mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-04 19:16:16 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
07721e33f7
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage agents and shared company skills. > - Agents can author new skills or add existing skills from approved sources. > - Source import and catalog install retain the source used by update, audit and reset flows. > - The create_skill tool described saving complete Markdown, without explaining this choice. > - An agent can therefore read an existing source and create an unrelated managed copy. > - This PR explains the distinction in the existing tool contract and tests its actual model-facing projections. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The model-facing description of create_skill and the choice between authoring and source import. **Current behavior** The tool says it saves a complete single-file skill. It does not distinguish new authored content from adding an existing skill. The Company Skills reference already directs external sources to import and catalog skills to install. **Proposed behavior** The tool explains that it saves newly authored content. It directs existing-source work to the existing import or install APIs through search_api and call_api. It retains the existing assignment and retry guidance. **Reason and benefit** A managed copy does not retain the original source locator. Clear guidance helps an agent choose the source-aware operation without adding a tool or changing permissions. This is a guidance repair. It does not claim that the import backend failed. ## What Changed - Clarify the canonical documentation, live descriptor and scenario descriptor for create_skill. - Test the actual discovered contract and provider projection, including API claim and company-boundary negatives. - Refresh generated descriptions and the seeded catalog digest and manifest entry. ## Verification - A focused regression fails on the parent because the actual discovered contract lacks the authoring versus import distinction. - Three focused pure suites pass: 48 tests. They include existing skill creation, retry, schema and authorization controls. - The source-owned serializers and protocol fixture validator regenerated the inventories without an app or native build. - Both generated inventories change only create_skill description. Arguments, required claims, modes, idempotency and all other tools remain byte-equivalent. - Current head `bca441726a6cba80e6e7da0321db59e27183c5b8` passes required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`; the full main CI run has 49 successful jobs. Windows, Docker, security and review checks also pass or are intentionally skipped. Greptile and the final Paperclip review are 5/5, with zero unresolved threads. This PR remains deliberately unmerged for the separately reviewed evaluation candidate. - Original head CI preserved: one unrelated UI clipboard-confirmation assertion failed after the clipboard call passed; 47 other executions succeeded and the final verify check failed as its dependent. The two UI owners are unchanged from the base. Exact React scheduler/timer timing is unknown. No unchanged-head retry was used before the necessary master conflict sync. - The conflict sync preserves incoming task-assignment guidance and regenerates metadata. It is not a fix for the UI test failure. The synchronized current head passes CI and review. No same-head recovery was consumed. ## Risks The description changes model context and the catalog digest. It may affect tool choice, but actual same-request and same-model acceptance is still pending. The change does not alter authorization, API behavior or grading. Local checks did not run the app, database, native runner, full graph typecheck or build. Intermediate test-fixture claim and placement mistakes were corrected; the final focused run passes. Do not treat these pure controls as a feature pass. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`) through Codex, with reasoning, source inspection and tool execution. The host does not report a 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; narrow create_skill/import and skill-import-guidance searches found no duplicate. - [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>