## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Direct Runner evals retain evidence across model configurations. > - Evalbook already has a grid and a read-only Runner Lab chat viewer. > - Public projection stripped the view and selected a second plain result page. > - This change uses the existing viewer for public and private results. > - The data access differs, but the presentation does not. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12931, #12945. Related open runtime-contract PR #11634 does not contain this report-only change. **What happened?** The public direct-eval campaign opened plain result pages. The access-controlled artifact used the chat viewer. Users could not follow the same recorded interaction from the published grid. **Expected behavior** Every newly generated Runner Evalbook opens the existing chat viewer. The grid and durable run history remain. Public evidence has explicit redactions. **Steps to reproduce** Open campaign gha-34062394019-1 from the direct-eval history. Click a result, then compare its plain page with the corresponding Actions artifact. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced at83987210d6. **Deployment mode** Static GitHub Actions artifacts and S3/CloudFront publication. Companion site-theme renderer: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/19. This removes the Python light theme and links the same built stylesheet. ## What Changed - Add a closed public chat projection. Require mock isolation evidence before publishing recorded text. Scrub private references and withhold tool payloads, reasoning and provider state. - Validate public HTML against the exact trusted viewer shell and asset bytes. Validate the public DTO and local links. Keep CSP restrictions on outbound requests and forms. - Make the workflow render both data projections with the canonical viewer. Pass a viewer-only artifact to the trusted publisher. Reject an old renderer pin before paid execution. - Fix report-only start position, missing-state inspector, read-only controls and redaction labels. Tool evidence links select and highlight the Evidence tab even when reopened. Runner execution and the full-stack E2E workflow are unchanged. - Add a no-model report refresh command. Preserve original campaign identity, measurements and immutable history; label report revisions. - Document the single presentation and public/private evidence boundary. - Use one Runner Lab stylesheet and local fonts for the grid, Latest, test design, inventory, server gate and S3 history index. Keep static styles scoped away from live chat. - Emit exact published report/history URLs to the Actions summary and job outputs only after successful upload. Set the deployment link from that output. - Switch public Eval and Evidence panes without rendering both at once. - Add all-run history with like-for-like pass-rate and cost timelines, regression/recovery lists, exact commit links, source refs and Actions links. - Record all-attempt costs including retries. Keep provider list cost separate from estimates. Label missing coverage and historical final-only costs. - Retain all run records beyond 200, backfill a separate derived analytics projection, and exclude report refreshes from measurements. ## Verification - Focused report/publishing/projection/workflow/adapter tests: 29 passed. - Workflow Evalbook adapter tests: three passed. - Viewer unit tests: eight passed; Vite viewer build passed. - Companion renderer tests: 59 total, 57 passed, two inventory tests skipped because the expected sibling checkout is absent. - Re-rendered all 375 retained attempts from the completed campaign and validated the public bundle. Zero new model calls; 356/358 selected cells still pass. - Browser walkthrough: grid to failed chat; prompt, named tool calls, correct blocked status, visible assertions, no loading spinner or composer. Public payload redactions are explicit. - Full typecheck and build passed locally. test:run ended with 17 failed files and 19 failed tests in unrelated server/worktree areas (3772 tests passed). Latest-head CI is the final merge gate. The browser sources also typecheck with a temporary TypeScript-7-compatible path configuration; the checked-in browser config still uses removed baseUrl options and is unchanged here. - Real Chromium verification passed for passing, failing and missing-recording attempts in both the full and public bundles. It checks tool expansion, navigation, reload, read-only controls, narrow viewport visibility and the public no-network boundary. Future publications run it automatically. - Fresh live proof: three gpt-5.4-mini native Codex cases passed on the first attempt (get-task-context, create-child-task, workflow-context-document-progress); estimated total $0.00632625. Generated the full canonical report and verified all three file:// pages, all seven DevTools tabs, and evidence cross-links in Chromium. Private screenshots remain local. - Follow-up99697c2c5: viewer build, eight unit tests, browser token gate and browser-source typecheck (existing TS7 configuration workaround) passed. Added repeated tool-to-evidence navigation to the publication browser gate. - Site-theme follow-up: 26 publishing/security tests, 59 Python tests (57 passed, two existing skips), eight viewer unit tests and the viewer build passed. Chromium verified shared colors and grid/test-design/Latest navigation. - Re-rendered all 375 retained attempts with the shared site theme, without new provider calls. - Successful hosted publication: [refreshed