## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Storybook previews help contributors review the board UI.
> - The publishing workflow uses the default branch CODEOWNERS file to
authorize users.
> - Tonio and Scott need access to this workflow.
> - This pull request adds both accounts as release documentation
owners.
> - The existing workflow can then authorize both accounts without a
separate user list in code.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Access to the Storybook build and publishing workflow.
**Subsystem affected**
Repository ownership and GitHub Actions authorization.
**Current behavior**
The workflow reads individual accounts from every CODEOWNERS rule on the
default branch. Neither `tonio-alucema` nor `scotttong` is in that file.
Both accounts already have repository admin access, but the workflow
authorization check denies them.
**Proposed behavior**
Add both accounts to the `doc/RELEASING.md` ownership rule. After merge,
both can start and rerun Storybook publishing workflows. A configured
`storybook-deploy` environment reviewer must still approve deployment.
CODEOWNERS membership does not add an account to the environment
reviewer settings.
**Reason and benefit**
Contributors can publish UI previews through the same CODEOWNERS policy
as other maintainers. The authorization code has no account-specific
exceptions.
**Breaking changes**
None. The existing authorization and deployment approval checks remain
in place.
**Additional context**
Related changes: #13226 added the publishing workflow. #13231 added
stable branch bookmarks. A search found no open PR for these permission
changes.
## What Changed
- Add `@tonio-alucema` and `@scotttong` only to the release
documentation ownership rule.
- Test that accounts listed for release documentation can start and
rerun publishing workflows.
- Test that removing an account from CODEOWNERS removes its publishing
access.
- Explain how CODEOWNERS entries and environment reviewers affect
publishing access.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-deploy.test.mjs`: all 25
tests pass.
- `actionlint .github/workflows/storybook-deploy.yml
.github/workflows/storybook-visual.yml`: passes.
- `git diff --check`: passes.
- GitHub API checks confirm that both accounts have repository admin
access. The deployment environment requires an existing reviewer and
disables administrator bypass.
- Repository-wide typecheck, tests, and build were attempted. They
cannot complete in this worktree because workspace dependencies are not
installed. Typecheck cannot find Node type definitions. Tests and build
cannot load the workspace `tsx` package.
- After merge, run `Storybook Deploy` from `master`, select a source
branch, obtain environment approval, and check the published URLs in the
run summary.
## Risks
Both accounts gain permission to start and rerun Storybook publishing.
Deployment still needs approval from a configured environment reviewer.
No AWS permissions or live GitHub settings change in this PR.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact backend model ID and context
window are not exposed in this session. The agent used reasoning,
repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, and GitHub API
tools.
## 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses GitHub ownership rules to protect critical repository
files.
> - These rules cover release infrastructure, GitHub configuration,
skills, and dependency files.
> - The current rules do not include `@forgottendev`.
> - The new maintainer needs the same review scope as the existing code
owners.
> - This pull request adds `@forgottendev` to every existing CODEOWNERS
rule.
> - The benefit is consistent review ownership without a change to the
protected path set.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This change improves the GitHub review ownership for critical repository
files.
**Subsystem affected**
Repository governance and GitHub configuration.
**Current behavior**
The 13 existing CODEOWNERS rules list `@cryppadotta`, `@devinfoley`, and
`@nickyleach`. They do not list `@forgottendev`.
**Proposed behavior**
Every existing CODEOWNERS rule also lists `@forgottendev`.
**Reason and benefit**
This gives `@forgottendev` the same review ownership scope as the
existing maintainers. It keeps ownership consistent across all protected
paths.
**Breaking changes**
None. This change does not remove an owner or change a path pattern.
## What Changed
- Added `@forgottendev` to all 13 existing entries in
`.github/CODEOWNERS`.
- Kept all existing owners and path patterns unchanged.
## Verification
- Ran `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD`.
- Confirmed that all 13 active CODEOWNERS rules contain `@forgottendev`.
- Confirmed that the commit changes only `.github/CODEOWNERS`.
- Confirmed that the GitHub account `forgottendev` exists.
- Did not run the application test suite because this change only
updates GitHub ownership metadata.
## Risks
- Low risk. This is an additive ownership change.
- GitHub can request review from `@forgottendev` for future pull
requests that change a covered path.
> 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
OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5, with reasoning, shell access, and GitHub
CLI tool use. The hosted context-window size was not exposed.
## 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Summary
- Adds `@nickyleach` as a codeowner alongside `@cryppadotta` and
`@devinfoley` on all 13 existing entries
- Grants approval rights on `.github/**`, release scripts, docs,
`skills/**`, and package files
## Thinking Path
The task is to give @nickyleach the same CODEOWNERS coverage as the
existing owners. The simplest approach is to append `@nickyleach` to
every existing entry in `.github/CODEOWNERS`. No new paths are
introduced — this is a pure access grant.
## What Changed
- `.github/CODEOWNERS`: added `@nickyleach` to all 13 path patterns
alongside the existing `@cryppadotta` and `@devinfoley` owners
## Verification
- Reviewed the diff: every existing CODEOWNERS line now includes
`@nickyleach` as a third owner
- GitHub will enforce the new ownership on future PRs touching the
covered paths
## Risks
- Low risk: CODEOWNERS is additive-only; no existing owner is removed
- The change takes effect immediately on merge — future PRs touching
covered paths will require @nickyleach approval (or any of the three
owners)
## Model Used
claude-sonnet-4-6
## Test plan
- [ ] Verify GitHub picks up the new CODEOWNERS entry and shows
@nickyleach as a required reviewer on future PRs touching these paths
Closes PAP-61
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Issue-thread interactions are one of the core ways agents pause for
structured board or user decisions.
> - Adding a new interaction kind currently requires coordinated changes
across shared contracts, server behavior, UI cards, fixtures,
CLI/MCP/plugin SDK helpers, and agent guidance.
> - The checkbox-confirmation rollout established a good end-to-end
pattern, but contributors needed a durable maintainer checklist for
repeating that work.
> - This pull request adds a developer/maintainer skill that captures
that workflow inside the repo under `.agents/skills`.
> - The benefit is a reusable implementation guide for future
interaction-card work without installing that guidance on runtime
Paperclip agents.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Paperclip issue: [PAP-10457](/PAP/issues/PAP-10457)
This PR documents the process for adding a new issue-thread interaction
family end-to-end. There is no GitHub issue for this Paperclip-internal
skill addition.
## What Changed
- Added `.agents/skills/create-issue-interaction-ui/SKILL.md` as a
developer/maintainer skill.
- Covered shared contract, server route/service behavior, UI card
wiring, fixtures/Storybook, CLI/MCP/plugin SDK helpers, agent guidance,
invariants, and focused verification.
- Referenced the checkbox-confirmation rollout (`4d5322c82`, PR `#7649`)
as the canonical worked example.
## Verification
- `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts`
- Reviewed the added skill markdown for scope, location, and workflow
completeness.
## Risks
Low risk. This is a documentation/skill-only change under
`.agents/skills`; it does not change runtime code, database schema, API
behavior, or installed production-agent guidance.
> 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
OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell and GitHub CLI tool
access. Exact hosted model variant and context-window size were not
exposed by the runtime.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The GitHub repository uses CODEOWNERS to enforce review requirements on critical files
> - Currently only release scripts and CI config are protected — package manifests are not
> - Dependency changes (package.json, lockfile) can introduce supply-chain risk if merged without review
> - This PR adds all package files to CODEOWNERS
> - The benefit is that any dependency change now requires explicit approval from maintainers
## What Changed
- Added root package manifest files (`package.json`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `pnpm-workspace.yaml`, `.npmrc`) to CODEOWNERS
- Added all 19 workspace `package.json` files (`cli/`, `server/`, `ui/`, `packages/*`) to CODEOWNERS
- All entries owned by `@cryppadotta` and `@devinfoley`, consistent with existing release infrastructure ownership
## Verification
- `gh api repos/paperclipai/paperclip/contents/.github/CODEOWNERS?ref=PAPA-41-add-package-files-to-codeowners` to inspect the file
- Open a test PR touching any `package.json` and confirm GitHub requests review from the listed owners
## Risks
- Low risk. CODEOWNERS only adds review requirements — does not block merges unless branch protection enforces it. New packages added in the future will need a corresponding CODEOWNERS entry.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change
- [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] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
