mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-19 20:44:16 +02:00
codex/opencode-pre-routing-skill
14
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
806af230b6 |
docs(release): curate stable notes for the 2026.1002.0-beta.0 promotion (#14928)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The release pipeline publishes a beta, waits three days, and then promotes it to stable. > - The stable promotion reads `releases/beta/v<beta-version>.md` from `master` and publishes it as the GitHub Release body. > - Beta `2026.1002.0-beta.0` (source `467125fa`, 179 commits after v2026.1001.0) is published and its soak has started. The planned stable is around 2026-10-05. > - The beta publish job pushed an auto-generated scaffold. The scaffold lists raw commit subjects and PR bodies. It is not in release-notes voice. > - This pull request replaces the scaffold with curated stable notes. > - The benefit is that the stable release ships with readable notes that tell self-hosters what changed and what they must do. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Docs: release notes. **Where is the issue?** `releases/beta/v2026.1002.0-beta.0.md` on branch `release-notes/v2026.1002.0-beta.0`. **What's wrong?** The file is the auto-generated scaffold from the beta publish job. It lists 170+ raw entries with no grouping, no breaking-changes section, and no upgrade guide. **Suggested fix** Rewrite the file in the standard release-notes structure. The notes are planned as `v2026.1005.0`. **If the promotion date moves past 2026-10-05, change the title and the Released date before you dispatch stable.** ## What Changed - Rewrote `releases/beta/v2026.1002.0-beta.0.md` into the standard structure: overview, Breaking Changes, Highlights, Fixes, Improvements, Upgrade Guide, and Contributors. - Breaking Changes: operator UI snippet settings removed ([#13789](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13789)); keyboard-shortcut settings and `/api/auth/preferences` removed ([#14141](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/14141), [#14643](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/14643)); agent @-mentions no longer start a run ([#14577](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/14577)). - Highlights: Grok Build on the native runner, persistent agent files, skills synced from GitHub, Browser Use Cloud, one-screen connector setup, two-way Slack, Agent Chat navigation and handoffs, per-message model and effort picker, governed API tools on by default. - Upgrade Guide: migrations `0284`–`0293` with one-phrase descriptions, new default for `PAPERCLIP_RUNNER_API_TOOLS_ENABLED`, and the new optional variables `PAPERCLIP_RUNNER_API_COMPANY_CAPTURE_MAX_BYTES`, `PAPERCLIP_WORKSPACE_GIT_SNAPSHOT_TIMEOUT_MS`, and `PAPERCLIP_WORKSPACE_MANIFEST_MIN_FREE_BYTES` with their defaults. - Removed release-infra noise: CI-only PRs, eval and test-only PRs, lockfile refreshes, release-notes bookkeeping commits, and cloud-control-plane-only changes. ## Verification - Docs only. Each PR number and commit SHA in the notes is in `git log v2026.1001.0..467125fafb47a8520856504fecc48d6e32055db1`. - Migration range `0284`–`0293` checked against the `packages/db/src/migrations` diff for that range. - Environment variable defaults checked in the code, not in commit subjects. - Contributor count and external handles computed from `git shortlog` over the same range. ## Risks Low. Documentation only. The stable preflight only requires that the file exists on `master`. The content can change during the soak. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Fable 5.1 (`claude-fable-5-1`) via Claude Code, with tool use and code execution. ## 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) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (none apply) - [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 on this fresh PR) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Devin Foleyandgithub-actions[bot]
|
261c24ccf9 |
docs(release): canonicalize stable notes for v2026.1001.0 (#14890)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release process keeps stable notes under a beta-keyed path during the soak and renames them to the versioned path after the stable ships > - Stable v2026.1001.0 is published. The `canonicalize_stable_notes` job pushed the rename branch but it does not open a pull request > - The published notes also have no Contributors section. The previous stable notes (v2026.916.0) have one > - This pull request moves the notes to `releases/v2026.1001.0.md` and adds the Contributors section > - The benefit is that the repository returns to the canonical release-notes layout and the external contributors get credit ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing content **Where is the issue?** `releases/` — the stable notes for v2026.1001.0 still live at the beta-keyed path `releases/beta/v2026.921.0-beta.1.md`, and they have no Contributors section. **What's wrong?