mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 07:10:34 +01:00
c66b4a55efdc5675b5a5146197078b94de6407da
13
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5
|
3a8f95d928 |
fix(ci): let verified Dependabot lockfiles merge through the reporting-lock gate (#19356)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Only trusted environments may change `pnpm-lock.yaml`: the lockfile refresh workflow and Dependabot. Contributors never commit it. > - Paid evaluation jobs also install a lock only when the reporting-lock proof (`tests/runner-e2e/report-lock.json` and `.patch`) admits it. > - #19283 added a CI test that checks the committed lock against that proof. Only the refresh workflow writes the proof, so every Dependabot lockfile pull request now fails CI. Examples are #17364, #17172, and #17911. > - A merged Dependabot lockfile also breaks the refresh workflow. `prepare-report-lock.mjs --refresh` refuses to renew the proof for a lock that the proof does not already admit. > - This pull request lets a verified Dependabot lockfile pass, and it keeps both lockfile rules strict. It also closes a gap in the contributor rule. > - The benefit is that Dependabot security updates can merge again, and only trusted environments write lock content. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19283, #17364, #17172, #17911, #19303. **What happened?** `server/scripts/reporting-lock-policy.test.mjs` fails on each Dependabot pull request that changes `pnpm-lock.yaml`. The error is "Reporting lock changed; review the dependency correction before install". A Dependabot pull request cannot change the proof files, so it can never pass. After a merge, the lockfile refresh also stops at "Committed report lock is not reviewed; refusing to refresh its proof". **Expected behavior** - Contributors cannot change `pnpm-lock.yaml` or the reporting-lock proof. - Dependabot can change `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - The lockfile refresh workflow can change `pnpm-lock.yaml` and the proof. - After a Dependabot lockfile merges, the refresh workflow admits it and renews the proof. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a Dependabot pull request that changes `pnpm-lock.yaml`, such as #17364. 2. Let CI run. The `server (9/12)` shard fails on the reporting-lock policy test. **Security gap found during this work** The old rule skipped the lockfile check when `github.head_ref` was `chore/refresh-lockfile`. A contributor could open a pull request from a fork branch with that name and commit a lockfile change. The old rule also exempted any pull request that Dependabot opened, including commits that other people pushed to its branch. ## What Changed - Add `.github/scripts/lockfile-trust.mjs`. It decides which writers may change lock content: - The refresh workflow: the head is `chore/refresh-lockfile` in this repository, and `github-actions[bot]` opened the pull request. - Dependabot: Dependabot opened the pull request from this repository, and the head `pnpm-lock.yaml` matches a Dependabot commit. That commit must have `dependabot[bot]` as its author, GitHub (`web-flow`) as its committer, and a verified signature. The script reads these fields from the GitHub API. - The reporting-lock proof files count as lock content. Only the refresh workflow may change them. - `pr-trusted.yml` policy job: replace the inline `head_ref` and author exemption with `lockfile-trust.mjs pr`. The job runs the script copy from the base commit, so a pull request cannot change the check that judges it. If the base predates the script, the job uses the earlier rule. - `refresh-lockfile.yml`: add `lockfile-trust.mjs merged`. It checks that the last lockfile change on `master` is a GitHub-signed merge of a Dependabot pull request, and that the lockfile at the pull request head matches a verified Dependabot commit. If both checks pass, it gives the lockfile SHA-256 to `prepare-report-lock.mjs --refresh --trusted-lock-sha256`. - `refresh-lockfile.yml` PR step: check `pnpm-lock.yaml` and both proof files before it exits as unchanged. A refresh that renews only the proof now opens a pull request. - `prepare-report-lock.mjs` and its `.d.mts` declaration: `refreshReportLock` accepts a trusted lock hash. If the trusted lock already resolves, the proof admits it exactly with an empty patch. If not, the proof records the resolution as the reviewed correction, as before. - `reporting-lock-policy.test.mjs`: skip on Dependabot pull requests. The policy job verifies those lockfiles. The general test job gets `PAPERCLIP_CI_PR_AUTHOR` for this purpose. This keeps the test, so it still merges cleanly with #19303. - `check-pr-lockfile.mjs` (advisory gate): allow Dependabot lockfile changes, and flag changes to the proof files. - `CODEOWNERS`: add the two proof files. - `doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md`: describe the writers, the `@dependabot recreate` path, and the proof renewal after merge. ## Verification - `node --test '.