PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-28 12:04:41 +01:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	88bf4c6c1d	refactor(storybook): organize folders and navigation by feature map (#16049 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map describes product areas and verification entry points. > - Storybook has 223 story suites that show production components, proposals, and retained history. > - The parent PR maps those suites to features, but their folders and sidebar still use unrelated groups. > - This pull request puts the existing suites under feature folders and uses the feature map's names and order in the sidebar. > - Explicit meta IDs preserve existing story links while the titles change. > - Contributors can find stories through the same product structure without losing examples. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16046. This is the requested follow-up. Parent #16046 is merged. This PR now targets master, with its single follow-up commit rebased onto the parent squash merge. The Storybook implementation is unchanged by that rebase. Related open Storybook PRs were checked; this change organizes existing suites and adds no product capability. ## What Changed - Move all 223 story files into folders named for their primary feature area. Keep useful scenario groups below the feature's sidebar label. - Order the sidebar by the eight feature-map sections. Put Overview first and shared Foundations last. Leave areas with no stories out of the sidebar. - Move 19 support files into `ui/storybook/support/` and update relative imports and active documentation. - Preserve all 2,210 story IDs and the single docs ID through explicit CSF meta IDs. Keep all entry names and story exports. - Record stable IDs and sidebar titles in the downstream catalog. Validate feature folders, title prefixes, and IDs. Update the maintenance skill and review evidence. ## Verification - Storybook build passed. Built index comparison against parent `75bd3c977cd828d5222823850339e8204f40eb47` found the same 2,211 entries, IDs, and names. - UI typecheck passed (`ui/node_modules/.bin/tsc -b` from `ui`, invoked as `./node_modules/.bin/tsc -b`). - UI Vitest project: 728 files and 8,176 tests passed. - Catalog checker and its nine tests passed. Feature-map checks, token gates, and the maintenance-skill validator passed. - Chromium: nine existing play cases and one render case reached `storyFinished: success` with no page exceptions. The guide rendered, sidebar sections followed map order, and a search for `steering/queue` opened its preserved story link. - Source comparison found only meta title/ID changes, rebased relative references, and updated fixture path text in story files. - To inspect: build Storybook, start `node scripts/serve-storybook-static.mjs --port 6136`, and open the Overview guide. Expand feature folders and use existing story links. - The complete repository suite was not repeated for this organization change. The parent records a backend timeout that passed in isolation, without a complete broad-suite pass. Visual comparisons remain blocked by the unpublished empty baseline. The separate fixture-server story was not run. ## Risks - Open branches that add stories under old paths will need to choose a feature folder and update the catalog. Cross-feature suites have one primary home and retain related capability references. - Sidebar paths change; story and docs IDs remain stable. Automated references to source paths may need the new location. - This is one requested follow-up with 258 changed files, mostly moves. It exceeds the usual review-size guideline because splitting it would leave the sidebar and folder convention partly migrated. - Browser verification samples ten stories, not all 2,210. Existing production/prototype classifications and review gaps remain unchanged. - Required CI gates and a 5/5 review passed on the original head. Fresh checks and review are running for the rebased head. Catalog validation and all nine checker tests passed after rebase; UI, map, skill, and checker contents are identical to the original reviewed head. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and local browser automation. ## 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>	2026-10-12 22:29:22 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	a7dd5284b5	feat: add company fast-response acknowledgements (#15748 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Human messages start agent work through task, chat, and external-channel intake. > - Agent startup can delay the first visible response. > - A small direct model call can acknowledge the request while normal work starts. > - This response must remain separate from evidence that the agent answered or completed work. > - This pull request adds optional company-wide fast responses with durable receipts, access checks, and cost accounting. > - Users receive prompt acknowledgement without changing the agent execution path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: database, shared contracts, server orchestration, connections, and UI. Problem or motivation Users can wait for an agent to start before they receive a contextual response. Generic progress messages do not confirm what the user asked. An acknowledgement must not falsely complete work or satisfy an unanswered turn. Proposed solution Add a disabled-by-default experimental fast-response model using an existing shared API connection. Generate one short acknowledgement for each accepted human turn. Use the existing agent identity and external publication outboxes. Retain platform provenance and account for the inference independently. Alternatives considered Running the acknowledgement through the agent runtime adds startup latency. Restricting implementation to OpenRouter leaves other existing API connections unsupported. This change supports all existing API connections and uses OpenRouter for live verification. Roadmap alignment This extends existing agent communication and connection settings. ROADMAP.md and open pull requests were checked. No duplicate fast-response implementation was found. The maintainer supplied the feature plan directly. ## What Changed - Add Experimental fast responses to instance settings. Keep the feature off by default. Enforce the flag at intake, dispatch, and publication. - Move Decision model and Fast response setup to company Settings → Connections