Evalbook](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-protocol-evals/campaigns/gha-34062394019-1-report-site-theme-v3/index.html) and [themed history](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-protocol-evals/index.html). Real browser verified grid → test design → chat → All results and history → run. - Full maintained live suite completed on AWS: [Actions run 34074939112](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34074939112), Paperclip856813ba3a, evals 34e1846c06a39e641182dadce5de7ea739f657f1. All 358 cells across 11 configurations ran; 355 passed (99.2%), two behavior failures and one infrastructure failure. Nine configurations are entirely green. All 360 retained attempts were rendered using the new design and published as an immutable, zero-provider-call report refresh: [full Evalbook](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-protocol-evals/campaigns/gha-34074939112-1-report-history-v1/index.html). The trusted master workflow ran the models; this PR's viewer rendered their results afterward. - Remaining live failures: native Codex mini did not emit the expected discovery event for lazy-unauthorized-undisclosed (no mutation occurred); GLM 5.3 scheduled a wake before approval in workflow-governed-wait; GLM 5.3 timed out on create-task-document on both attempts. No scoring rules were relaxed. - Retry-inclusive recorded estimated model cost is at least $7.067692, with usage for 357/360 attempts. Provider-reported list cost is a separate alternative (at least $14.002806), not an additive cost. Missing usage is unknown, not zero; AWS compute is excluded. - [Production history](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-protocol-evals/index.html) now contains nine model runs and two separately labeled report refreshes. Matching full-suite comparison reports three newly failing cells and two recoveries versus the previous run. This is observed run-to-run variation, not proof of a deterministic code regression. Live HTTP checks verify the newest report link, shared theme, exact source SHAs and cost analytics. - The new full report passed Chromium checks for passing, failing and missing-recording chat pages, tool-to-Evidence links, grid/design/Latest navigation, reload, read-only controls and narrow layouts. The Mac was locked during final hosted verification; the new hosted history was checked by HTTP and generated-page browser checks, not a fresh interactive desktop walkthrough. - History follow-up: 31 publishing/security/metrics tests pass. Viewer build passes. Chromium checks desktop and narrow history pages with no document-level horizontal overflow. ### Visual verification Generated from the scrubbed completed campaign; no private provider identities or raw tool payloads are included. Full private pages were also browser-tested, but their private metadata is not published as screenshots.    Latest shared-theme proof:     ## Risks - Public chat text is newly visible, but only for the isolated mock boundary. The producer excludes raw payloads and the publisher fails closed on unknown fields, secrets, shell changes and asset substitutions. - Requires the companion canonical renderer revision and an updated RUNNER_PROTOCOL_EVALS_SHA after merge. Old pins fail before paid execution. - Existing published campaigns remain immutable. A report refresh is a separate history entry, not a new model qualification. - Successfully published the immutable site-theme refresh with the configured report-bucket SSO profile. Original run records and qualification pointers are preserved. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with reasoning, shell and browser tools. Exact deployment model ID and context-window size are 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 oncad99dbf04- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups oncad99dbf04- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Quickstart · Docs · GitHub · Discord · Twitter · Website
Paperclip is the app people use to manage AI agents for work.
Open-source orchestration for teams of AI agents.
If OpenClaw is an employee, Paperclip is the company.
Paperclip is a Node.js server and React UI that orchestrates a team of AI agents to run a business. Bring your own agents, assign goals, and track work and costs from one dashboard.
It looks like a task manager. Under the hood: org charts, budgets, governance, goal alignment, and agent coordination.
Manage business goals, not pull requests.
| Step | Example | |
|---|---|---|
| 01 | Define the goal | "Build the #1 AI note-taking app to $1M MRR." |
| 02 | Hire the team | CEO, CTO, engineers, designers, marketers — any bot, any provider. |
| 03 | Approve and run | Review strategy. Set budgets. Hit go. Monitor from the dashboard. |
Paperclip is right for you if
- ✅ You want to build autonomous AI organizations
- ✅ You coordinate many different agents (OpenClaw, Codex, Claude, Cursor) toward a common goal
- ✅ You have 20 simultaneous Claude Code terminals open and lose track of what everyone is doing
- ✅ You want agents running autonomously 24/7, but still want to audit work and chime in when needed
- ✅ You want to monitor costs and enforce budgets
- ✅ You want a process for managing agents that feels like using a task manager
- ✅ You want to manage your autonomous businesses from your phone
The four pillars
Four things have to work for an organization of AI agents to actually produce: the tasks, the org, the training, and the infrastructure. Paperclip is built around exactly those four pillars.
