Jannik/PaperClipAI
1
0 Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-10 03:08:10 +02:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
4,598 Commits 1,134 Branches 1,829 Tags
5ee9e751fbb38787c055ee793c3412ecfc89da2e
Commit Graph
11 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
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>
 2026-09-21 19:58:45 -07:00
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>
 2026-09-21 19:52:58 -07:00
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>
 2026-09-21 13:40:22 -07:00
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>
 2026-09-16 11:32:21 -07:00
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>
 2026-09-16 10:03:01 -07:00
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>
 2026-09-15 11:31:44 -07:00
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
 2026-09-01 18:13:02 -07:00
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>
 2026-08-31 19:17:10 -07:00
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>
 2026-08-24 21:37:17 -07:00
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
 2026-08-24 20:42:25 -07:00
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>
 2026-08-18 16:40:32 -07:00