when the experiment is enabled. Place Connections below Environments. Separate the model sections with clear headings and a divider. Keep Decision model in General when the experiment is off. Route Costs setup links to the available settings page. - Make the acknowledgement prompt a multiline template string. Ask for a brief, positive response in the user’s language. - Add settings, connection/model selection, sponsorship, fixed-sample testing, and Costs history. - Add a Vercel AI SDK text service for existing native, routed, Bedrock, and local API connections. - Add durable per-turn requests, a bounded worker, a three-second admission deadline, and one inference attempt. - Integrate task creation, task and agent chat, steering, queued follow-ups, experimental board chat, shared chat intake, and email. - Preserve receipt provenance and exclude receipts from completion, recovery, interaction resolution, and agent wakeups. - Recheck authorization, source validity, real replies, budgets, and destination binding before publication. Preserve accounting for suppressed or uncertain outcomes. - Add provider contracts, database race tests, channel outbox tests, UI tests, Stories, and documentation. Keep decision-model execution unchanged. ## Verification - Local `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and UI token gates pass after rebase. The UI typecheck and build also pass after the final navigation fixes. All 37 focused navigation tests pass. The first full local `pnpm test:run` invocation reported seven chat failures. All seven passed in isolated reruns after fixture updates and host cleanup. This invocation was stopped after the full final-head CI suite passed. - Initial local database tests hit macOS shared-memory exhaustion. A diagnostic confirmed `shmget: No space left on device` with the system limit of 32 IDs. Three abandoned, unattached PostgreSQL IPC headers were reclaimed. The isolated rerun passed all 31 fast-response and channel tests. The two additional Slack regression cases also passed in a separate rerun. No active database was stopped. - UI token gates pass. Provider contract tests cover all supported API connection types. Fast-response tests cover uniqueness, authorization, budgets, expiry, cancellation, restart, real-reply races, and the experimental flag. - The test drive verified that disabling the experiment hides Connections and redirects its direct URL. Enabling it restores the saved OpenRouter setup. After restart on the final commit, the OpenRouter settings sample returned “Sure, I’ll take care of fixing the border around the settings panel.” in 428 ms. It used 260 input and 31 output tokens and recorded $0.0000576 in reported cost. - Earlier live OpenRouter verification produced a receipt in 1.013 seconds for a new task. The real agent then supplied its substantive answer. A separate settings test took 1.34 seconds, used 246 input and 23 output tokens, and recorded $0.0000361. - Live Slack verification on final commit `24016fa525961ebc7a4acffdc5019ce123970549` passed for a fresh initial task and a follow-up in a disposable bot DM. The initial acknowledgement appeared 2.405 seconds after the Slack message and 1.413 seconds after durable acceptance; the follow-up appeared in 2.322 seconds and 1.160 seconds respectively. The recorded generation/settlement durations were 898 ms and 697 ms. The initial call used 291 input / 39 output tokens and cost $0.00006705; the follow-up used 281 / 47 and cost $0.00007035. - The Slack acknowledgements retained the assigned agent identity and `origin: fast_response`, source-turn references, and no fabricated run ID. A status snapshot after the initial receipt showed the task still `in_progress` with its real execution run. The agent then read the CSV fixture and correctly reported two ready items, two blockers, and their owners. Both replies stayed in the originating DM, and no duplicate generic working message followed the delivered contextual acknowledgements. The `new` command started a fresh conversation session without generating a fast response. - An earlier eligible Slack turn generated a response but suppressed publication. Its reported cost was retained, generic progress remained, and the real agent completed the requested result. This is recorded separately from the two delivered acknowledgements; the history did not expose a precise suppression reason. - Slack verification used real signed provider events, the existing intake/publication paths, and a user-approved temporary webhook-only HTTPS tunnel. Subscriptions were limited to direct-message events. The test bot was paused and the tunnel stopped afterward. Live channel/group-thread and GitHub journeys remain unverified; their mocked tests cover intake, destination binding, publication, and continued underlying work. - Greptile reviewed final commit `24016fa525961ebc7a4acffdc5019ce123970549` at 5/5. Both new review findings are fixed and all threads are resolved. [Final-head CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38060015730) passed. This includes grouped server/chat/workspace tests, serialized suites, runner checks, browser journeys, typecheck, build, release registry, policy, and the canary dry run. - Manual check: enable Experimental fast responses. Open company Settings → Connections. Select a shared API connection and model. Save and use Test response. Submit a task message and confirm that its receipt does not complete the task. ## Risks - The migration adds receipt and configuration tables plus accounting references. It uses idempotent statements and follows the current migration sequence. - A slow provider, authorization change, or real-agent reply can suppress an acknowledgement. Existing progress feedback remains available. - Unknown provider billing retains a reservation until reconciliation. External deliveries with uncertain outcomes must not be blindly repeated. - Live Slack initial-task and follow-up DM journeys pass. Live Slack channel/group-thread and GitHub journeys remain unverified. The PR remains a draft and records these gaps. Final-head repository CI and automated review pass. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser interaction. The runtime does not expose an exact model snapshot ID or context-window size; these are not asserted. ## 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-10 13:09:17 -05:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