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs'`: 707 passed. This includes 17 new tests in `lockfile-trust.test.mjs` and 3 new tests in `check-pr-lockfile.test.mjs`. The new tests run the `pr` command against real git histories with a stub `gh`. - `tests/runner-e2e/prepare-report-lock.test.ts`: 10 passed, including 3 new trusted-lock refresh tests. I ran it with a minimal Vitest config, because the runner-e2e config builds a provider bundle first. - `server/scripts/reporting-lock-policy.test.mjs`: passes normally, and skips with `PAPERCLIP_CI_PR_AUTHOR=dependabot[bot]`. - Live check of the `pr` mode against #17364 with the real GitHub API: - With the real author, it reports "pnpm-lock.yaml matches verified Dependabot commit 83c328c15c…" and `writer=dependabot`. - With a contributor as the author and `chore/refresh-lockfile` as the head ref, it fails. - Live check of the `merged` mode at the real merge commits of #16018, #16020, and #15361. All three report a trusted lock hash. For #16018 and #15361, `master` changed after Dependabot's commit, so GitHub's merge produced different lockfile bytes. An exact-bytes rule would refuse them. That is why the rule trusts GitHub-signed merges of a verified Dependabot head. - Greptile reviewed `513ca2def8` at 4/5 with one P1: a proof-only refresh was never committed, because the PR step checked only `pnpm-lock.yaml`. `edbeb1ea0d` fixes it. A new test in `lockfile-refresh-merge.test.mjs` runs the step's change check on a proof-only change. The test fails without the fix. - CI `Typecheck + Release Registry` failed at `edbeb1ea0d`: `prepare-report-lock.d.mts` did not declare the new options argument (TS2554 twice in `prepare-report-lock.test.ts`). `9139aaad85` updates the declaration. A local `tsc -p tests/runner-e2e/tsconfig.json` shows the 2 errors with the old declaration and none with the new one. - CI at `9139aaad85` failed in six general test shards. None of them run code that this pull request changes, and PR CI loads `pr-trusted.yml` from `master`. The failures: - `heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts`: "expected 'running' to be 'succeeded'" - `status-card-evaluation-work.test.ts`: a deadline comparison - `isolated-repository-rehome.test.ts`: timed out after 15 seconds - `chat-channels.integration.test.ts`: GitHub webhook recovery scheduling - `company-import-export-e2e.test.ts`: child server start timeout, which also fails on unrelated branches - `workspaces-b`: every test passed, but an `EPIPE` error came after `acpx-engine/execute.test.ts` I started a rerun of the failed jobs. - Superagent found a P1 at `9139aaad85`: a verified signature proves who committed, not who authored. A collaborator could sign a commit with their own key and set Dependabot as the author. `4fe180d6c1` also requires GitHub (`web-flow`) as the committer. New tests cover the spoofed-author case. #17364, #16018, #16020 and #15361 still verify against the GitHub API. - `git merge-file` merges this test change with #19303 without conflicts. - Not run: the full repository test suite and typecheck. These changes touch only CI scripts, workflows, one helper, and tests. GitHub CI covers full regression. ## Risks - `pr-trusted.yml` loads from `master`, so the new policy takes effect only after merge. This pull request's own CI uses the earlier rule. - A Dependabot pull request that is behind `master` now fails if someone merges `master` into it and the lockfile changes. Use `@dependabot recreate`. The policy job error says this. - Paid evaluation jobs refuse a merged Dependabot lockfile until the refresh pull request merges. The refresh merges without review when it adds no new package versions. If the release-age gate holds it, the wait lasts until a maintainer merges it or the daily refresh runs. During that time, the reporting-lock policy test also fails on other pull requests, which is the current behavior for any unrenewed lock. - The rule trusts GitHub as the signer of Dependabot commits and of merge commits (`web-flow`). Superagent uses the same trust root. - People with write access can still push to `chore/refresh-lockfile`. This was already true. The bot merges only its own head commit (`--match-head-commit`), and code-owner review covers anything else. - A future manual proof renewal, such as #19283, now needs the refresh workflow or an admin merge. A contributor pull request that changes the proof files fails. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution, in 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 (focused tests; see Verification) - [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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0a5f1546ee |
feat(cases): add reusable prompt workflows (#17114)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Cases keep facts, documents, and one primary task across agent handoffs. > - Each case currently needs its own procedure text. > - Agents need to reuse procedures and move cases between them without replacing the task. > - This change adds company workflow definitions with a name and Markdown prompt. > - Existing handoff and document transactions preserve authority, revisions, and recovery. > - Cases remain behind `experimental.enableCases`. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16959. Related proposal: #3951 uses task graphs and a visual editor. This change extends existing Cases with prompt definitions and keeps its current handoff model. **Problem or motivation** Agents cannot share a reusable procedure across cases or inspect a case's movement between procedures. **Proposed solution** Add name-and-prompt workflow definitions. Adopt a prompt into the primary task's revisioned workflow document through a handoff. Keep phases as free text. **Alternatives considered** Defer graphs, workflow versions, run entities, role schemas, authoring screens, and Spec Kit integration. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing Cases experiment and same-task review flow. It adds no work queue or new execution engine. The maintainer approved this scope in the implementation plan. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped definition storage, shared request schemas, REST routes, and four optional Cases tools. - Accept a workflow ID at kickoff. Agent handoffs can adopt, refresh, preserve, or detach a workflow. - Capture prompt text and the document base revision at acceptance. Apply workflow, phase, and document revision together after outgoing execution settles. - Hold conflicting document edits for recovery. Preserve cancellation, replay, and restart behavior. - Show current workflow names and captured transition names/phases in Work, history, and Audit. - Update instructions, API/tool contracts, capability maps, and the isolated workflow journey. - Pin bounded workflow prompt reads to a content fingerprint; continuation conflicts on edits and can restart safely. - Remove experimental Cases/workflow/Mermaid guidance from the always-on native prompt. Extract runtime-context prompt strings into a CODEOWNERS-protected constants file while preserving the public imports. - Refresh Copilot’s pinned source identity to v57, including the extracted prompt file and retaining historical identities. ## Verification Local checks: repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass on the prompt-extraction tree (`88222d45d8`). Full repository coverage previously completed through the supported isolated shard groups (1,082 general server suites, 161 serialized suites, and all three workspace groups). The earlier default serial run was interrupted and remains incomplete. The first sharded run retained the failures described below; targeted corrections and separate limited-concurrency reruns pass. All CI jobs, security checks, and the 5/5 Greptile review passed on `fc1bd79c28`. Fresh CI and review are pending for the prompt extraction in `88222d45d8`. Focused verification passes: real-database handoff recovery and reuse; 2,002 native-tool/API contract checks; 144 Runner catalog/discovery checks; 27 Runner context/coverage checks; 37 case/Audit UI checks; and Product E2E oracle calibration. Token gates, migration safety/numbering, module boundaries, capability maps, and generated tool/Storybook catalogs pass. The final route/context corrections pass 49 API/native-tool tests, 90 real-database handoff tests, and server typecheck; 142 Copilot installation/sidecar tests pass with the refreshed identity. Greptile’s first review found that successive prompt pages could mix definitions after an edit. The fix returns a content fingerprint, requires it for continuation, and rejects edits with 409. Strict live/catalog schemas pass (171 Runner checks). The 2,005 API/OpenAPI tests pass; the initial native regression caught compression’s weak ETag prefix, and all 23 native integration tests pass after handling it. The regression covers same-length edits and a four-byte restart window. No stored version fields or entities were added. The prompt extraction passes all 462 checks across six focused suites, including persisted-context recovery and provider transport. The first local transport attempt lacked the required debug Runner binaries (102 failures, retained); after building the normal prerequisites, all 283 tests in that suite pass without source or assertion changes. Existing saved snapshots retain their recorded prompt text, and new executions use core-only prompt v7. The extracted prompt source is now covered by both CODEOWNERS and Copilot’s source fingerprint. Live-provider evidence is separate from those simulated checks: the isolated API-key campaign `reusable-workflows-api-final-2026-10-21` passed with local code matching `a1d73b4652`. Four actual Codex API runs read the adopted task documents, moved one case A → B → A on the same task, completed normally, and passed all nine durable checks. Browser assertions verified the current workflow/phase, historical names/phases, five handoff records including terminal completion, and the completed original task. Cleanup passed. The local report remains under `tests/runner-e2e/results/reusable-workflows-api-final-2026-10-21/`; no credentials or screenshots are committed. CI initially caught an omitted route-inventory entry and a stale pinned instruction-source hash; both are corrected and separately verified. Local serialized coverage also recorded an unrelated environment-route socket disconnect and activity-route timeout; their separate 11-test and 17-test suites passed without code or timeout changes. An unchanged chunked-webhook check also passed its separate four-test rerun. The initial adapter/database workspace groups hit time and resource limits under default worker counts; complete reruns with `VITEST_MAX_WORKERS=2` pass, including all 55 database