| Pillar | Built for | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| Agentic Task Manager — Declare intent. Agents work. You verify the output. | Everyone, daily | Tasks, approvals & review gates · proactive agent coworkers · auditable routines & workflows · verify from diffs, screenshots & tests |
| Org Chart for Agents — Roles, permissions & boundaries for humans and agents. | Managers | Mixed human + agent org chart · responsibilities, delegation, specialization · governance: who can do what · scoped secrets & company boundaries |
| Agent Employee Training — Design, train & evaluate your AI employees. | Enablers | Skill Studio & shared org-wide skills · evals & saved test runs · active learning loops & quality metrics · performance reviews for agents |
| Agentic OS — The infrastructure that makes the work run. | IT & platform | Cross-provider runtime: any model, any agent · sandboxing, integrations & MCP servers · SSO, GRC, RBAC & cost controls · data privacy, internal trace collection, compounding data value |
Features
🔌 Bring Your Own AgentAny agent, any runtime, one org chart. If it can receive a heartbeat, it's hired. |
🎯 Goal AlignmentEvery task traces back to the organization mission. Agents know what to do and why. |
💓 HeartbeatsAgents wake on a schedule, check work, and act. Delegation flows up and down the org chart. |
💰 Cost ControlMonthly budgets per agent. When they hit the limit, they stop. No runaway costs. |
🏢 Multi-OrganizationOne deployment, many organizations. Complete data isolation. One control plane for your portfolio. |
🎫 Ticket SystemEvery conversation traced. Every decision explained. Full tool-call tracing and immutable audit log. |
🛡️ GovernanceApprove hires, override strategy, pause or terminate any agent — at any time. |
📊 Org ChartHierarchies, roles, reporting lines. Your agents have a boss, a title, and a job description. |
📱 Mobile ReadyMonitor and manage your autonomous businesses from anywhere. |
Problems Paperclip solves
| Without Paperclip | With Paperclip |
|---|---|
| ❌ You have 20 Claude Code tabs open and can't track which one does what. On reboot you lose everything. | ✅ Tasks are ticket-based, conversations are threaded, sessions persist across reboots. |
| ❌ You manually gather context from several places to remind your bot what you're actually doing. | ✅ Context flows from the task up through the project and company goals — your agent always knows what to do and why. |
| ❌ Folders of agent configs are disorganized and you're re-inventing task management, communication, and coordination between agents. | ✅ Paperclip gives you org charts, ticketing, delegation, and governance out of the box — so you run a company, not a pile of scripts. |
| ❌ Runaway loops waste hundreds of dollars of tokens and max your quota before you even know what happened. | ✅ Cost tracking surfaces token budgets and throttles agents when they're out. Management prioritizes with budgets. |
| ❌ You have recurring jobs (customer support, social, reports) and have to remember to manually kick them off. | ✅ Heartbeats handle regular work on a schedule. Management supervises. |
| ❌ You have an idea, you have to find your repo, fire up Claude Code, keep a tab open, and babysit it. | ✅ Add a task in Paperclip. Your coding agent works on it until it's done. Management reviews their work. |
Why Paperclip is special
Paperclip handles the hard orchestration details correctly.