** The `canonicalize_stable_notes` job in the stable release run pushed branch `release-notes/v2026.1001.0-canonicalize` with the rename, but it does not open a pull request. The notes also do not credit the three external contributors in the release range. **Suggested fix** Merge the workflow's rename commit, plus one commit that appends a `## Contributors` section in the same format as `releases/v2026.916.0.md`. ## What Changed - Renamed `releases/beta/v2026.921.0-beta.1.md` to `releases/v2026.1001.0.md` (workflow commit, no content changes) - Appended a `## Contributors` section: 77 commits from 8 contributors, with credits to @austinpilz, @hawikk, and @mouse-value-add - No other content changed. The notes above the new section match the published GitHub Release body for v2026.1001.0 ## Verification - `git log --follow releases/v2026.1001.0.md` shows the rename commit followed by one commit that only appends the Contributors section - `git rev-list --count v2026.916.1..v2026.1001.0` returns 77 - The author list of that range, minus maintainers and bots, is @austinpilz, @hawikk, and @mouse-value-add - The GitHub Release body for v2026.1001.0 is identical to this file without the Contributors section ## Risks - Low risk: a documentation-only rename plus one appended section. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5-1` (Claude Fable 5.1), extended thinking enabled, 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 (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 - [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: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
|
5207c78f21 |
docs(release): align 2026.921.0-beta.1 stable notes header with v2026.1001.0 (#14882)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Releases are published by `release.yml`. A stable release promotes a soaked beta, and the stable notes live on master in `releases/beta/v<beta>.md` until the promotion runs. > - The curated notes for `2026.921.0-beta.1` have the title `Paperclip v2026.924.0` and the date `2026-09-24`. That stable did not ship. No `v2026.924.0` tag or release exists. > - The next promotion of this beta uses `stable_date=2026-10-01`. `scripts/release.sh stable --print-version --date 2026-10-01` resolves to `2026.1001.0`. > - `publish_stable` reads this file verbatim and uses it as the GitHub Release body. `canonicalize_stable_notes` copies it to `releases/v2026.1001.0.md`. Nothing rewrites the header. > - This pull request updates the title, the release date, and the intro sentence to `v2026.1001.0` and `2026-10-01`. > - The benefit is a GitHub Release page and a canonical notes file that show the correct version and date. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Describe the documentation problem** The stable notes file `releases/beta/v2026.921.0-beta.1.md` names a stable version and release date that do not match the version the release workflow will publish. **Where is the problem** `releases/beta/v2026.921.0-beta.1.md`, lines 1, 3, and 5. **Proposed fix** Change `v2026.924.0` to `v2026.1001.0` and `2026-09-24` to `2026-10-01` in the three places that name the version or date. Change nothing else in the file. ## What Changed - Title: `# Paperclip v2026.924.0` → `# Paperclip v2026.1001.0` - Release date: `> Released: 2026-09-24` → `> Released: 2026-10-01` - Intro sentence: `Paperclip v2026.924.0 carries 77 commits` → `Paperclip v2026.1001.0 carries 77 commits` ## Verification - `git diff master --stat` shows one file with 3 insertions and 3 deletions. - `grep -n '924' releases/beta/v2026.921.0-beta.1.md` returns no lines. - `git show master:scripts/release.sh > /tmp/r.sh && bash /tmp/r.sh stable --print-version --date 2026-10-01` prints `2026.1001.0`. - The rest of the file is byte-identical to master. ## Risks - Low risk. This is a documentation-only change to a release notes file. No code or workflow changes. - If the stable promotion is dispatched with a different `stable_date`, the header must be updated again to match. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5.1 (model ID `claude-fable-5-1`), run as a Paperclip agent through the Claude Agent SDK, with tool use (shell, git, GitHub CLI). No extended thinking mode was configured beyond the default. ## 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 - [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable (not applicable: documentation-only change) - [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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Bender (Fable) <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Devin Foleyandgithub-actions[bot]
|
3c70b3d008 |
docs(release): curate stable notes for the 2026.921.0-beta.1 promotion (#13785)
