mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Many contributors are AI agents, and they write the pull request text. > - PR descriptions vary in clarity, and long or ambiguous prose slows down review. > - Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100) is a controlled language that makes technical text short, clear, and unambiguous. > - This pull request adds one line to `CONTRIBUTING.md` and one line to the pull request template. Both lines instruct the author to write PR text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100). > - The benefit is clearer, faster-to-review pull request descriptions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No related GitHub issue exists. This is a small documentation change. It sets a writing-style rule for pull request text: authors must use Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100). ## What Changed - Add one line to `CONTRIBUTING.md` (in "Writing a Good PR message") that requires Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100). - Add one comment line to `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md` that gives the same instruction to PR authors. ## Verification - Read the two changed files. Confirm each new line is present and correct. - `git diff --stat origin/master` shows only the two files, with 4 inserted lines. ## Risks Low risk. The change is documentation only. It adds guidance text and does not change code or behavior. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (claude-opus-4-8), 1M context window, extended thinking, tool use. ## 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 - [ ] 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 Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
4.0 KiB
4.0 KiB
Thinking Path
- Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work
- [Which subsystem or capability is involved]
- [What problem or gap exists]
- [Why it needs to be addressed]
- This pull request ...
- The benefit is ...
Linked Issues or Issue Description
What Changed
Verification
Risks
For core feature work, check
ROADMAP.mdfirst and discuss it in#devbefore opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. SeeCONTRIBUTING.md.
Model Used
Checklist
- I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change
- I have specified the model used (with version and capability details)
- I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work
- I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above
- I have either (a) linked existing issues with
Fixes: #/Closes #/Refs #OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub
#NNN/github.com/paperclipai/paperclipURLs) - 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
- I have added or updated tests where applicable
- I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- 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
- I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge