mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 08:22:20 +02:00
ea4aa185b0f3bc30be1c5fc160cdfd0eb433fe41
7
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
f69c6a8a35 |
fix(github): retry and recover review publication (#16284)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agent work and its published results.
> - GitHub review bots publish task-bound assessments through governed
tools.
> - A review can survive a caller timeout because its publication intent
is durable.
> - A transient provider failure still returned a failed receipt before
recovery.
> - Gateway replay could return an empty cached result, and publication
retries had no dedicated scheduler deadline.
> - This pull request adds bounded retries, receipt recovery, and an
independent durable worker.
> - A temporary GitHub failure can recover without another review or
duplicate publication.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #16275. That change increased the GitHub tool deadline. This change
repairs retry and recovery behavior.
**What happened?**
A one-off GitHub HTTP 503 or 429 left the caller with a failed
publication receipt. The saved retry did not have its own scheduler
worker. An identical gateway call after a timeout could return an empty
cached result instead of the saved publication receipt.
**Expected behavior**
Temporary failures should retry under current authority. Pending work
should resume at its saved deadline after restart. Exact retries should
return the current receipt. Lost responses must not create duplicate
comments, findings, or checks.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Admit an advisory PR review request and begin its assessment.
2. Return HTTP 503 or 429 for the first summary-comment PATCH, then let
GitHub succeed.
3. Submit the assessment through the run-scoped tool gateway.
4. On master, the result says publication failed. With this change, the
same call returns the processed receipt and neutral check.
5. For receipt recovery, use a shorter caller deadline and repeat the
exact call after publication finishes.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on master at `6cb6ac3b8e40cb90d734ba115a2f22f850ff9477`.
## What Changed
- Classify transient transport, server, and rate-limit failures. Honor
Retry-After and primary reset deadlines. Stop retries for permanent
permission and validation errors.
- Retry safe reads and installation-token issuance within a bounded call
window. Retry publication writes through the existing outbox and
provider receipt checks.
- Wait for up to three publication attempts within a 45-second retry
window. Keep the durable eight-failure cap and enforce saved deadlines
on explicit retries.
- Register an independent GitHub publication worker with
transaction-owned wake notifications, startup recovery, and per-PR lease
deadlines.
- Recover exact comment, progress, and assessment gateway calls from
their stored publication. Require the same company, agent, task, run,
connection, tool, arguments, and current policy. Clear stale timeout
errors after recovery. Approved exact retries read the current receipt
through the existing signed replay path; the worker retains the verified
approval for deferred writes and still rejects revocation.
- Add regression coverage and update the connector guide and
feature/access maps.
## Verification
- Red: both one-off HTTP 503 and 429 regressions failed on master with a
failed publication receipt.
- Green: the same tests passed after the change.
- GitHub review workflows: 133 covered against isolated PostgreSQL 18.
The final combined run passed 132 and hit one fifteen-second timeout
under concurrent build load. All three variants of that workflow passed
in isolation. The earlier combined run passed all 131 workflows before
the two approval regressions were added.
- Retry policy and delivery coordinator tests: 35 passed.
- Additional focused checks passed for the actual eight-failure cap,
exact-argument conflicts, policy revocation, and timeout receipt
recovery. The approved deferred-publication and revocation regressions
failed before the review repair and passed after it, with one approval
request preserved.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. `pnpm build`: passed. `node
scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed.
- The broad local `pnpm test:run` path remains blocked by the host's
exhausted PostgreSQL shared-memory slots. The changed database-backed
workflows use an isolated Docker database instead. All Paperclip CI jobs
passed at
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
22d05644f4 |
feat(ui): add Speko voice setup, task calls, and Storybook coverage (#15728)
Runtime #15727 is merged. This PR adds the UI. Qualification follows in
#15729.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agent work through tasks and governed connections.
> - Chat connections already bind external conversations to those tasks.
> - Speko handles voice and telephony, while the selected Paperclip
agent does the work.
> - A call needs durable session authority, ordered follow-ups, and safe
result delivery.