DottaandPaperclip

88bf4c6c1d

refactor(storybook): organize folders and navigation by feature map (#16049 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The feature map describes product areas and verification entry
points.
> - Storybook has 223 story suites that show production components,
proposals, and retained history.
> - The parent PR maps those suites to features, but their folders and
sidebar still use unrelated groups.
> - This pull request puts the existing suites under feature folders and
uses the feature map's names and order in the sidebar.
> - Explicit meta IDs preserve existing story links while the titles
change.
> - Contributors can find stories through the same product structure
without losing examples.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #16046. This is the requested follow-up. Parent #16046 is merged.
This PR now targets master, with its single follow-up commit rebased
onto the parent squash merge. The Storybook implementation is unchanged
by that rebase. Related open Storybook PRs were checked; this change
organizes existing suites and adds no product capability.

## What Changed

- Move all 223 story files into folders named for their primary feature
area. Keep useful scenario groups below the feature's sidebar label.
- Order the sidebar by the eight feature-map sections. Put Overview
first and shared Foundations last. Leave areas with no stories out of
the sidebar.
- Move 19 support files into `ui/storybook/support/` and update relative
imports and active documentation.
- Preserve all 2,210 story IDs and the single docs ID through explicit
CSF meta IDs. Keep all entry names and story exports.
- Record stable IDs and sidebar titles in the downstream catalog.
Validate feature folders, title prefixes, and IDs. Update the
maintenance skill and review evidence.

## Verification

- Storybook build passed. Built index comparison against parent
`75bd3c977cd828d5222823850339e8204f40eb47` found the same 2,211 entries,
IDs, and names.
- UI typecheck passed (`ui/node_modules/.bin/tsc -b` from `ui`, invoked
as `./node_modules/.bin/tsc -b`).
- UI Vitest project: 728 files and 8,176 tests passed.
- Catalog checker and its nine tests passed. Feature-map checks, token
gates, and the maintenance-skill validator passed.
- Chromium: nine existing play cases and one render case reached
`storyFinished: success` with no page exceptions. The guide rendered,
sidebar sections followed map order, and a search for `steering/queue`
opened its preserved story link.
- Source comparison found only meta title/ID changes, rebased relative
references, and updated fixture path text in story files.
- To inspect: build Storybook, start `node
scripts/serve-storybook-static.mjs --port 6136`, and open the Overview
guide. Expand feature folders and use existing story links.
- The complete repository suite was not repeated for this organization
change. The parent records a backend timeout that passed in isolation,
without a complete broad-suite pass. Visual comparisons remain blocked
by the unpublished empty baseline. The separate fixture-server story was
not run.