## Thinking Path > - The stable promotion reads `releases/beta/v<beta-version>.md` from `master` and publishes it as the GitHub Release body. > - Beta `2026.921.0-beta.1` (source `8f8a0ab7`, 77 commits since v2026.916.0) just published and starts its 3-day soak, headed for a stable around 2026-09-24. > - This PR rewrites the auto-generated draft into release voice during the soak, per the release checklist. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Notes for the stable to be promoted from [`2026.921.0-beta.1`](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/releases) — planned as `v2026.924.0`. **If the promotion date slips past 2026-09-24, bump the title and Released date before dispatching stable.** ## What Changed - Rewrote `releases/beta/v2026.921.0-beta.1.md` from the 77-entry scaffold into the standard release-notes structure: overview, Breaking Changes (legacy Composio broker retirement [#13758](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13758); full-auto execution defaults [#13686](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13686)/[#13693](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13693)), Highlights, grouped Fixes, Improvements, and an Upgrade Guide (migrations `0280`–`0283`, `enableMcpAggregators` flag). - Folded out release-infra noise: CI-only PRs, test-only PRs, release-notes bookkeeping commits, and the hide/restore Google-connector pair ([#13551](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13551)/[#13552](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13552), net zero). - Noted that the composer fix ([#13562](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13562)) already shipped early as stable 2026.916.1. ## Verification - Docs-only; every PR number cited was cross-checked against `git log dffc2b3ca..8f8a0ab7e`. - Migration range `0280`–`0283` verified against `packages/db/src/migrations` diff and attributed per commit. ## Risks None — documentation only. Content can be edited freely during the soak; the stable preflight only requires the file to exist on `master`. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) via Claude Code, with tool use and code execution. ## 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 - [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 (docs-only; no tests apply) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (none apply) - [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 on this fresh PR) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Devin Foleyandgithub-actions[bot]
|
cf2742ac48 |
docs(release): canonicalize v2026.916.1 release notes (#13774)
## Thinking Path > - Stable `2026.916.1` just published from beta `2026.921.0-beta.0`; its curated notes live at `releases/beta/v2026.921.0-beta.0.md` on `master`. > - The release workflow's `canonicalize_stable_notes` job pushed this branch, which `git mv`s them to the canonical stable path. > - Merging restores the canonical `releases/` layout, matching every prior stable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Follow-up to the [v2026.916.1](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/releases/tag/v2026.916.1) stable release; notes were curated in [#13766](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13766). ## What Changed - `git mv releases/beta/v2026.921.0-beta.0.md releases/v2026.916.1.md` (workflow-generated, content unchanged). ## Verification - Rename only; the GitHub Release body was already published from this content. ## Risks None — documentation layout only. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) via Claude Code, with tool use and code execution. ## 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 - [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 (rename-only; no tests apply) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (none apply) - [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 on this fresh PR) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Devin Foleyandgithub-actions[bot]
|
8f8a0ab7ef |
docs(release): curate stable notes for v2026.916.1 (#13766)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip publishes stable releases from curated notes: the stable promotion reads `releases/beta/v<beta-version>.md` from `master` and publishes it as the GitHub Release body. > - Beta `2026.921.0-beta.0` was just published from a candidate branch carrying the 2026.916.0 source plus the cherry-picked composer fix #13562, headed for patch stable `2026.916.1`. > - Its `draft_stable_notes` job pushed the auto-generated scaffold; this PR rewrites it into release-notes voice so the stable promotion's preflight finds curated notes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Notes for the upcoming `2026.916.1` patch stable. The fix being shipped is [#13562](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13562) (fixes #13561, the desktop chat composer send button starting out disabled). ## What Changed - Rewrote `releases/beta/v2026.921.0-beta.0.md` from the auto-generated commit list into the patch-release format used by `releases/v2026.831.1.md`: what the patch is, the user-facing composer fix, the rode-along document-conflict classification repair, and an upgrade guide (no migrations, no configuration changes). ## Verification - Docs-only change; no code paths affected. - Format matches the prior patch release notes (`releases/v2026.831.1.md`). - The stable promotion will resolve this file from `master` for beta `2026.921.0-beta.0` and canonicalize it to `releases/v2026.916.1.md` after publishing. ## Risks None — documentation only. If the wording needs adjusting during review, the stable dispatch simply waits until this is merged. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) via Claude Code, with tool use and code execution. ## 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 (docs-only; no tests apply) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (none apply) - [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 on this fresh PR) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Devin Foleyandgithub-actions[bot]
|
c49336acdf |
docs(release): canonicalize v2026.916.0 release notes (#13548)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Stable v2026.916.0 shipped today; its release notes were maintained during the beta window at `releases/beta/v2026.916.0-beta.0.md` > - The release workflow's canonicalize step renames the file to its canonical stable path once the promotion completes, pushing the rename to a branch for a human-opened pull request (bot-opened PRs trigger no CI) > - This pull request is that rename: `releases/beta/v2026.916.0-beta.0.md` → `releases/v2026.916.0.md` > - The benefit is that the published GitHub Release body and the in-repo notes file agree on the canonical path ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Routine post-release canonicalization for the `v2026.916.0` stable, generated by the release workflow's `canonicalize_stable_notes` job (run 35126040769). Content is byte-identical to the notes published on the GitHub Release. **What happened?** Stable promotion completed; the notes file needs its canonical name. **Expected behavior** `releases/v2026.916.0.md` exists on master matching the published release body. **Steps to reproduce** n/a — mechanical rename. ## What Changed - Rename `releases/beta/v2026.916.0-beta.0.md` to `releases/v2026.916.0.md` (no content change) ## Verification - Diff is a pure rename; content matches the published GitHub Release body for v2026.916.0 ## Risks - None — docs-only rename. ## Model Used None for the change itself (generated by the release workflow); PR opened via Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, 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 (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 - [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: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Devin Foleyandgithub-actions[bot]
|
de9ac61fb5 |
docs(release): curate stable notes for v2026.916.0 (#13522)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release system publishes canary, nightly, beta, and stable channels; a stable promotion publishes its release notes as the GitHub Release body > - At beta publish time the workflow auto-drafts a raw commit-log skeleton on this branch (`releases/beta/v2026.916.0-beta.0.md`) for humans to edit > - The skeleton is a 1,800-line commit dump; stable `v2026.916.0` cannot ship user-facing notes in that form > - This pull request replaces the skeleton with the curated changelog for the `v2026.916.0` promotion: overview, breaking changes, highlights, fixes, upgrade guide, and contributor credits for the 483-commit range since `v2026.831.1` > - The benefit is that the stable promotion reads finished, accurate notes from master and publishes them as the release body ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13403, #13247, #13248, #13268, #13256, #13038, #13299 — the headline features this changelog describes. The notes-drafting flow itself (skeleton branch at beta publish, stable promotion reading the file from master, post-ship canonicalization) is the standing release process; this PR is the curation step it expects. ## What Changed - Replaced the auto-drafted skeleton in `releases/beta/v2026.916.0-beta.0.md` with the curated release notes for stable `v2026.916.0` (promoted from beta `2026.916.0-beta.0`, source `dffc2b3ca`) - Also removes the orphaned `releases/beta/v2026.915.0-beta.0.md`: that beta's promotion was abandoned before publishing, and this changelog supersedes it - Sections: overview, Breaking Changes (5), Highlights (Connections train leads), Improvements, Fixes, Upgrade Guide (migrations `0231`–`0279`, new env vars, removed API surface), Contributors ## Verification - Every PR link and claim was checked against the actual commit range `dbf052577..667c79ded` (the same range the skeleton header names) - Migration list enumerated from `git log --diff-filter=A` over that range; only `0231` and `0236` discard data, called out as such - New environment variables verified in code (`server/src/config.ts`): announcement flags (default on), split Sentry DSNs with legacy fallback, token-broker allowed hosts, cwd `.env` opt-out - Contributor list built from commit authors plus co-author trailers; core maintainers excluded per release-notes convention - Docs-only change: no code paths, no tests to add ## Risks - Low risk: documentation only. The stable promotion reads this file from master at dispatch time; if wording needs a follow-up after merge, the promotion pins the master revision it resolved, so edits must land before the stable dispatch - The file is renamed to `releases/v2026.916.0.md` by the post-ship canonicalization step, as with previous promotions ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking with tool use (Claude Code). The commit-range analysis and draft were produced by a subagent on the same model and human-review-style checked against the range before commit. ## 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 - [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: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Devin Foleyandgithub-actions[bot]