> - This PR adds the Speko setup and call controls to the existing Apps
and task UI.
> - This PR depends on #15727. The qualification suite follows
separately. Speko stays experimental.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
Phone and browser voice conversations cannot use the chat connection
task lifecycle. A separate voice runtime is needed to preserve task
authority, retries, and reply history.
**Proposed solution**
Add company-scoped voice sessions, signed callbacks, durable replies,
inbound intake, and an agent-facing outbound-call tool. Reuse existing
tasks, queues, secrets, and publications.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the experimental chat connector entry points under Agent
Chat and Connected Apps. The project owner requested this feature.
Refs #11418 for the original provider catalog proposal. This
implementation uses the newer chat connection infrastructure rather than
an MCP catalog-only integration. Refs #15721 for remote OpenCode
startup.
## What Changed
- Add the Speko Apps catalog entry, provider artwork, and browser SDK.
- Reuse existing agents in setup. Keep the optional Company Phone Agent
in the catalog, with connection instructions available to any assigned
agent.
- Add task voice controls, transcripts, phone callbacks, inbound-line
settings, and call Activity entries.
- Surface retryable connection and incoming-task inventory failures,
preserve active call controls and cached tasks, restore keyboard focus
after recovery, and bound notification polling so a stuck request cannot
hide later results.
- Put Save & exit and Connect Speko in the credential step’s shared
footer.
- Add deterministic production-component Storybook fixtures for setup,
lifecycle, failures, permissions, and phone surfaces.
- Include voice components in the design guide. Stories never request a
real microphone or place calls.
## Verification
- All 27 focused UI/controller regressions, UI typecheck, token gates,
and 28 map/catalog structural tests pass. The shared connection cache
test covers pause/resume invalidation during the 30-second fresh period.
- Storybook builds 157 Speko production-component stories. The complete
prior 156-story set passed all 624 checks on UI source
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7eea9d8214 |
fix(github): use bot names in review summaries (#16212)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A GitHub bot can send a pull request to an agent and publish its review. > - Each bot has its own GitHub App identity, but every summary currently starts with "Paperclip Review". > - A generic heading makes it harder to identify reviewers when several bots review the same pull request. > - This pull request uses the bot display name in review summary headings. > - Users can identify each reviewer while required checks keep their existing name. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The heading of a GitHub bot's published pull request review summary. **Current behavior** Every summary uses "Paperclip Review", regardless of the bot's name. The check also uses "Paperclip Review" and must keep that name for existing branch rules. **Proposed behavior** Complete and incomplete review summary headings use the GitHub bot display name. The heading falls back to the bot login, then the assigned agent name, when old connections have no display name. Separate GitHub Apps keep independent checks with the same name. **Reason and benefit** Readers can identify each bot's review. A regression test confirms that publishing a review does not update a check owned by another App or endpoint. **Breaking changes** The summary heading changes. Consumers that parse the old heading must accept bot names. No API, prompt configuration, database schema, or check name changes are included. No duplicate PR was found in the GitHub bot title search. ROADMAP.md does not contain a duplicate of this change. ## What Changed - Use the bot display name in complete and incomplete review headings. - Escape Markdown in names and fall back to the bot login or agent name. - Verify the heading through the publication workflow and keep check updates scoped to the App and endpoint. - Document bot-named summaries and independent checks. Update both access maps. ## Verification - Focused policy, heading, and existing UI tests: 67 passed. - Database-backed regression cases: 2 passed, including bot-name publication and independent checks. - Map checks, token gates, and git diff --check passed. - Typecheck and build passed on the final rebased branch. The final focused run passed 44 tests; the two database-backed regression cases also passed in a separate run. All final-head CI checks passed, including full test suites, build, typecheck, E2E, and security scans. Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings. No review threads remain unresolved. ## Risks - Consumers that parse the old summary heading must accept bot names. - The GitHub check remains Paperclip Review. Multiple-bot check isolation was tested with provider fixtures; a live two-bot GitHub test was not run for this change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact backend model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. ## 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
|
433d94ee0b |
