1 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandClaude	b004519fde	docs(agents): shorten AGENTS.md and move data-path detail to a scoped rule (#20557) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - `AGENTS.md` is the instruction file that each human and AI contributor reads before a change > - The file had 311 lines, and most of the text applied to only a few areas of the repository > - The file told each contributor to read five documents before every change and to treat `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` as the build contract > - The file listed 4 of the 12 rules in `rules/`, so the list was already out of date > - This pull request states contributor ownership, makes the code and tests the source of truth, and moves path-specific detail into a scoped rule > - The benefit is a shorter file that agents load on every session, with detail that loads only for the files it applies to ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Outdated or unclear contributor documentation. **Where is the issue?** `AGENTS.md` at the repository root. **What's wrong?** - The file told contributors to read five documents in order before each change. - The file made `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` the build contract and part of the definition of done. The maintainer considers that document outdated. - The file kept a manual list of scoped rules. The list named 4 of the 12 rules. - Rule 7 (the three data paths) used about 40 lines. The rule applies only to telemetry, observability, and run-log files. - The agent preflight instruction was in the verification section, not in the setup section. - The design system section had no number and came after the definition of done. **Suggested fix** Keep in `AGENTS.md` only the text that applies to every change. Move path-specific text to `rules/` and point to `doc/` for detail. ## What Changed - Added an ownership statement at the top of `AGENTS.md`. - Section 1 now says that the code and tests are the source of truth. The spec documents are background. - Removed the spec from the definition of done and from rule 4. - Section 2 is now a table that maps a type of change to the document to read. - Removed the manual rule list. The instruction to read each matching rule in `rules/*.mdc` stays. - Moved agent preflight to section 4. The database reset step now says that it deletes local data. - Rule 7 is now a short summary. The full text is in the new `rules/data-paths.mdc`. - Added `rules/data-paths.mdc` to `.greptile/files.json` with the same scope as the rule globs. - `CONTRIBUTING.md` now links to the new rule. - Section 7 is now the default command and six labelled rules. Maps and Storybook are one subsection. - The design system text is now a subsection of section 9. - Section numbers did not change, because code comments cite `AGENTS.md §5.7` and `§6`. ## Verification - Open `AGENTS.md` and confirm that each link and each path resolves. A local script checked this. - Compare `rules/data-paths.mdc` with the old rule 7 text. The definitions and review levels are the same. - Confirm that `.greptile/files.json` is valid JSON and that the new scope matches the rule globs. - No source code changed. No test suite ran locally. ## Risks - Contributors no longer treat the spec as a requirement. A change can now differ from the spec without an update to the spec. - An agent that does not read scoped rules gets only the summary of the three data paths. The summary keeps the review level for each path. - Two Storybook instructions now live only in `maps/README.md` and `maps/storybook-map/README.md`. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), in Claude Code with tool use. - `claude-opus-5-5` added the ownership line and did the first review. - `claude-fable-5-2` wrote the restructure and this pull request. ## 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-10 09:19:10 -06:00