|
081006bee4 |
docs(release): curate stable notes for v2026.915.0 (#13487)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release system publishes canary, nightly, beta, and stable channels; a stable promotion publishes its release notes as the GitHub Release body > - At beta publish time the workflow auto-drafts a raw commit-log skeleton on this branch (`releases/beta/v2026.915.0-beta.0.md`) for humans to edit > - The skeleton is a 1,800-line commit dump; stable `v2026.915.0` cannot ship user-facing notes in that form > - This pull request replaces the skeleton with the curated changelog for the `v2026.915.0` promotion: overview, breaking changes, highlights, fixes, upgrade guide, and contributor credits for the 483-commit range since `v2026.831.1` > - The benefit is that the stable promotion reads finished, accurate notes from master and publishes them as the release body ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13403, #13247, #13248, #13268, #13256, #13038, #13299 — the headline features this changelog describes. The notes-drafting flow itself (skeleton branch at beta publish, stable promotion reading the file from master, post-ship canonicalization) is the standing release process; this PR is the curation step it expects. ## What Changed - Replaced the auto-drafted skeleton in `releases/beta/v2026.915.0-beta.0.md` with the curated release notes for stable `v2026.915.0` (promoted from beta `2026.915.0-beta.0`, source `667c79ded`) - Sections: overview, Breaking Changes (5), Highlights (Connections train leads), Improvements, Fixes, Upgrade Guide (migrations `0231`–`0279`, new env vars, removed API surface), Contributors ## Verification - Every PR link and claim was checked against the actual commit range `dbf052577..667c79ded` (the same range the skeleton header names) - Migration list enumerated from `git log --diff-filter=A` over that range; only `0231` and `0236` discard data, called out as such - New environment variables verified in code (`server/src/config.ts`): announcement flags (default on), split Sentry DSNs with legacy fallback, token-broker allowed hosts, cwd `.env` opt-out - Contributor list built from commit authors plus co-author trailers; core maintainers excluded per release-notes convention - Docs-only change: no code paths, no tests to add ## Risks - Low risk: documentation only. The stable promotion reads this file from master at dispatch time; if wording needs a follow-up after merge, the promotion pins the master revision it resolved, so edits must land before the stable dispatch - The file is renamed to `releases/v2026.915.0.md` by the post-ship canonicalization step, as with previous promotions ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking with tool use (Claude Code). The commit-range analysis and draft were produced by a subagent on the same model and human-review-style checked against the range before commit. ## 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 - [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: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
0b00029672 |
docs(release): canonicalize stable notes for v2026.831.0 (#12708)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release process drafts stable notes under a beta-keyed path during the soak and renames them to the versioned path after the stable ships > - Stable v2026.831.0 published, but its release run failed at the tag push (workflows-permission error), so the automated canonicalize job never ran > - The canonical layout requires the notes at `releases/v2026.831.0.md` > - This pull request performs the rename the skipped job would have pushed > - The benefit is that the repository returns to the canonical release-notes layout ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing content **Where is the issue?** `releases/` — the stable notes for v2026.831.0 still live at the beta-keyed path `releases/beta/v2026.828.0-beta.0.md`. **What's wrong?** The stable release run failed at the tag push, so the `canonicalize_stable_notes` job was skipped and the rename branch was never pushed. The published GitHub Release points at content that should live at `releases/v2026.831.0.md`. **Suggested fix** `git mv releases/beta/v2026.828.0-beta.0.md releases/v2026.831.0.md`, exactly as the workflow's canonicalize job does. ## What Changed - Renamed `releases/beta/v2026.828.0-beta.0.md` to `releases/v2026.831.0.md` (pure rename, no content changes) ## Verification - `git show --stat` reports a 100% rename with no content delta - The file matches the published GitHub Release body for v2026.831.0 ## Risks - Low risk: a pure file rename restoring the canonical layout. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5), extended thinking enabled, 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 (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 - [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 |