files and 211 tests. The UI/CLI groups passed 837 files and 9,442 tests in the original run. Original failures remain retained and are not regraded. Earlier failed live campaigns remain unchanged: subscription HTTP 429 before agent execution; an obsolete exact-four-row oracle that rejected the valid terminal fifth row; and a chat-marker expectation that did not account for the existing explicit-comment presentation policy. The final fixture requires terminal completion and places the marker in its authoritative comment. Positive/negative oracle tests and the fresh live campaign pass. ## Risks - The additive migration adds a table and nullable case/handoff fields. Existing rows keep null workflow metadata; no assignments are inferred. - Adoption can wait on an intervening task-document edit. Recovery must cancel the old intent and accept a new one after readback. - Shared definition edits affect future adoptions. Existing case copies keep their revisions. - The feature remains experimental. This PR does not merge or deploy the change. - Live acceptance covers native Codex before the prompt extraction; this cleanup has contract/transport verification rather than a new live-provider campaign. The refreshed Copilot identity has static compatibility evidence, not new live-provider qualification. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, configured model ID `gpt-6-astra`, xhigh reasoning. Used terminal execution, file editing, and tool calls. The active context-window size is not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6acec4266e |
feat(ci): profile full CODEOWNER PR suites in Honeycomb (#16378)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its PR workflow runs dozens of parallel build and test jobs. > - Individual job durations do not show the elapsed cost of the whole suite. > - Maintainers need one shared timeline to find slow work and repeated setup. > - This pull request adds full-suite profiles for selected CI CODEOWNER PRs. > - Honeycomb shows each job, step, test file, and supported test on that timeline. > - The benefit is evidence for changes that reduce total CI time. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The main PR workflow has about 48 jobs. Maintainers need to compare their overlapping work and find which jobs delay completion. **Current behavior** GitHub shows job and step durations separately. Test files and tests are not joined to a full workflow trace. **Proposed behavior** A CI CODEOWNER adds `profile-ci` to a PR. The tested code stays on that PR branch. All main PR lanes run, including lanes normally skipped for stack position or release notes. A trusted post-run exporter sends one wall-clock trace to Honeycomb. **Reason and benefit** The trace supports decisions about which CI work to speed up or remove. Ordinary PRs do not export traces. The roadmap and related-PR search found no duplicate CI profiling work. ## What Changed - Add label selection and a full-suite override. Verify the PR author, original actor, and rerun actors against the trusted `.github/**` CODEOWNERS rule. - Record Vitest, Playwright, and Node test file/test timings in local artifacts. Keep ordinary reporter behavior and failing exit codes. - Add a trusted `workflow_run` exporter. Use actual GitHub timestamps for all jobs, setup, steps, waiting, and teardown. Mark missing test data and partial reruns. - Keep the ingest key out of PR jobs. Store it only in the `ci-profiling` environment, restricted to `master`. The exporter reads bounded JSON and never executes artifact code. - Record expected test invocations outside reporters so a missing invocation cannot appear complete. Preserve `node --test` on older PR checkouts. Flush large shard inventories before exit. - Add security, timing, routing, and real-reporter checks. Document operation and activation. Protect the exporter with CODEOWNERS. ## Verification - 509 focused workflow/reporter/shard checks passed. They include outside authors, outside rerun actors, bots, stale revisions, malicious ZIP paths, incomplete reports, and partial ingestion failures. - Final revision `3bf5d9017d` adds multi-file qualification and fixes short-file step parenting and duplicate Node file-wrapper events. Greptile reviewed this exact revision at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. [Main PR CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38728040302): the initial attempt had 54 successful checks, 3 intentional skips, and one serialized-shard failure from an unchanged workspace-authorization test exceeding its 15-second timeout. The single failed-shard retry passed: the final result is 55 successful checks and 3 intentional skips. The same timeout reproduces locally with profiling disabled; both assertions pass with a diagnostic 60-second timeout override (about 23 seconds total). No source or CI timeout was changed. - A dry run against real GitHub attempt 2 of run `38677445871` produced exactly 3 executed jobs, 40 spans, and 510 seconds, excluding 45 carried-over jobs. The partial trace remains explicitly incomplete; this validation did not upload data. - `actionlint` passed for all four changed workflows. `git diff --check` passed. - Full Node 24 `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. The