mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 15:55:46 +01:00
d82e5efeb983c0c497cdc9e884875c5919aedb21
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandClaude
|
84007892e9 |
refactor: move AGENTS.md section detail to docs and rules, add a bug-fixing section (#20585)
## 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 > - Pull request #20557 shortened the file, but several sections still held detail that applies to only some changes > - The scoped-rules section told agents to read each matching rule in full, and most changes match five rules > - The core engineering rules mixed three product invariants with process conventions > - This pull request moves that detail to the docs and to scoped rules, and adds a section on how to fix a bug > - The benefit is a 211-line file that states what applies to every change and points to the rest ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20557 **Issue type** Outdated or unclear contributor documentation. **Where is the issue?** `AGENTS.md` at the repository root, and `rules/`. **What's wrong?** - The scoped-rules section made agents read the full body of each matching rule before a change. The rule bodies total about 47 KB. - Sections 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 repeated detail that belongs in `doc/DEVELOPING.md`, `doc/DATABASE.md`, a route rule, `DESIGN.md` and `CONTRIBUTING.md`. - Section 4 had a database reset command for `data/pglite`. That directory does not exist. - Section 5 had seven rules. Four of them were process conventions or path-specific detail. - The file did not say how to fix a bug. **Suggested fix** Make the rule headers the index. Move section detail to the document or rule that owns it. Keep only the three invariants in section 5. Add a bug-fixing section. ## What Changed - The scoped-rules section now tells agents to list the rule headers with one `grep` command. Agents read a rule body only for a design decision in its area, when the description is not sufficient, or when a reviewer cites it. - `rules/README.md` says that each `description` must state the required behavior in one sentence. - `rules/pull-request-review.mdc` has a description that states its requirements. - Section 4 (dev setup) and section 11 (pull requests) now point to `doc/DEVELOPING.md` and `CONTRIBUTING.md`. - The schema change workflow moved from section 6 to `doc/DATABASE.md`. - The API and auth expectations moved from section 8 to the new `rules/api-route-expectations.mdc`. - Section 9 links to `DESIGN.md` for design rules. `AGENTS.md` no longer tells contributors to run `pnpm check:token-gates`. - Added section 10, "Fixing a Bug": reproduce the error, write a failing test, write the fix, see the test pass, and verify the fix. - Section 5 now has three rules: company scope, contract synchronization, and the control-plane invariants. - The company-scope exceptions moved to the new `rules/company-scope-exceptions.mdc`. - Removed the strategic-docs rule. The plan-doc convention moved to the repo map. The artifact rule moved to section 7. - Removed rule 7. Five code comments that cited `AGENTS.md §5.7` now cite `rules/data-paths.mdc`. - Regenerated the SDK public source pin, because one of those comments is in `packages/shared/src/crash-points.ts`. - Added both new rules to `.greptile/files.json`. - The API route rule applies only to routes that read or write company data. Its status code list is a list of common codes. - The company-scope rule lists the sidebar company order as an instance-wide exception. - The `honeycomb-tracing` skill now points to `rules/data-paths.mdc` for the Telemetry workflow. ## Verification - Open `AGENTS.md` and confirm that each link resolves. A local script checked this. - Run `grep -E '^(description|globs|alwaysApply):' rules/*.mdc` and confirm that each rule prints a description. - Run `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check`. It passes locally. - `packages/shared/src/crash-points.test.ts` passed locally before the rebase onto `master`. - Five source files changed in comments only. No other test suite ran locally. ## Risks - An agent that reads only rule descriptions can miss a detail in a rule body. Reviewers still apply the full rules. - Pull requests and the definition of done are now sections 11 and 12. Sections 1 to 9 keep their numbers. - Dated plan documents under `doc/plans/` still cite `AGENTS.md §5.7`. They are historical records. - Pull request #20565 also changes `AGENTS.md`. The second one to merge needs a conflict fix in section 1 and section 2. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), in Claude Code with tool use. - `claude-fable-5-2`. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
13a83dd68a |
docs: require sleep-aware background work in reviews (#17138)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agents in instances that can be idle between
tasks.
> - Recurring empty database and network checks can keep idle instances
and databases awake.
> - Worker migrations already use events, transaction-aware signals, and
shared deadlines.
> - New features can still add idle scans unless contributors and code
reviewers share an explicit rule.
> - This PR makes that rule discoverable through the repository rule
loader and Greptile.
> - The rule applies to added or expanded behavior without requiring
unrelated legacy polling to be removed.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #15625, #17000, #17094, #17106, and #17129.
**Current behavior**
The repository has module ownership and runtime dependency rules, but no
explicit review requirement against new idle polling. A new duty in a
heartbeat tick can undo the benefits of previous worker migrations.
**Proposed behavior**
Require events for changed state, transaction-aware signals for
database-produced work, and shared scheduling for real deadlines. Reject
recurring empty scans, including scans disguised as scheduler callbacks.
Review narrow polling exceptions against concrete obligations and sleep
impact.
**Reason and benefit**
Make sleep-aware design a default review expectation. Preserve delivery,
ambiguous-commit recovery, drain/resume, and external wake correctness
while preventing new permanent idle traffic. Existing unrelated polling
stays outside the requested change.
## What Changed
- Add rules/sleep-aware-background-work.mdc for server, database,
adapter, plugin, and runner background paths, including
server/src/index.ts.
- Require concrete triggers, pending-work predicates, quiet conditions,
actual deadlines, and lifecycle evidence.
- Describe narrow exceptions for active operations and external sources,
with required scope, stop conditions, and sleep limitations.
- Distinguish in-process scheduling from durable Cloud wake coverage.
- Register the matching scopes in .greptile/files.json and link the rule
from rules/README.md.
- Reuse the existing module-boundary rule for ownership instead of
duplicating provider policy.
## Verification
- Passed: JSON parsing, required rule metadata, exact parity between
frontmatter globs and Greptile scopes, and all repository links.
- Passed: 15 representative path matches, including server startup,
nested service workers, producer routes, tests, database signals,
adapters, plugins, and both runner source trees. UI, CLI, docs, and
workflow paths remain outside this rule's glob scope.
- Passed: git diff --check.
- Manually checked contrasting review cases: reject a new empty queue
interval; reject an always-rescheduled empty scan; allow an actual retry
deadline; allow a bounded active readiness probe with lifecycle cleanup;
leave untouched legacy loops alone; reject sleep approval based only on
an internal timer.
- No runtime code changed. Application builds and tests were not rerun
for this rules-only change. This validates rule structure and intended
interpretation, not future reviewer compliance or deployed sleep.
- Greptile: 5/5 on
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9cb3e157b3 |
docs: keep routine product work in the harness (#16193)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runtime and server handle routine execution and recovery. > - Product flows can expose internal steps that the system can handle safely. > - Users then have to operate infrastructure to achieve their original goal. > - This pull request adds a short rule that assigns this work to the harness. > - The benefit is a calm product experience with useful details and real choices. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `rules/` and the repository review configuration. **What's wrong?** The repository has no shared product rule for harness responsibility and useful user-facing detail. Recovery can become a user checklist even when the system knows the next safe step. Related implementation: #15824. **Suggested fix** Require the harness to perform routine work within its existing authority. Require visible controls and details to serve a real decision or useful outcome. Keep progress truthful and apply the rule to changed flows. ## What Changed - Add the short product rule in `rules/product-harness-responsibility.mdc`. - Register it as a repository-wide review rule in `.greptile/files.json`. - Link the rule from `rules/README.md`. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - Node assertions passed for rule frontmatter, unique reviewer registration, repository-wide scope, all registered file paths and the README link. - The diff contains only three rule/documentation files. No application behavior changes. Application typecheck, tests and build were not run for this documentation change. - Review the rule's scope and read its four product requirements and review criterion. All applicable CI checks passed on head `89803a6cd7`. Greptile gave 5/5 with no unresolved findings. ## Risks The rule affects future product design and review. It applies to changed flows and does not require unrelated redesigns. Existing permissions, approvals and runtime safeguards remain in force. No migration or deployment is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, tool use and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window size were not exposed in this session. The user edited and approved the final short rule. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7ac0354b51 |
docs: track chat channel rules and Greptile configuration (#16172)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels connect shared task workflows to several platforms. > - Recent refactors moved platform behavior into named channel folders. > - Authors and reviewers need a durable rule that preserves these boundaries. > - Review settings also need version control and an explicit source of rules. > - This pull request adds scoped MDC rules and a staged migration of supported Greptile settings into Git. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation and versioned review configuration. **Where is the issue?** Root contributor instructions, chat channel architecture guidance, and Greptile configuration for this repository. **What's wrong?** The channel folder boundary is established in the refactor but has no focused rule for future changes. Greptile settings and custom context are maintained in the dashboard. **Suggested fix** Keep canonical rule bodies under `rules/`. Route coding agents through `AGENTS.md` and load matching rules through `.greptile/files.json`. Preserve supported review settings in `.greptile/config.json` and document the remaining dashboard controls. Related work: #15823 and #16080. A search for related rule PRs found no duplicate configuration change. ## What Changed - Add `rules/chat-channel-platform-boundaries.mdc`. Its scope covers `server/src/services/chat-channels/**` and the sibling `chat-channels.ts` entry point. - Define provider folder ownership, shared workflow boundaries, typed dependencies, behavior-preserving extraction, and dispatch exceptions. - Add rule-loading instructions to root `AGENTS.md` and `.greptile/rules.md`. - Add explicit, scoped context references in `.greptile/files.json`. - Record observed review triggers, the Dependabot exclusion, Base tier, High strictness, summary options, fix prompts, status checks, and disabled auto-approval in `.greptile/config.json`. - Move existing PR-description, source-file growth, and repository-specific screenshot guidance into `rules/pull-request-review.mdc`. - Document supported settings, remaining dashboard controls, and the staged cutover. The dashboard was inspected read-only; no settings or saved rules were changed. ## Verification - Parse both MDC headers with Ruby `YAML.safe_load`: passed. - Parse both Greptile JSON files and verify documented field types and observed values: passed. - Verify all four context references resolve to repository files: passed. - Compare scoped MDC globs with the corresponding Greptile scope: passed. - Check ten positive and negative scope cases with Node `path.matchesGlob`: passed. Includes the service entry point, nested provider files, and unrelated runner, connection, and UI paths. - Verify the scope covers all 101 tracked chat-channel files: passed. - `git diff --check`: passed. - Application typecheck, `pnpm test:run`, and build were not run locally. This change contains only guidance and reviewer configuration, and this worktree has no installed application dependencies. No runtime behavior or application tests changed. - Greptile reviewed commit `32647dfd001289a297b9d43c381371da8575df38`: 5/5, eight files reviewed, zero comments. Hosted CI is still running. ## Risks - Instructions depend on agent and reviewer compliance; these files are not deterministic lint rules. - The new MDC directory is explicitly routed through `AGENTS.md` and Greptile. Cursor does not automatically discover arbitrary `rules/` directories. - This preserves the observed High strictness setting, which the dashboard says omits P2 comments. It does not change that review policy. - Dashboard instructions and custom rules remain additive. Their copies were not disabled during read-only inspection. The repository-specific no-screenshot rule explicitly takes precedence over the conflicting older organization instruction. - Draft review, the required 5/5 status threshold, image badges, and other controls without documented config equivalents remain in the dashboard. See `.greptile/README.md` for the inventory and cutover limitations. ## 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, shell validation, official documentation, and read-only browser inspection. ## 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 (configuration parsing and scope checks described above; application suites were not run) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (no runtime change; checked configuration directly) - [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 - [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> |