## Risks

- Open branches that add stories under old paths will need to choose a
feature folder and update the catalog. Cross-feature suites have one
primary home and retain related capability references.
- Sidebar paths change; story and docs IDs remain stable. Automated
references to source paths may need the new location.
- This is one requested follow-up with 258 changed files, mostly moves.
It exceeds the usual review-size guideline because splitting it would
leave the sidebar and folder convention partly migrated.
- Browser verification samples ten stories, not all 2,210. Existing
production/prototype classifications and review gaps remain unchanged.
- Required CI gates and a 5/5 review passed on the original head. Fresh
checks and review are running for the rebased head. Catalog validation
and all nine checker tests passed after rebase; UI, map, skill, and
checker contents are identical to the original reviewed head.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context-window
size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository
inspection, code execution, and local browser automation.

## 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>

2026-10-12 22:29:22 +00:00

DottaandPaperclip

a7dd5284b5

feat: add company fast-response acknowledgements (#15748 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Human messages start agent work through task, chat, and
external-channel intake.
> - Agent startup can delay the first visible response.
> - A small direct model call can acknowledge the request while normal
work starts.
> - This response must remain separate from evidence that the agent
answered or completed work.
> - This pull request adds optional company-wide fast responses with
durable receipts, access checks, and cost accounting.
> - Users receive prompt acknowledgement without changing the agent
execution path.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Subsystem affected**

Cross-cutting: database, shared contracts, server orchestration,
connections, and UI.

**Problem or motivation**

Users can wait for an agent to start before they receive a contextual
response. Generic progress messages do not confirm what the user asked.
An acknowledgement must not falsely complete work or satisfy an
unanswered turn.

**Proposed solution**

Add a disabled-by-default experimental fast-response model using an
existing shared API connection. Generate one short acknowledgement for
each accepted human turn. Use the existing agent identity and external
publication outboxes. Retain platform provenance and account for the
inference independently.

**Alternatives considered**

Running the acknowledgement through the agent runtime adds startup
latency. Restricting implementation to OpenRouter leaves other existing
API connections unsupported. This change supports all existing API
connections and uses OpenRouter for live verification.

**Roadmap alignment**

This extends existing agent communication and connection settings.
ROADMAP.md and open pull requests were checked. No duplicate
fast-response implementation was found. The maintainer supplied the
feature plan directly.

## What Changed

- Add Experimental fast responses to instance settings. Keep the feature
off by default. Enforce the flag at intake, dispatch, and publication.
- Move Decision model and Fast response setup to company Settings →
Connections when the experiment is enabled. Place Connections below
Environments. Separate the model sections with clear headings and a
divider. Keep Decision model in General when the experiment is off.
Route Costs setup links to the available settings page.
- Make the acknowledgement prompt a multiline template string. Ask for a
brief, positive response in the user’s language.

- Add settings, connection/model selection, sponsorship, fixed-sample
testing, and Costs history.
- Add a Vercel AI SDK text service for existing native, routed, Bedrock,
and local API connections.
- Add durable per-turn requests, a bounded worker, a three-second
admission deadline, and one inference attempt.
- Integrate task creation, task and agent chat, steering, queued
follow-ups, experimental board chat, shared chat intake, and email.
- Preserve receipt provenance and exclude receipts from completion,
recovery, interaction resolution, and agent wakeups.
- Recheck authorization, source validity, real replies, budgets, and
destination binding before publication. Preserve accounting for
suppressed or uncertain outcomes.
- Add provider contracts, database race tests, channel outbox tests, UI
tests, Stories, and documentation. Keep decision-model execution
unchanged.