| Atomic execution. | Task checkout and budget enforcement are atomic, so no double-work and no runaway spend. |
| Persistent agent state. | Agents resume the same task context across heartbeats instead of restarting from scratch. |
| Runtime skill injection. | Agents can learn Paperclip workflows and project context at runtime, without retraining. |
| Governance with rollback. | Approval gates are enforced, config changes are revisioned, and bad changes can be rolled back safely. |
| Goal-aware execution. | Tasks carry full goal ancestry so agents consistently see the "why," not just a title. |
| Portable company templates. | Export/import orgs, agents, and skills with secret scrubbing and collision handling. |
| True multi-organization isolation. | Every entity is company-scoped, so one deployment can run many companies with separate data and audit trails. |
What's Under the Hood
Paperclip is a full control plane, not a wrapper. Before you build any of this yourself, know that it already exists:
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ PAPERCLIP SERVER │
│ │
│ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │
│ │Identity & │ │ Work & │ │ Heartbeat │ │Governance │ │
│ │ Access │ │ Tasks │ │ Execution │ │& Approvals│ │
│ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ │
│ │
│ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │
│ │ Org Chart │ │Workspaces │ │ Plugins │ │ Budget │ │
│ │ & Agents │ │ & Runtime │ │ │ │ & Costs │ │
│ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ │
│ │
│ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │
│ │ Routines │ │ Secrets & │ │ Activity │ │ Company │ │
│ │& Schedules│ │ Storage │ │ & Events │ │Portability│ │
│ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲
┌─────┴─────┐ ┌─────┴─────┐ ┌─────┴─────┐ ┌─────┴─────┐
│ Claude │ │ Codex │ │ CLI │ │ HTTP/web │
│ Code │ │ │ │ agents │ │ bots │
└───────────┘ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ └───────────┘
The Systems
|
Identity & Access — Two deployment modes (trusted local or authenticated), board users, agent API keys, short-lived run JWTs, company memberships, invite flows, and OpenClaw onboarding. Every mutating request is traced to an actor. |
Org Chart & Agents — Agents have roles, titles, reporting lines, permissions, and budgets. Adapter examples match the diagram: Claude Code, Codex, CLI agents such as Cursor/Gemini/bash, HTTP/webhook bots such as OpenClaw, and external adapter plugins. If it can receive a heartbeat, it's hired. |
|
Work & Task System — Issues carry company/project/goal/parent links, atomic checkout with execution locks, first-class blocker dependencies, comments, documents, attachments, work products, labels, and inbox state. No double-work, no lost context. |
Heartbeat Execution — DB-backed wakeup queue with coalescing, budget checks, workspace resolution, secret injection, skill loading, and adapter invocation. Runs produce structured logs, cost events, session state, and audit trails. Recovery handles orphaned runs automatically. |
|
Workspaces & Runtime — Project workspaces, isolated execution workspaces (git worktrees, operator branches), and runtime services (dev servers, preview URLs). Agents work in the right directory with the right context every time. |
Governance & Approvals — Board approval workflows, execution policies with review/approval stages, decision tracking, budget hard-stops, agent pause/resume/terminate, and full audit logging. Nothing ships without your sign-off. |
|
Budget & Cost Control — Token and cost tracking by company, agent, project, goal, issue, provider, and model. Scoped budget policies with warning thresholds and hard stops. Overspend pauses agents and cancels queued work automatically. |
Routines & Schedules — Recurring tasks with cron, webhook, and API triggers. Concurrency and catch-up policies. Each routine execution creates a tracked issue and wakes the assigned agent — no manual kick-offs needed. |
|
Plugins — Instance-wide plugin system with out-of-process workers, capability-gated host services, job scheduling, tool exposure, and UI contributions. Extend Paperclip without forking it. |
Secrets & Storage — Instance and company secrets, encrypted local storage, provider-backed object storage, attachments, and work products. Sensitive values stay out of prompts unless a scoped run explicitly needs them. |
|
Activity & Events — Mutating actions, heartbeat state changes, cost events, approvals, comments, and work products are recorded as durable activity so operators can audit what happened and why. |
Company Portability — Export and import entire organizations — agents, skills, projects, routines, and issues — with secret scrubbing and collision handling. One deployment, many companies, complete data isolation. |
What Paperclip is not
| Not a chatbot. | Agents have jobs, not chat windows. |
| Not an agent framework. | We don't tell you how to build agents. We tell you how to run a company made of them. |
| Not a workflow builder. | No drag-and-drop pipelines. Paperclip models companies — with org charts, goals, budgets, and governance. |
| Not a prompt manager. | Agents bring their own prompts, models, and runtimes. Paperclip manages the organization they work in. |
| Not a single-agent tool. | This is for teams. If you have one agent, you probably don't need Paperclip. If you have twenty — you definitely do. |
| Not a code review tool. | Paperclip orchestrates work, not pull requests. Bring your own review process. |
Quickstart
Open source. Self-hosted. No Paperclip account required.
curl -fsSLO https://paperclip.ing/install.sh
curl -fsSLO https://paperclip.ing/install.sh.sha256
if command -v sha256sum >/dev/null 2>&1; then
sha256sum -c install.sh.sha256
else
shasum -a 256 -c install.sh.sha256
fi
bash install.sh
The installer ensures Node.js 24.11 or newer is available, installs a managed
Paperclip CLI under ~/.paperclip/cli, and starts interactive onboarding. It
can also install Paperclip as a background service on supported Linux and
macOS systems. The checksum detects transfer or publishing mistakes, but it is
served from the same origin as the script; use a release-tag or commit-pinned
GitHub copy when you need an independently hosted source.
