mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-07 07:23:08 +02:00
83abfa46f628e5ff6bd8ee333ec130aba4e5016c
12
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 SamandSami Rusani
|
39666aa906 |
fix(server): clarify execution policy decision comments (#9105)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Execution policies let issues move through enforced review and
approval stages before work is considered done.
> - Active reviewers and approvers must include decision rationale when
approving or requesting changes.
> - The server already requires the decision comment to arrive in the
same `PATCH /api/issues/:id` request as the status change.
> - When callers post a normal comment first and then send a status-only
`PATCH`, the existing 422 only says a comment is required.
> - This pull request keeps the atomic decision behavior but makes the
API error and docs explicit about the same-request requirement.
> - The benefit is that agents and API clients can recover immediately
by sending `{ status, comment }` together instead of dead-ending on an
ambiguous validation error.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes #9049.
Duplicate/related search completed before implementation: searched open
PRs for `9049`, `Approving a review or approval stage requires a
comment`, `Requesting changes requires a comment`, and `same PATCH`. I
did not find a direct open PR for the same error-message/docs fix.
Related PRs found but not duplicates: #8302 documents cross-agent review
gates in the skill API reference, and #5487 covers human approval UI.
## What Changed
- Expanded execution-policy 422 messages for approve and request-changes
decisions to say the comment must be included in the same `PATCH`
request and prior comments are not considered.
- Tightened unit coverage so the comment-required branches assert the
new actionable guidance.
- Documented the same-request `{ status, comment }` decision shape in
the execution policy guide, issue API reference, and agent communication
guide.
## Verification
- `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts --reporter verbose`
- `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk exec node
../../../scripts/ensure-plugin-build-deps.mjs`
- `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
Low risk. This does not change execution-policy state transitions or
relax the atomic decision guard; it only makes the existing requirement
explicit in errors and docs.
> 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 (GPT-5 Codex), operating in Codex desktop with repository
file access, shell validation, and GitHub CLI workflow. Exact context
window size is not surfaced by this environment.
## 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: Sami Rusani <sr@samirusani>
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7b35de65aa |
feat(mcp) [split 1/8]: add fixture demo servers (#9556)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 1/8 and focuses on fixture and demo MCP servers > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: Developers need deterministic local MCP fixtures and visible demo servers without pulling in the governed production runtime. - Proposed solution: Adds the Google Sheets and KV demo MCP packages, fixture catalog/servers, smoke harness, guide, and the root smoke/typecheck registration hunks. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `master`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: QA for fixture and smoke coverage; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds the Google Sheets and KV demo MCP packages, fixture catalog/servers, smoke harness, guide, and the root smoke/typecheck registration hunks. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/google-sheets-mcp-server test` — 27 tests passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/kv-demo-mcp-server test` — 12 tests passed ## Risks - The new packages add dependencies that are intentionally not committed to `pnpm-lock.yaml`, per repository policy. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools enabled. ## 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] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [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 - [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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
72c42fad99 |
[codex] Add optional Ramp skill (#9157)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Skills are how operators give agents reusable, reviewable operating instructions without baking every integration into core runtime code. > - Finance setup is a sensitive workflow because account onboarding, incorporation, cards, spend controls, and data sharing can all create real-world effects. > - Ramp publishes an agent-facing setup skill and playbooks, but Paperclip needs a curated wrapper that makes those instructions subordinate to Paperclip governance. > - This pull request adds an optional Ramp catalog skill that fetches Ramp's live entrypoint while preserving Paperclip approval gates. > - The benefit is that companies can opt into Ramp setup assistance while reviewers can see the source model, allowed hosts, and fail-closed safety rules in one shipped catalog entry. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this optional catalog skill. Feature request context: - **Problem / motivation:** Paperclip companies need a safe, installable way for agents to follow Ramp's public agent setup flow without giving those fetched instructions authority over financial, legal, credential, or spend decisions. - **Proposed solution:** Ship a markdown-only optional `paperclipai:optional:finance:ramp` skill that points agents at Ramp's live get-started skill, documents the thin-wrapper source model, allowlists the Ramp host, and requires Paperclip approval for financial, incorporation, credential, connector, third-party tool, and money-movement actions. - **Alternatives considered:** Vendoring a snapshot would reduce runtime source drift but would stale quickly as Ramp updates its own onboarding flow. The wrapper instead fetches fresh instructions while explicitly failing closed on unclear provenance and keeping fetched instructions subordinate to Paperclip instructions. - **Roadmap alignment:** This fits the completed Skills Manager roadmap area by adding a focused optional catalog skill rather than expanding core workflow code. ## What Changed - Added a markdown-only optional Ramp skill under the finance catalog. - Documented the source model for live Ramp instructions, the allowed host, provenance handling, community/unclear playbook approval requirements, and safety rules. - Added mandatory Paperclip approval gates for Ramp account setup, incorporation/legal filings, CLI installers, connector/auth flows, third-party browser/MCP/CLI tooling, financial data sharing, Agent Cards, spend controls, and money movement. - Updated the Skills Store guide to document thin fetch-and-follow wrappers for curated optional skills. - Regenerated the shipped skills catalog manifest. - Added catalog tests for the Ramp entry, approval-gate wording, mixed-provenance handling, and avoiding remote-fetch execution hard-stop patterns. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog build:manifest` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog validate` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test -- src/shipped-catalog.test.ts` — 1 file, 8 tests passed. - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Ramp-hosted instructions can change after install. The wrapper mitigates this by keeping fetched content subordinate to Paperclip instructions, limiting the source host, failing closed on unclear provenance, and requiring scoped approvals before governed actions. - The skill is markdown-only and optional, so it does not add executable package code or install by default. - The generated catalog manifest changes hashes for the shipped catalog entry; catalog validation passed after regeneration. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, with repository file access, shell execution, GitHub CLI/tooling, and medium-reasoning mode. ## 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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
a71c4b6782 |
[codex] feat(watchdog): add task watchdog control plane (#8339)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task lifecycle and recovery subsystems decide when agent work is still productive, stalled, or ready for review. > - Existing recovery paths can observe stopped or incomplete work, but there was no first-class per-task watchdog model with scoped review permissions. > - Watchdog follow-ups also need strict boundaries so recovery/status-only runs cannot mutate approvals or perform deliverable work. > - This pull request adds the task watchdog data model, API/service layer, scheduler/review flow, adapter wake context, UI configuration surfaces, and docs. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master`; the watchdog migration is now ordered after master's latest migrations as `0104_issue_watchdogs`. > - The benefit is a more explicit task-review loop that preserves Paperclip's single-assignee and governance invariants while making stalled work easier to route. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No linked GitHub issue. Paperclip task: [PAP-11275](/PAP/issues/PAP-11275). ## Problem or motivation Task recovery needs a first-class watchdog path that can inspect stopped work and create scoped follow-ups without bypassing normal task ownership. Board/UI users need a way to configure watchdogs on tasks and see watchdog-related live work. Recovery/status-only runs must remain limited to status reporting and must not create approvals, link approvals, or submit approval comments. ## Proposed solution Add a task-watchdog data model, scheduler/classifier, scoped mutation guard, adapter wake context, API/UI configuration surfaces, and documentation so watchdog agents can review stopped task subtrees under explicit boundaries. ## Alternatives considered Reuse the existing recovery-action flow only. That would keep stopped-work detection implicit, make per-task watchdog assignment harder to expose in the UI, and would not provide a durable scoped-review issue for stalled task trees. ## Roadmap alignment This is Paperclip control-plane lifecycle infrastructure for task execution and recovery. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned core item. ## What Changed - Added issue watchdog schema, migration, shared contracts, validators, CRUD API, and service support. - Added task watchdog scheduler/classifier behavior, scoped mutation enforcement, adapter wake context, and default watchdog mandate guidance. - Added UI surfaces for configuring watchdogs on new/existing tasks, viewing watchdog activity, and exposing the experimental setting. - Added docs for the user-facing task watchdog workflow and implementation semantics. - Gated new-task watchdog setup behind `enableTaskWatchdogs` and blocked cheap status-only recovery runs from approval mutations. - Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the idempotent watchdog migration from the branch-local `0102_issue_watchdogs` slot to `0104_issue_watchdogs`. - Addressed Greptile feedback by loading watchdog classifier input with a recursive subtree query and centralizing the watchdog origin-kind constant. - Added and updated focused server/UI tests for watchdog routes, scheduler/classifier behavior, scope boundaries, live task visibility, settings, and new issue dialog behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check` - Verified the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows`. ## Risks - Medium risk: this introduces a new task lifecycle surface touching DB schema, server routes/services, adapter wake context, and UI task configuration. - Watchdog scheduling behavior depends on the new experimental setting and runtime context checks behaving consistently across local and production agents. - The watchdog migration is idempotent (`IF NOT EXISTS` / duplicate-object guards) so users who tried the previous branch-local migration number should not get duplicate-object failures. - CI and the second Greptile pass are pending after the latest review-fix push. > 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, GPT-5-class coding agent in the Paperclip workspace. Exact runtime model id and context window were not exposed to the agent; tool use and local command execution were enabled. ## 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 — N/A per Paperclip task instruction: do not add screenshots/images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the work. - [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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a957394420 |
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > 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, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
236d11d36f |
[codex] Add run liveness continuations (#4083)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Heartbeat runs are the control-plane record of each agent execution window. > - Long-running local agents can exhaust context or stop while still holding useful next-step state. > - Operators need that stop reason, next action, and continuation path to be durable and visible. > - This pull request adds run liveness metadata, continuation summaries, and UI surfaces for issue run ledgers. > - The benefit is that interrupted or long-running work can resume with clearer context instead of losing the agent's last useful handoff. ## What Changed - Added heartbeat-run liveness fields, continuation attempt tracking, and an idempotent `0058` migration. - Added server services and tests for run liveness, continuation summaries, stop metadata, and activity backfill. - Wired local and HTTP adapters to surface continuation/liveness context through shared adapter utilities. - Added shared constants, validators, and heartbeat types for liveness continuation state. - Added issue-detail UI surfaces for continuation handoffs and the run ledger, with component tests. - Updated agent runtime docs, heartbeat protocol docs, prompt guidance, onboarding assets, and skills instructions to explain continuation behavior. - Addressed Greptile feedback by scoping document evidence by run, excluding system continuation-summary documents from liveness evidence, importing shared liveness types, surfacing hidden ledger run counts, documenting bounded retry behavior, and moving run-ledger liveness backfill off the request path. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-liveness.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-continuation-summary.test.ts server/src/services/heartbeat-stop-metadata.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueContinuationHandoff.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db build` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "treats a plan document update"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "activity service|treats a plan document update"` - Remote PR checks on head `e53b1a1d`: `verify`, `e2e`, `policy`, and Snyk all passed. - Confirmed `public-gh/master` is an ancestor of this branch after fetching `public-gh master`. - Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the branch diff. - Confirmed migration `0058_wealthy_starbolt.sql` is ordered after `0057` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards for repeat application. - Greptile inline review threads are resolved. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches heartbeat execution, liveness recovery, activity rendering, issue routes, shared contracts, docs, and UI. - Migration risk is mitigated by additive columns/indexes and idempotent guards. - Run-ledger liveness backfill is now asynchronous, so the first ledger response can briefly show historical missing liveness until the background backfill completes. - UI screenshot coverage is not included in this packaging pass; validation is currently through focused component tests. > 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, GPT-5.4, local tool-use coding agent with terminal, git, GitHub connector, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API access. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [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 - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Screenshot note: no before/after screenshots were captured in this PR packaging pass; the UI changes are covered by focused component tests listed above. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d12650e5ac |
fix: update stale single-status checkout examples in worked docs
Greptile flagged that worked examples in task-workflow.md and api-reference.md still used ["todo"] instead of the full expectedStatuses array. Aligned them with the rest of the PR. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
cd2be692e9 |
Fix in-review task recheckout guidance
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 4.6
|
09d2ef1a37 |
fix: restore docs deleted in v0.2.3 release, add Paperclip branding
- Restored docs/ directory that was accidentally deleted by `git add -A` in the v0.2.3 release script - Replaced generic "P" favicon with actual paperclip icon using brand primary color (#2563EB) - Added light/dark logo SVGs for Mintlify navbar (paperclip icon + wordmark) - Updated docs.json with logo configuration for dark/light mode - Fixed release.sh to stage only release-related files instead of `git add -A` to prevent sweeping unrelated changes into release commits Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
28bf5e9e9b | chore: release v0.2.3 | ||
|
Dotta
|
cabd16bc70 | docs: sync docs and skills updates from backup branch | ||
|
ForgottenandClaude Opus 4.6
|
02dc46e782 |
docs: add external documentation site content
Add structured documentation covering quickstart, architecture, core concepts, API reference, adapter guides, CLI commands, deployment options, and operator/developer guides. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |