PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-11-13 15:55:46 +01:00

Commit Graph

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states what applies to every change and points to the rest ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20557 Issue type Outdated or unclear contributor documentation.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>	2026-11-10 11:00:31 -06:00
DottaandPaperclip	13e5128164	docs: preserve runtime and verification lessons (#16379 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its control plane shares execution capacity across requests and agent orchestration. > - A dependency can return a small value while doing slow or repeated work underneath. > - Tests can check that value while mocks hide the behavior that affects other work. > - A later passing retry can also leave an earlier material failure unexplained. > - This pull request records general rules for dependency work, verification, and acceptance. > - The benefit is a durable review habit that applies beyond the runner incident. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15683. Refs #16335. The staging runner incident exposed a gap in how we establish the operational cost of a dependency call. The original platform check read a small field from a process report. The call could block shared execution, and value-focused mocks did not exercise that behavior. The fix replaced that probe with bounded asynchronous work. This proposal addresses the reasoning and evidence gap, without assigning blame or prescribing one API or timeout for future work. The acceptance guidance also preserves material failures after a retry passes. It does not assert that every earlier test failure had the same cause as this incident. Related proposal checked: #14275 covers release sign-off templates. This PR covers implementation assumptions and verification evidence. ## What Changed - Add a scoped rule for dependency work in server, adapter, and runner execution paths. Cover blocking, repetition, cost growth, cancellation, and the effect on unrelated work. - Require evidence that can disprove the consequential assumption introduced by a change. Identify behavior removed by mocks and exercise the relevant boundary. - Register the rule in the Greptile manifest with matching path scope. Existing `AGENTS.md` instructions route coding agents to matching rules. - Add failure preservation to the verification skill. Link it from the repository-wide PR review rule. Keep recovery and resolution distinct. - Include examples and exceptions so cosmetic edits and ordinary pure transformations do not acquire unnecessary test requirements. ## Verification - Passed `git diff --check` and the repository PR template and duplicate-search validators. - Passed a local Python structural check: manifest JSON parses; rule globs and Greptile scopes match; seven representative runtime paths match; five unrelated paths do not; the evidence link and heading resolve; existing agent and reviewer loading instructions are present. - Manually applied the rule to a network-filesystem configuration getter, a repeated remote permission check, and an already-loaded map lookup. The first two need evidence about their new dependency risk. The last does not require fault testing by default. - Attempted `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build`. The installed pnpm launcher could not fetch registry data to verify the requested pnpm version. Using the cached project version reached typecheck, which failed because workspace dependencies are absent (`@types/node` missing). Tests and build remain unverified locally. - Greptile reviewed commit `e56d1ec70f3ebffe697b35cc637975b8d8198681` at 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. CI is still running. These structural checks establish instruction wiring, not future compliance by an agent or reviewer. ## Risks - The main risk is adding ceremony to low-risk edits. The rule limits requests to concrete risks introduced by changed behavior and explicitly exempts unrelated work. - Instructions depend on contributors and reviewers reading and applying them. This change adds no automated runtime regression gate. - No application behavior, schema, dependency, lockfile, or workflow changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID, context window, and configured reasoning effort are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, shell tools, and patch editing. ## 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 available in this session) - [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 (guidance-only change; structural validation described above) - [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>	2026-10-15 06:21:39 -05:00
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>	2026-10-13 08:59:27 -05:00

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>

2026-11-10 11:00:31 -06:00

DottaandPaperclip

13e5128164

docs: preserve runtime and verification lessons (#16379 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Its control plane shares execution capacity across requests and
agent orchestration.
> - A dependency can return a small value while doing slow or repeated
work underneath.
> - Tests can check that value while mocks hide the behavior that
affects other work.
> - A later passing retry can also leave an earlier material failure
unexplained.
> - This pull request records general rules for dependency work,
verification, and acceptance.
> - The benefit is a durable review habit that applies beyond the runner
incident.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #15683. Refs #16335.

The staging runner incident exposed a gap in how we establish the
operational cost of a dependency call. The original platform check read
a small field from a process report. The call could block shared
execution, and value-focused mocks did not exercise that behavior. The
fix replaced that probe with bounded asynchronous work. This proposal
addresses the reasoning and evidence gap, without assigning blame or
prescribing one API or timeout for future work.

The acceptance guidance also preserves material failures after a retry
passes. It does not assert that every earlier test failure had the same
cause as this incident.

Related proposal checked: #14275 covers release sign-off templates. This
PR covers implementation assumptions and verification evidence.

## What Changed

- Add a scoped rule for dependency work in server, adapter, and runner
execution paths. Cover blocking, repetition, cost growth, cancellation,
and the effect on unrelated work.
- Require evidence that can disprove the consequential assumption
introduced by a change. Identify behavior removed by mocks and exercise
the relevant boundary.
- Register the rule in the Greptile manifest with matching path scope.
Existing `AGENTS.md` instructions route coding agents to matching rules.
- Add failure preservation to the verification skill. Link it from the
repository-wide PR review rule. Keep recovery and resolution distinct.
- Include examples and exceptions so cosmetic edits and ordinary pure
transformations do not acquire unnecessary test requirements.

## Verification

- Passed `git diff --check` and the repository PR template and
duplicate-search validators.
- Passed a local Python structural check: manifest JSON parses; rule
globs and Greptile scopes match; seven representative runtime paths
match; five unrelated paths do not; the evidence link and heading
resolve; existing agent and reviewer loading instructions are present.
- Manually applied the rule to a network-filesystem configuration
getter, a repeated remote permission check, and an already-loaded map
lookup. The first two need evidence about their new dependency risk. The
last does not require fault testing by default.
- Attempted `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build`. The
installed pnpm launcher could not fetch registry data to verify the
requested pnpm version. Using the cached project version reached
typecheck, which failed because workspace dependencies are absent
(`@types/node` missing). Tests and build remain unverified locally.
- Greptile reviewed commit `e56d1ec70f3ebffe697b35cc637975b8d8198681` at
5/5 with no unresolved review threads. CI is still running. These
structural checks establish instruction wiring, not future compliance by
an agent or reviewer.

## Risks

- The main risk is adding ceremony to low-risk edits. The rule limits
requests to concrete risks introduced by changed behavior and explicitly
exempts unrelated work.
- Instructions depend on contributors and reviewers reading and applying
them. This change adds no automated runtime regression gate.
- No application behavior, schema, dependency, lockfile, or workflow
changes.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID, context window,
and configured reasoning effort are not exposed in this session. Used
reasoning, repository inspection, shell tools, and patch editing.

## 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 available in this session)
- [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 (guidance-only
change; structural validation described above)
- [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>

2026-10-15 06:21:39 -05:00

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>

2026-10-13 08:59:27 -05:00