## Verification

- Local `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and UI token gates pass after
rebase. The UI typecheck and build also pass after the final navigation
fixes. All 37 focused navigation tests pass. The first full local `pnpm
test:run` invocation reported seven chat failures. All seven passed in
isolated reruns after fixture updates and host cleanup. This invocation
was stopped after the full final-head CI suite passed.
- Initial local database tests hit macOS shared-memory exhaustion. A
diagnostic confirmed `shmget: No space left on device` with the system
limit of 32 IDs. Three abandoned, unattached PostgreSQL IPC headers were
reclaimed. The isolated rerun passed all 31 fast-response and channel
tests. The two additional Slack regression cases also passed in a
separate rerun. No active database was stopped.
- UI token gates pass. Provider contract tests cover all supported API
connection types. Fast-response tests cover uniqueness, authorization,
budgets, expiry, cancellation, restart, real-reply races, and the
experimental flag.
- The test drive verified that disabling the experiment hides
Connections and redirects its direct URL. Enabling it restores the saved
OpenRouter setup. After restart on the final commit, the OpenRouter
settings sample returned “Sure, I’ll take care of fixing the border
around the settings panel.” in 428 ms. It used 260 input and 31 output
tokens and recorded $0.0000576 in reported cost.
- Earlier live OpenRouter verification produced a receipt in 1.013
seconds for a new task. The real agent then supplied its substantive
answer. A separate settings test took 1.34 seconds, used 246 input and
23 output tokens, and recorded $0.0000361.
- Live Slack verification on final commit
`24016fa525961ebc7a4acffdc5019ce123970549` passed for a fresh initial
task and a follow-up in a disposable bot DM. The initial acknowledgement
appeared 2.405 seconds after the Slack message and 1.413 seconds after
durable acceptance; the follow-up appeared in 2.322 seconds and 1.160
seconds respectively. The recorded generation/settlement durations were
898 ms and 697 ms. The initial call used 291 input / 39 output tokens
and cost $0.00006705; the follow-up used 281 / 47 and cost $0.00007035.
- The Slack acknowledgements retained the assigned agent identity and
`origin: fast_response`, source-turn references, and no fabricated run
ID. A status snapshot after the initial receipt showed the task still
`in_progress` with its real execution run. The agent then read the CSV
fixture and correctly reported two ready items, two blockers, and their
owners. Both replies stayed in the originating DM, and no duplicate
generic working message followed the delivered contextual
acknowledgements. The `new` command started a fresh conversation session
without generating a fast response.
- An earlier eligible Slack turn generated a response but suppressed
publication. Its reported cost was retained, generic progress remained,
and the real agent completed the requested result. This is recorded
separately from the two delivered acknowledgements; the history did not
expose a precise suppression reason.
- Slack verification used real signed provider events, the existing
intake/publication paths, and a user-approved temporary webhook-only
HTTPS tunnel. Subscriptions were limited to direct-message events. The
test bot was paused and the tunnel stopped afterward. Live
channel/group-thread and GitHub journeys remain unverified; their mocked
tests cover intake, destination binding, publication, and continued
underlying work.
- Greptile reviewed final commit
`24016fa525961ebc7a4acffdc5019ce123970549` at 5/5. Both new review
findings are fixed and all threads are resolved. [Final-head CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38060015730)
passed. This includes grouped server/chat/workspace tests, serialized
suites, runner checks, browser journeys, typecheck, build, release
registry, policy, and the canary dry run.
- Manual check: enable Experimental fast responses. Open company
Settings → Connections. Select a shared API connection and model. Save
and use Test response. Submit a task message and confirm that its
receipt does not complete the task.

## Risks

- The migration adds receipt and configuration tables plus accounting
references. It uses idempotent statements and follows the current
migration sequence.
- A slow provider, authorization change, or real-agent reply can
suppress an acknowledgement. Existing progress feedback remains
available.
- Unknown provider billing retains a reservation until reconciliation.
External deliveries with uncertain outcomes must not be blindly
repeated.
- Live Slack initial-task and follow-up DM journeys pass. Live Slack
channel/group-thread and GitHub journeys remain unverified. The PR
remains a draft and records these gaps. Final-head repository CI and
automated review pass.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and browser interaction. The runtime does not expose an exact
model snapshot ID or context-window size; these are not asserted.

## 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-10-10 13:09:17 -05:00