For a non-interactive managed install:
curl -fsSL https://paperclip.ing/install.sh | bash -s -- --no-prompt --no-onboard
paperclipai onboard --yes
The piped form requires supported Node.js, npm, and npx to already be present.
If Node.js bootstrap is required, download and review install.sh before
running it so no privileged dependency-install command is accepted through a
pipe.
To try Paperclip without installing anything permanently:
npx --registry https://registry.npmjs.org paperclipai onboard --yes
For an isolated manual test instance that is already initialized with a CEO
agent, use test-drive. It stays in the foreground, never installs a service
or creates a first task, and opens the browser only after setup succeeds:
ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=... npx paperclipai test-drive
OPENAI_API_KEY=... npx paperclipai test-drive --harness codex
OPENROUTER_API_KEY=... npx paperclipai test-drive \
--harness opencode \
--model openrouter/anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5
Each run without --data-dir gets a unique, retained temporary directory; its
absolute path is printed at startup. Pass --data-dir to reuse one, or
--no-browser to leave the initialized instance unopened. When invoked from a
linked Git worktree, test-drive also enables task execution in that worktree.
See doc/CLI.md for credential and
reuse behavior.
Troubleshooting: private npm registry
.npmrcIf this fails with an
E404forpaperclipai(or similar) and you use a private npm registry (for example GitHub Packages) via a global~/.npmrc,npxmay be resolvingpaperclipaiagainst that private registry instead of the public npm registry.Diagnostic:
npm config get registryWorkaround (cross-platform; force the public npm registry for this command):
npx --registry https://registry.npmjs.org paperclipai onboard --yes
That quickstart path now defaults to trusted local loopback mode for the fastest first run. To start in authenticated/private mode instead, choose a bind preset explicitly:
paperclipai onboard --yes --bind lan
# or:
paperclipai onboard --yes --bind tailnet
If you already have Paperclip configured, rerunning onboard keeps the existing config in place. Use paperclipai configure to edit settings.
See doc/INSTALLING.md for pinned versions, canary and
git-ref installs, updates, rollback, service management, and uninstalling.
Or manually:
git clone https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
cd paperclip
pnpm install
pnpm dev
This starts the API server at http://localhost:3100. An embedded PostgreSQL database is created automatically — no setup required.
Requirements: Node.js 24.11+, pnpm 9.15+
FAQ
What does a typical setup look like? Locally, a single Node.js process manages an embedded Postgres and local file storage. For production, point it at your own Postgres and deploy however you like. Configure projects, agents, and goals — the agents take care of the rest.
If you're a solo entrepreneur you can use Tailscale to access Paperclip on the go. Then later you can deploy to e.g. Vercel when you need it.
Can I run multiple companies? Yes. A single deployment can run an unlimited number of companies with complete data isolation.
How is Paperclip different from agents like OpenClaw or Claude Code? Paperclip uses those agents. It orchestrates them into a company — with org charts, budgets, goals, governance, and accountability.
Why should I use Paperclip instead of just pointing my OpenClaw to Asana or Trello? Agent orchestration has subtleties in how you coordinate who has work checked out, how to maintain sessions, monitoring costs, establishing governance - Paperclip does this for you.
(Bring-your-own-ticket-system is on the Roadmap)
Do agents run continuously? By default, agents run on scheduled heartbeats and event-based triggers (task assignment, @-mentions). You can also hook in continuous agents like OpenClaw. You bring your agent and Paperclip coordinates.