||
|
Devin Foleyandgithub-actions[bot]
|
b5fd13e09f |
docs(release): stable notes for the 2026.828.0-beta.0 soak (v2026.831.0) (#12610)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release process promotes a soaked beta to stable; the stable's GitHub Release body comes from `releases/beta/v<beta-version>.md` on `master` > - The `draft_stable_notes` job seeded this file as a raw commit-log skeleton when `2026.828.0-beta.0` published > - The stable preflight fails without the merged file, and the skeleton is not fit to publish as release notes > - This pull request rewrites the skeleton into finished stable notes for the v2026.831.0 promotion > - The benefit is that the stable release ships with accurate, readable, user-facing notes on time ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing content **Where is the issue?** `releases/beta/v2026.828.0-beta.0.md` — the drafted stable-notes skeleton for the `2026.828.0-beta.0` soak. **What's wrong?** The file holds the auto-generated skeleton (grouped commit subjects with nested PR summaries). The stable promotion publishes this file verbatim as the GitHub Release body, so it must be rewritten into release-notes voice before the stable dispatch. **Suggested fix** Rewrite the skeleton at full stable depth per `.agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md`: verified breaking changes with upgrade paths, delta-aware highlights, grouped improvements and fixes with inline PR attribution, an upgrade guide covering migrations and new environment variables, and a contributors section. ## What Changed - Rewrote `releases/beta/v2026.828.0-beta.0.md` from the generated skeleton into finished notes titled `# Paperclip v2026.831.0` - Six breaking changes, led by the Node.js 24.11.0 minimum; each has an upgrade path - Five highlights: runtime skill delivery to agents, the Kimi Code adapter, operator settings-visibility controls, the HTTP/2 sandbox callback bridge, and the shortened onboarding arc - Upgrade guide covers migrations `0223`–`0230` (each attributed from its SQL) and the new `PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS`, `PAPERCLIP_SETTING_DEFAULTS`, `SENTRY_DSN`, and `PAPERCLIP_WORKSPACE_REAPER_COOLDOWN_DAYS` variables - Entries already shipped to stable users in v2026.824.1 are noted as such instead of re-announced - Contributors section lists 7 verified community handles; core maintainers and bots are excluded per the canonical list ## Verification - Range verified as `664052f8e..dbf052577` (baseline v2026.824.1 merge-base to the `beta/v2026.828.0-beta.0` source commit); every entry traces to a commit in that range - Stable version confirmed with `./scripts/release.sh stable --date 2026-08-31 --print-version` → `2026.831.0` - Migration list confirmed with `git diff --name-only 664052f8e..dbf052577 -- packages/db/src/migrations/` and each file's SQL read at the source commit - Environment variable names confirmed against `docs/deploy/environment-variables.md` and source at `dbf052577` - Contributor handles confirmed via `gh pr view <n> --json author` for each attributed community PR ## Risks - Low risk: a single markdown file; no source changes. The main risk is a factual error in the notes — mitigated by verifying each claim against the source commit rather than commit messages alone. If the promotion date slips past 2026-08-31 UTC, the title needs a re-date (the beta-keyed filename makes this harmless). ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5), extended thinking enabled, tool use (git/GitHub CLI research against the release range) 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 (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 - [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: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Devin Foleyandgithub-actions[bot]
|
fa40a1b8d5 |
docs(release): canonicalize stable notes for v2026.824.0 (#12139)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Stable notes are drafted beta-keyed during the soak and published verbatim as the GitHub Release > - After the stable ships, the canonicalize job moves the file to its durable home, releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md > - v2026.824.0 just shipped from the master-side beta notes, and the job pushed this rename branch > - This pull request lands that rename, keeping the stable-notes record complete at the canonical path > - The benefit is one canonical notes location per stable, with the pinned shipped content ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The `releases/` record on master after the v2026.824.0 promotion. **Current behavior** The shipped notes live at `releases/beta/v2026.818.0-beta.1.md`; `releases/v2026.824.0.md` does not exist. **Proposed behavior** The file moves to `releases/v2026.824.0.md`, content pinned to the revision the release read (machine-generated by the `canonicalize_stable_notes` job). **Reason and benefit** The durable stable-notes invariant holds: every shipped stable has its notes at `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md`. ## What Changed - `git mv`-equivalent rename of the beta-keyed notes to `releases/v2026.824.0.md`, exactly as the release published them. ## Verification - Branch pushed by the release run's `canonicalize_stable_notes` job (run 32806191945) from the preflight-pinned notes revision; the GitHub Release v2026.824.0 body matches this content. ## Risks - None; docs-only rename. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code) — PR opened for the machine-pushed branch; a GITHUB_TOKEN-created PR would not run required checks. ## Pre-submission 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 Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
ae9711da48 |
docs(release): re-date the 2026.818.0-beta.1 stable notes to v2026.824.0 (#12113)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Stable versions date the promotion, and the promotion reads its notes from master > - The merged notes for beta 2026.818.0-beta.1 assumed an Aug 21 promotion; the beta soaked longer > - This pull request re-dates the header to today's resolved version, v2026.824.0 > - The benefit is a GitHub Release whose title, date, and body agree ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The stable notes header for the promotion happening today. **Current behavior** `releases/beta/v2026.818.0-beta.1.md` is titled `# Paperclip v2026.821.0`, `> Released: 2026-08-21`. **Proposed behavior** `# Paperclip v2026.824.0`, `> Released: 2026-08-24` — matching `./scripts/release.sh stable --date 2026-08-24 --print-version`. **Reason and benefit** The file publishes verbatim as the GitHub Release body; the header should match the version actually minted. ## What Changed - Three header/intro lines re-dated. Nothing else. ## Verification - `./scripts/release.sh stable --date 2026-08-24 --print-version` → `2026.824.0`. ## Risks - None; docs-only. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code) ## Pre-submission 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 |
||
|
Devin Foleyandgithub-actions[bot]
|
ffaac1d7f9 |
docs(release): stable notes for the 2026.818.0-beta.1 soak (v2026.821.0) (#11661)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release channels promote a soaked beta to stable, and the promotion reads the stable's release notes from `releases/beta/v<beta-version>.md` on master > - Beta `2026.818.0-beta.1` is soaking now, and the release workflow auto-drafted its notes skeleton on this branch at publish time > - This pull request rewrites that skeleton into the finished changelog for the upcoming stable > - The stable preflight fails without this file on master, so this PR must merge before promotion day > - The benefit is release notes reviewed during the soak instead of written at the gate ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The release-notes flow for the upcoming stable (planned `v2026.821.0`, promoting beta `2026.818.0-beta.1`, source `664052f8e`). **Current behavior** The branch holds the machine-generated skeleton: grouped commit subjects for the 172-commit range from v2026.817.0's content baseline (`8f7b8b3fd`). **Proposed behavior** The finished changelog in the established release voice: verified Breaking Changes, Highlights, Improvements, Fixes, an Upgrade Guide covering migrations 0212–0222 and the new environment variables, and a verified community contributor list. **Reason and benefit** Notes get real review during the soak; the promotion just reads the merged file. ## What Changed - Rewrite `releases/beta/v2026.818.0-beta.1.md` from skeleton to finished notes. Headline themes: chat-style tasks as the default experience, Tailscale HTTPS managed runtime exposure, sandbox capability contract with live output streaming, in-product Claude/Codex sign-in, chunked resumable company imports, and the completed release-channel automation. - Five verified breaking/behavior changes, including the `enableTaskChatRedesign` → `enableClassicTaskInterface` toggle inversion and migration `0218`'s conservative resolver-policy remap. - Contributors: 172 commits from 32 non-bot authors; 22 verified community handles listed (founders/core excluded per the canonical list; 4 authors omitted as unverifiable rather than guessed). ## Verification - Every cited PR number resolves to a commit subject in the range. - No internal ticket identifiers. - Handles verified via noreply emails, co-author trailers, or `gh api users/<name>`. - The version/date header says the planned promotion (`v2026.821.0`, 2026-08-21); if promotion slips, only that header needs a touch-up — the beta-keyed filename is date-independent. ## Risks - Docs-only. If a newer beta supersedes `2026.818.0-beta.1` before promotion, this file stays as history and the new beta gets its own draft. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code) ## Pre-submission 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 --------- Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> |