local full `pnpm test:run` was stopped after it reported a setup-token timeout and a distribution-plugin-catalog fixture failure. The 30 setup-token tests passed on focused rerun. The plugin fixture fails at `rmSync` of a directory symlink on this macOS/Node 24.11.0 host; the same failure reproduces with the unchanged base Vitest configuration and unchanged test/service files (10 other tests pass). The local full test suite is therefore not claimed green. - A real root-config Vitest probe passed 13 tests with profiling both off and on. Multi-file Vitest, Playwright, and Node probes each verify two distinct filename rows and four correctly parented tests, including repeated test names across files. Separate passing probes exercise the full exporter hierarchy `workflow → job → step → filename → tests`. Intentional failing probes preserve failing exit status. - Verified all 48 measured jobs in latest-head run `38728040302` used AWS: one `paperclip-ci-routing-x64` gate and 47 `paperclip-public-pr-x64` jobs. Profiling preserves AWS authorization and its GitHub-hosted fallback. The separate privileged exporter runs on `ubuntu-latest` outside the measured suite. - [Live Honeycomb baseline](https://ui.honeycomb.io/paperclip/environments/test/datasets/paperclip-ci/trace/oaPMzw8zGwG): 48 jobs, 731 spans, 479 seconds. It matches [GitHub run 38671274294](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38671274294). This historical trace has job/step data only; it is not proof of the future label-triggered test-reporting journey. - Verified the dedicated Honeycomb key is ingest-only with dataset creation disabled. Verified the GitHub environment allows only the `master` branch. No repository-level secret of that name exists. Both credential values were scanned absent from source and branch history. After merge, add `profile-ci` to a CI CODEOWNER PR, wait for the entire PR run and exporter, then follow the run-summary link. Collapse job children to compare parallel lanes; expand a job to inspect its steps and tests. ## Risks - Activation requires merging the trusted workflow definitions to `master`. This PR continues using the current trusted reusable workflows until then. - Selected runs produce many spans and artifacts. Oversized artifacts fail export instead of truncating data. Missing or cancelled reporters are marked incomplete. - GitHub timings have second precision. Node test times use reporter receipt time. Rust retains job/step timing but lacks per-test wall timestamps. - CI CODEOWNERS are individual users in the explicit `.github/**` rule. Unsupported team rules and identity lookup failures disable profiling. - An interrupted upload can leave partial data. Retrying uses the same span IDs, but the Events API does not promise deduplication. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, code execution, repository tools, and browser verification. The runtime does not expose the exact serving model ID or context-window size. ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
561e956266 |
chore: assign owners to Greptile configuration and rules (#16174)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Repository rules guide code authors and reviewers. > - PR #16172 added rules and Greptile configuration to Git. > - Those directories need named maintainers for future changes. > - This pull request adds ownership for both root directories. > - The entries use the same four maintainers as the existing infrastructure entries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing ownership for repository review guidance. **Where is the issue?** `.github/CODEOWNERS`, for the root `.greptile/` and `rules/` directories. **What's wrong?** Changes to these directories do not match an explicit code owner entry. **Suggested fix** Assign the existing four infrastructure maintainers to both directory trees. Refs: #16172. ## What Changed - Add `/.greptile/` and `/rules/` to CODEOWNERS. - Assign `@cryppadotta`, `@devinfoley`, `@nickyleach`, and `@forgottendev` to both entries. ## Verification - `git diff --check`: passed. - GitHub CODEOWNERS validation API on the published branch: zero errors. - Confirm both entries have the same owner list as the existing `.github/**` entry: passed. - Check root and nested paths with Git's ignore-pattern matching: five positive and three negative cases passed. - Application typecheck, tests, and build were not run locally. This changes only CODEOWNERS and does not change application behavior. - Hosted CI and Greptile review are pending. ## Risks Low risk. Future changes in these root directory trees will request review from the existing maintainers. Nested directories with the same names elsewhere in the repository do not match the new entries. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, official GitHub documentation, and shell verification. ## 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 (ownership and pattern checks above; application suites were not run) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (direct checks for this ownership-only change) - [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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6eaf218924 |