refactor(maps): generate indexes from local story and feature metadata (#16214)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Feature recipes and Storybook help contributors find behavior, examples, and verification steps. > - Independent feature changes currently update shared catalogs, indexes, and review hashes. > - Those shared files cause merge conflicts and repeated bookkeeping during parallel work. > - This pull request stores metadata in each feature recipe and story, then generates the combined views. > - Contributors can merge independent work without editing a common index. Git and PR evidence retain change and review history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Maintaining the product, agent-access, and Storybook maps while multiple agents change different features. **Current behavior** A story or recipe change can update `catalog.json`, `INDEX.md`, review hashes, verification tables, and tracked generated navigation. Two unrelated changes then conflict in the same files. **Proposed behavior** Each story declares capability links and classification in `parameters.paperclip`. Each feature recipe declares its navigation and optional verification guidance. Startup, build, and UI typechecking discover these sources and generate ignored indexes and Storybook pages. **Reason and benefit** A routine change edits its own source files. Aggregate metadata is rebuilt from the merged checkout. There is no sidecar registry, shared review journal, or hash acknowledgment to maintain. **Breaking changes** The tracked Storybook catalog and index paths are retired. Consumers use `ui/storybook/generated/` or `maps/generated/` after generation. Contributor instructions and the existing feature-gap browser suite use the new paths. Story and overview IDs remain stable. ## What Changed - Move the existing annotations into 262 story files. Preserve classifications, capability associations, exports, and explicit IDs. - Discover all 35 feature recipes. Store section/order beside each recipe and move durable verification routes out of the shared table. - Remove tracked catalogs, inventories, overview pages, and inline preview ordering. Keep authored preview behavior in `preview-base.tsx`. - Generate the Storybook guide, feature/access Markdown indexes, gap report, page-reference inventory, and preview wrapper automatically. - Update the map contracts and maintenance skills to use Git history and revision-specific PR/CI evidence. - Add schema, identity, regeneration, and actual Git merge tests. Run these through the existing UI Vitest suite. Add focused browser navigation checks. This is one coordinated migration. Most of the 367 changed files contain only moved metadata or deleted generated content. Review the generator scripts, map contracts, Storybook configuration, and tests first. No product API or authorization behavior changes. ## Verification Passed: - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: 35 paired areas and 175 capabilities. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check`: 262 suites and 2,485 authored stories after incorporating current master. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs`: 28 tests, including independent branches merged in both orders with identical generated output and no tracked changes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run storybook/map-tooling.test.ts`: the CI entrypoint runs those map tests. - `pnpm check:token-gates`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` before the final master rebase. - `pnpm build-storybook`: all 2,517 original story/docs URLs retained. Current master contributes exactly four additional recovery stories. - Focused Playwright navigation checks: search and open a feature without examples; expand verification guidance and check source links; retain capability order and follow a related Foundations suite. The final clean Storybook build passed after deleting every ignored map output. Post-rebase UI typechecking and both browser tests passed. The working tree stays clean after generation. The concurrent-cleanup regression fails with `ENOENT` without the fix and passes with it. All GitHub CI gates passed on `00fc7ec18e`, which also received Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The final merge commit `1c3c5143a6` incorporates master and resolves only the two modify/delete conflicts by retaining removal of the aggregate index and catalog. Master’s new workspace feature and access guidance is preserved. Map validation, catalog generation, overview generation, all 28 map tests, and diff checks pass after conflict resolution. The maintainer explicitly requested merging without another Greptile review. CI has not been rerun to completion on this merge commit. The local repository-wide `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after the earlier CI matrix passed; it is not reported as a local pass. No screenshot baselines or production acceptance are claimed. To repeat the browser check against an owned Storybook server: ```sh PAPERCLIP_GAP_STORYBOOK_URL=http://127.0.0.1:6136 pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/storybook-visual/feature-gap-stories.config.ts map-navigation.spec.ts ``` ## Risks - Existing branches need a one-time rebase to move their catalog changes into local annotations. The PR incorporates the recovery changes from current master. - Changing the same story or capability can still produce a meaningful conflict. This removes the shared aggregate bottleneck. - The generator uses Storybook's existing CSF parser. Literal-only annotations and parser regression tests protect the current contract. - Generated Markdown is available after running the generator; the published Storybook provides a browsable guide. - Shared source changes still require review. Removing hashes removes mechanical acknowledgments; it does not establish runtime parity. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and browser-test tools. The exact deployment model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. ## 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 on the previously reviewed head `00fc7ec18e`; final conflict-resolution checks are documented above - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on `00fc7ec18e`; another review was waived by the maintainer - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
df06df2306 |
fix(slack): allow direct messages without at-mentions (#16151)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Slack connections let people start and continue agent tasks. > - The Require at-mention setting currently applies to channels and direct messages. > - A person who sends a direct message has already selected the agent. > - This pull request exempts direct messages from mention checks, including queued work. > - People can talk normally in DMs while channel messages keep the configured mention rule. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15612, which introduced the Require at-mention setting. Searches found no duplicate PR for the DM exemption. **What happened?** With Require at-mention enabled, a plain Slack DM does not start or continue agent work. New Slack connections enable the setting by default. **Expected behavior** Direct messages do not need an at-mention. Top-level DM replies remain top-level. Channel messages and channel thread replies still follow the saved mention setting. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable Allow direct messages and Require at-mention on a Slack connection. 2. Send a plain DM from an authorized sender. 3. Confirm the agent responds without an at-mention. Send a plain follow-up and confirm it also works. 4. Confirm unmentioned channel messages remain filtered when Require at-mention is enabled. 5. Disable Allow direct messages and confirm new DMs remain blocked. **Paperclip version or commit** Source baseline: `eb06c9fedd`. **Deployment mode** Built from source. Automated tests use disposable local Postgres and provider fixtures. This change has not been deployed or retested in live Slack. ## What Changed - Exempt DMs at inbound admission, task mutation, work authorization, and heartbeat queue claim. - Keep channel mention checks and all existing sender, endpoint, and destination checks. - Update regressions for new connections, follow-ups, deferred delivery, and coalesced queued messages. - Clarify the Slack settings copy, connection documentation, and verification maps. - Refresh the affected Storybook review references after source inspection. ## Verification - Passed 55 Slack and durable scheduler tests with Vitest on the current rebased commit, including admission through the extracted inbound module. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` on the rebased PR commit. - Passed token gates and map checks. - Passed Storybook catalog validation after rebase: 223 files and 2,210 stories. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after three failures in the unchanged tool-access suite. All 418 tests in that suite passed in a standalone rerun. The focused regressions passed; full GitHub CI remains the merge gate. - Greptile reviewed commit `b0293fa6571403c5e01c30bb7b5fcc5e91b88c97`: 5/5, with no findings or unresolved review threads. All 55 GitHub checks passed on this commit; two optional Storybook jobs were skipped. - No live Slack messages were sent during implementation verification. ## Risks Existing Slack connections now accept authorized plain DMs even when Require at-mention is enabled. Allow direct messages and sender authorization still apply. Queued DM work follows the same exemption. Channel behavior and DM reply routing are unchanged. No schema or migration change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running as Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific 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 - [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
|
f329b24ee1 |
feat: give tasks durable project-optional workspaces (#15749)
Give tasks durable company-scoped workspace bindings independent of project assignment, channel defaults and authorized repository preparation. Reuse verified input seeds and sparse output recovery while preserving trust, privacy and controller provisioning boundaries.
Full CI and E2E, Superagent, legacy checks and Greptile Apex 5/5 passed on reviewed head
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7d9b93aee2 |
docs: establish paired feature and agent access maps (#16025)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. **Issue type** Missing documentation and maintenance contract. **Where is the issue?** The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. **What's wrong?** There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. **Suggested fix** Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression tests. ## 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> |