Devin Foley
fce3b439af
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane operators use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Board operators rely on the settings UI and CLI docs to understand which product surfaces are stable to depend on. > - Experimental features already existed in the product, but the operator-facing contract around them was too soft and too fragmented. > - That created a risk that users would enable experiments without being told clearly that they can break, change, or disappear. > - The docs and the in-product settings page both needed the same explicit warning language so the contract is visible at the moment of decision. > - This pull request adds that warning to the board-operator guide, CLI references, and the experimental settings page. > - The benefit is clearer operator expectations without changing the underlying feature flags or rollout behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this docs/polish gap. Problem description: - Board operators could enable experimental features without a clear operator-facing statement that those features are opt-in and come without compatibility guarantees. - The docs site, repo CLI reference, and in-product experimental settings page did not present one consistent warning contract. - This PR closes that gap by documenting the risk explicitly where operators discover and enable those settings. Related public search: - Searched public issues/PRs for related work with `gh search issues --repo paperclipai/paperclip 'experimental features warning'` and `gh search prs --repo paperclipai/paperclip 'experimental features warning'`. - Reviewed open PR #6165 during that search and found it unrelated; it changes experimental auth/routing flags rather than documenting experimental-feature risk. ## What Changed - Added a new board-operator guide at `docs/guides/board-operator/experimental-features.md` that defines the Paperclip contract for experimental features. - Registered that guide in `docs/docs.json` so it appears in the public docs navigation. - Added matching caveat language next to `instance settings:experimental` in `docs/cli/control-plane-commands.md`. - Added the same caveat to `doc/CLI.md` so the repo CLI reference does not drift from the published docs. - Added a single page-level warning banner to `ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.tsx` stating that experimental features are opt-in, carry no compatibility guarantees, and may change, break, or be removed. - Added a targeted UI test in `ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` that asserts exactly one page-level warning renders with the new risk language. ## Verification - `jq empty docs/docs.json` - `git diff --check` - `cd ui && pnpm vitest run src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` - Manual review of the warning contract across: - `docs/guides/board-operator/experimental-features.md` - `docs/cli/control-plane-commands.md` - `doc/CLI.md` - `ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.tsx` UI note: - This is a copy-level warning addition rather than a layout rework. I did not attach before/after screenshots in this PR body. ## Risks - Low risk: this changes operator-facing documentation and warning copy, not feature-flag behavior. - The main failure mode is wording drift across docs and UI in future edits, which is why this PR adds the same contract to all relevant operator-facing surfaces. > I checked `ROADMAP.md` before opening this PR. This is docs/UI polish around an existing experimental surface, not overlapping roadmap-level core feature work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex Local using `gpt-5.4` with high reasoning and tool use for coordination, review, docs changes, and PR preparation. - Anthropic Claude Local using `claude-opus-4-8` with high reasoning and tool use for the in-product warning and targeted UI test. ## 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 - [x] 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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>
2.0 KiB
2.0 KiB
title, summary
| title | summary |
|---|---|
| Experimental Features | What Paperclip experimental features mean for board operators |
Experimental features are opt-in and are provided without compatibility guarantees. They may break, change, or be removed at any time. Use them at your own risk.
What "experimental" means
When a feature is marked experimental, Paperclip is still evaluating the product shape and implementation details.
- The feature is not part of the stable operator contract yet.
- UI, API, CLI, behavior, and stored configuration may change as the feature evolves.
- Paperclip does not promise compatibility, rollback, migration, or long-term support for experimental features.
If you need stable behavior for an important workflow, do not rely on an experimental feature.
Where you enable them
Board operators enable or disable experiments from Instance Settings > Experimental in the app.
The CLI exposes the same surface:
pnpm paperclipai instance settings:experimental
pnpm paperclipai instance settings:experimental:update --payload-json '{...}'
Those commands change the same opt-in settings that the UI manages.
When to use them
Experimental features are best used when you are:
- evaluating a new capability before wider rollout
- testing a non-critical workflow
- comfortable with behavior changes between releases
- prepared to stop using the feature if it changes or disappears
Operator expectations
Before enabling an experimental feature:
- decide whether the workflow can tolerate breakage or churn
- avoid making the feature a dependency for stable production processes
- keep the scope small until you understand how the feature behaves in your company
- watch release notes and docs for changes to the feature contract
Related references
- See the CLI caveat in Control-Plane Commands.
- See the repo CLI reference in
doc/CLI.mdwhen working from the repository.