mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-10 12:07:09 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
862a5758ba
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - New agents receive role instructions from onboarding, the hiring skill, or a team package. > - These sources repeat harness procedures and impose generic work policies. > - They can crowd out the task and the harness instructions. > - This pull request reduces those sources to short role descriptions. > - It preserves configuration, skills, authentication, reporting lines, and approval controls. > - The benefit is less repeated instruction text with explicit coverage for the default hiring path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #3307. The CEO template can impose a fixed delegation route instead of letting the agent choose how to fulfill the request. This change removes that route. It does not implement autonomous goal selection. Related work: #14920 preserves stock Codex base instructions. #14948 reduces the generic manual and shared runtime prompts. #14961 improves native completion-tool descriptions. This PR is separate from those changes. ## What Changed - Select only the short CEO `AGENTS.md` for new default CEO bundles. Keep the three former companion files as compatibility assets. - Reduce the first-agent chief-of-staff prompt and coder, QA, UX, and security role examples. - Reduce seven bundled team role bodies. Preserve their role, reporting, and skill metadata. Regenerate the catalog. - Make hiring examples optional. Replace the long generic role manual with short role drafting guidance. Preserve explicit requester instructions. - Add configuration and import coverage for native and legacy managed bundles, custom instructions, first-agent rendering, and catalog contents. - Add an explicit-only hiring eval that starts from the production CEO default and checks one coder hire, independently computed JSON output, saved instructions, and worker reuse. - Include the full prompt comparison and a separate three-request drafting simulation. Neither is a live provider comparison. Prompt differences: [before and after](doc/plans/2026-10-02-hiring-template-prompt-diff.md). The CEO default falls from 1,897 to 20 words. The coder example falls from 652 to 18 words. Word counts describe instruction size, not outcome quality or billing. ## Verification - PASS: 99 focused server tests and eight shipped-catalog tests. - PASS: catalog generation and validation for four shipped teams. - PASS: hiring skill validation. - PASS: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - PASS: `pnpm build`. - INCOMPLETE: the full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped before rebase. Its original log is retained. This is not a completed full-suite pass. The full current-head GitHub CI workflow passed: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37073372419. - PASS: `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` and `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit` (63 files / 843 tests). - PASS: discovery for the two new hiring cells, 50 existing everyday cells, and the full 438-cell catalog. - PASS after rebase: 99 server tests, 11 catalog tests, 62 selected E2E support tests, and the E2E typecheck. - PASS: all current-head PR checks at `57dcee147ed0b2d2e3cc657cd9e50fb16bf9ec25`: 51 successful check runs, two intentional Storybook skips, and successful Snyk status. Fresh Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. - PENDING follow-up: matched live hiring runs on frozen integration refs. No live outcome-quality or non-regression result is claimed from the configuration checks or this merge. The new suite has two local native cells: Codex and ACPX Claude. It expects five provider turns per cell. It compares source-derived bundles, so the historical long templates remain admissible. Missing successful source-read receipts make a pair uncomparable. They do not establish a behavior regression or equivalence. ## Risks - New default roles have fewer prescribed procedures. Live checks must determine whether a removed instruction was needed for an outcome. - Existing custom and saved bundles keep their contents. The retained companion assets avoid a source-file compatibility break. - Specialized Summarizer, Reflection Coach, and Wiki Maintainer prompts remain unchanged. Their product contracts need separate review. - The generic non-CEO fallback reduction is in #14948. This PR alone does not provide its eight-word fallback. - Configuration tests and drafting simulations do not establish live outcome quality. QA, UX, security, and chief-of-staff hiring behavior remain outside the new two-cell comparison. > 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-6, with reasoning, code editing, shell tools, and delegated verification. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment 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>
1.5 KiB
1.5 KiB
SecurityEngineer Agent Template
Use this template when hiring security engineers who own security posture: threat-model systems, review auth/crypto/input handling, triage supply-chain and LLM-agent risk, and drive concrete remediations.
Recommended Role Fields
name:SecurityEngineerrole:securitytitle:Security Engineericon:shieldcapabilities:Owns security posture across code, architecture, APIs, deployments, dependencies, and agent tool use; threat-models early, reviews concretely, and drives remediations with evidence.adapterType:claude_local,codex_local, or another adapter with repo and browser context
Recommended desiredSkills when the company has installed them:
- A private-advisory workflow skill (for example,
deal-with-security-advisory) when the company receives GitHub security advisories. - A browser skill when the hire is expected to verify auth flows or third-party header/CSP checks.
- If the company expects this role to handle private advisories but has no dedicated advisory skill, document the confidential manual workflow before submitting the hire. Do not route advisory details through normal issue threads.
Do not add broad admin or write-everywhere skills by default — security review usually reads more than it writes.
AGENTS.md
You are agent {{agentName}}, a security engineer at {{companyName}}. You own security reviews, threat modeling, and security defect remediation. Handle private vulnerabilities through the company's confidential disclosure workflow.