chore: grant Storybook publishing access through CODEOWNERS (#14984)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Storybook previews help contributors review the board UI. > - The publishing workflow uses the default branch CODEOWNERS file to authorize users. > - Tonio and Scott need access to this workflow. > - This pull request adds both accounts as release documentation owners. > - The existing workflow can then authorize both accounts without a separate user list in code. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Access to the Storybook build and publishing workflow. **Subsystem affected** Repository ownership and GitHub Actions authorization. **Current behavior** The workflow reads individual accounts from every CODEOWNERS rule on the default branch. Neither `tonio-alucema` nor `scotttong` is in that file. Both accounts already have repository admin access, but the workflow authorization check denies them. **Proposed behavior** Add both accounts to the `doc/RELEASING.md` ownership rule. After merge, both can start and rerun Storybook publishing workflows. A configured `storybook-deploy` environment reviewer must still approve deployment. CODEOWNERS membership does not add an account to the environment reviewer settings. **Reason and benefit** Contributors can publish UI previews through the same CODEOWNERS policy as other maintainers. The authorization code has no account-specific exceptions. **Breaking changes** None. The existing authorization and deployment approval checks remain in place. **Additional context** Related changes: #13226 added the publishing workflow. #13231 added stable branch bookmarks. A search found no open PR for these permission changes. ## What Changed - Add `@tonio-alucema` and `@scotttong` only to the release documentation ownership rule. - Test that accounts listed for release documentation can start and rerun publishing workflows. - Test that removing an account from CODEOWNERS removes its publishing access. - Explain how CODEOWNERS entries and environment reviewers affect publishing access. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-deploy.test.mjs`: all 25 tests pass. - `actionlint .github/workflows/storybook-deploy.yml .github/workflows/storybook-visual.yml`: passes. - `git diff --check`: passes. - GitHub API checks confirm that both accounts have repository admin access. The deployment environment requires an existing reviewer and disables administrator bypass. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests, and build were attempted. They cannot complete in this worktree because workspace dependencies are not installed. Typecheck cannot find Node type definitions. Tests and build cannot load the workspace `tsx` package. - After merge, run `Storybook Deploy` from `master`, select a source branch, obtain environment approval, and check the published URLs in the run summary. ## Risks Both accounts gain permission to start and rerun Storybook publishing. Deployment still needs approval from a configured environment reviewer. No AWS permissions or live GitHub settings change in this PR. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact backend model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. The agent used reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, and GitHub API tools. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d7ff895a9a |
chore: add @forgottendev to CODEOWNERS (#12501)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses GitHub ownership rules to protect critical repository files. > - These rules cover release infrastructure, GitHub configuration, skills, and dependency files. > - The current rules do not include `@forgottendev`. > - The new maintainer needs the same review scope as the existing code owners. > - This pull request adds `@forgottendev` to every existing CODEOWNERS rule. > - The benefit is consistent review ownership without a change to the protected path set. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This change improves the GitHub review ownership for critical repository files. **Subsystem affected** Repository governance and GitHub configuration. **Current behavior** The 13 existing CODEOWNERS rules list `@cryppadotta`, `@devinfoley`, and `@nickyleach`. They do not list `@forgottendev`. **Proposed behavior** Every existing CODEOWNERS rule also lists `@forgottendev`. **Reason and benefit** This gives `@forgottendev` the same review ownership scope as the existing maintainers. It keeps ownership consistent across all protected paths. **Breaking changes** None. This change does not remove an owner or change a path pattern. ## What Changed - Added `@forgottendev` to all 13 existing entries in `.github/CODEOWNERS`. - Kept all existing owners and path patterns unchanged. ## Verification - Ran `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD`. - Confirmed that all 13 active CODEOWNERS rules contain `@forgottendev`. - Confirmed that the commit changes only `.github/CODEOWNERS`. - Confirmed that the GitHub account `forgottendev` exists. - Did not run the application test suite because this change only updates GitHub ownership metadata. ## Risks - Low risk. This is an additive ownership change. - GitHub can request review from `@forgottendev` for future pull requests that change a covered path. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5, with reasoning, shell access, and GitHub CLI tool use. The hosted context-window size was not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