Development
pnpm dev # Full dev (API + UI, watch mode)
pnpm dev:once # Full dev without file watching
pnpm dev:server # Server only
pnpm dev:mobile # Serve prebuilt UI on :3101 for phones/tablets (proxies /api → :3100)
pnpm dev:both # Run `pnpm dev` and `pnpm dev:mobile` together
pnpm build # Build all
pnpm typecheck # Type checking
pnpm test # Cheap default test run (Vitest only)
pnpm test:watch # Vitest watch mode
pnpm test:e2e # Playwright browser suite
pnpm db:generate # Generate DB migration
pnpm db:migrate # Apply migrations
pnpm test does not run Playwright. Browser suites stay separate and are typically run only when working on those flows or in CI.
See doc/DEVELOPING.md for the full development guide.
Roadmap
- ✅ Plugin system (e.g. add a knowledge base, custom tracing, queues, etc)
- ✅ Get OpenClaw / claw-style agent employees
- ✅ companies.sh - import and export entire organizations
- ✅ Easy AGENTS.md configurations
- ✅ Skills Manager, Skill Studio & Skills Store
- ✅ Scheduled Routines
- ✅ Better Budgeting
- ✅ Agent Reviews and Approvals
- ✅ Multiple Human Users
- ✅ Cloud / Sandbox agents (e2b, Cloudflare, Daytona, Modal, Novita, self-hosted Kubernetes)
- ✅ Artifacts & Work Products
- ✅ Deep Planning (planning mode, revisioned plans, plan approvals)
- ✅ Enforced Outcomes (watchdogs, recovery actions, review gates)
- ✅ MCP Tool Gateway & Apps (governed tool access)
- ✅ Secrets Manager with per-agent access
- ✅ Activity log & action attribution
- ✅ Self-healing runs & automatic recovery
- ✅ Agent evals & feedback
- ⚪ Memory / Knowledge
- ⚪ MAXIMIZER MODE
- ⚪ Work Queues
- ⚪ Self-Organization
- ⚪ Automatic Organizational Learning
- ⚪ CEO Chat
- 🟡 Cloud deployments (multi-tenant isolation & company Import/Export shipped)
- ⚪ Desktop App
- ⚪ Bring-your-own-ticket-system (Asana / Linear / Jira as on-ramps)
- ⚪ Connected Apps (one-click integrations, e.g. Vercel)
This is the short roadmap preview. See the full roadmap in ROADMAP.md.
Community & Plugins
Find Plugins and more at awesome-paperclip
Observability
Paperclip ships with opt-in OpenTelemetry auto-instrumentation for the server (traces only). It activates when OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT is set and supports grpc, http/protobuf, and http/json via the standard OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_PROTOCOL env var. @opentelemetry/api is a normal server dependency; the SDK, auto-instrumentation, and exporter packages are optional peer dependencies — install them only if you want tracing. See doc/observability.md for install commands and the full env-var reference.
Paperclip also ships with opt-in Sentry error monitoring for the server and the browser. Set SENTRY_DSN_FRONTEND to activate it for the browser and SENTRY_DSN_BACKEND to activate it for the server — each variable is optional, and the legacy SENTRY_DSN variable still works as a fallback for either component. The supported server SDK version is @sentry/node@10.71.0; it is an optional peer dependency for the server, so install it only if you want error monitoring. The browser SDK, @sentry/browser, is pinned to the same exact version. See doc/observability.md for the install command, the privacy settings, and the full default capture set.
Telemetry
Paperclip collects anonymous usage telemetry to help us understand how the product is used and improve it. No personal information, issue content, prompts, file paths, or secrets are ever collected. Private repository references are hashed with a per-install salt before being sent.
Contributors changing emitted telemetry events should follow the Telemetry Data Contract. For proposed first-party events that are not in the generated contract yet, follow Telemetry Workflow.
Telemetry is enabled by default and can be disabled with any of the following:
| Method | How |
|---|---|
| Environment variable | PAPERCLIP_TELEMETRY_DISABLED=1 |
| Standard convention | DO_NOT_TRACK=1 |
| CI environments | Automatically disabled when CI=true |
| Config file | Set telemetry.enabled: false in your Paperclip config |
Contributing
We welcome contributions. See the contributing guide for details.
Community
- Discord — Join the community
- Twitter / X — Follow updates and announcements
- GitHub Issues — bugs and feature requests
- GitHub Discussions — ideas and RFC
License
MIT © 2026 Paperclip Labs, Inc
Star History
Open source under MIT. Built for people who want to get work done, not babysit agents.
