.
|