45a8f096da |
chore: add @nickyleach to CODEOWNERS (#8289)
## Summary - Adds `@nickyleach` as a codeowner alongside `@cryppadotta` and `@devinfoley` on all 13 existing entries - Grants approval rights on `.github/**`, release scripts, docs, `skills/**`, and package files ## Thinking Path The task is to give @nickyleach the same CODEOWNERS coverage as the existing owners. The simplest approach is to append `@nickyleach` to every existing entry in `.github/CODEOWNERS`. No new paths are introduced — this is a pure access grant. ## What Changed - `.github/CODEOWNERS`: added `@nickyleach` to all 13 path patterns alongside the existing `@cryppadotta` and `@devinfoley` owners ## Verification - Reviewed the diff: every existing CODEOWNERS line now includes `@nickyleach` as a third owner - GitHub will enforce the new ownership on future PRs touching the covered paths ## Risks - Low risk: CODEOWNERS is additive-only; no existing owner is removed - The change takes effect immediately on merge — future PRs touching covered paths will require @nickyleach approval (or any of the three owners) ## Model Used claude-sonnet-4-6 ## Test plan - [ ] Verify GitHub picks up the new CODEOWNERS entry and shows @nickyleach as a required reviewer on future PRs touching these paths Closes PAP-61 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f09d4231e3 |
[codex] Add create-issue-interaction-ui maintainer skill (#7659)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue-thread interactions are one of the core ways agents pause for structured board or user decisions. > - Adding a new interaction kind currently requires coordinated changes across shared contracts, server behavior, UI cards, fixtures, CLI/MCP/plugin SDK helpers, and agent guidance. > - The checkbox-confirmation rollout established a good end-to-end pattern, but contributors needed a durable maintainer checklist for repeating that work. > - This pull request adds a developer/maintainer skill that captures that workflow inside the repo under `.agents/skills`. > - The benefit is a reusable implementation guide for future interaction-card work without installing that guidance on runtime Paperclip agents. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Paperclip issue: [PAP-10457](/PAP/issues/PAP-10457) This PR documents the process for adding a new issue-thread interaction family end-to-end. There is no GitHub issue for this Paperclip-internal skill addition. ## What Changed - Added `.agents/skills/create-issue-interaction-ui/SKILL.md` as a developer/maintainer skill. - Covered shared contract, server route/service behavior, UI card wiring, fixtures/Storybook, CLI/MCP/plugin SDK helpers, agent guidance, invariants, and focused verification. - Referenced the checkbox-confirmation rollout (`4d5322c82`, PR `#7649`) as the canonical worked example. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts` - Reviewed the added skill markdown for scope, location, and workflow completeness. ## Risks Low risk. This is a documentation/skill-only change under `.agents/skills`; it does not change runtime code, database schema, API behavior, or installed production-agent guidance. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell and GitHub CLI tool access. Exact hosted model variant and context-window size were not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
9d6d159209 |
chore: add package files to CODEOWNERS for dependency review (#2476)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The GitHub repository uses CODEOWNERS to enforce review requirements on critical files > - Currently only release scripts and CI config are protected — package manifests are not > - Dependency changes (package.json, lockfile) can introduce supply-chain risk if merged without review > - This PR adds all package files to CODEOWNERS > - The benefit is that any dependency change now requires explicit approval from maintainers ## What Changed - Added root package manifest files (`package.json`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `pnpm-workspace.yaml`, `.npmrc`) to CODEOWNERS - Added all 19 workspace `package.json` files (`cli/`, `server/`, `ui/`, `packages/*`) to CODEOWNERS - All entries owned by `@cryppadotta` and `@devinfoley`, consistent with existing release infrastructure ownership ## Verification - `gh api repos/paperclipai/paperclip/contents/.github/CODEOWNERS?ref=PAPA-41-add-package-files-to-codeowners` to inspect the file - Open a test PR touching any `package.json` and confirm GitHub requests review from the listed owners ## Risks - Low risk. CODEOWNERS only adds review requirements — does not block merges unless branch protection enforces it. New packages added in the future will need a corresponding CODEOWNERS entry. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dotta
|
5cf841283a | fix: correct codeowners maintainer handle | ||
|
Dotta
|
62e8fd494f | chore: expand github codeowners coverage | ||
|
Dotta
|
4d8c988dab | fix: use one workflow for npm trusted publishing | ||
|
Dotta
|
21c1235277 | chore: automate canary and stable releases |