DottaandPaperclip
661b104e04
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its review process protects package manifests because they define dependencies. > - New convenience scripts also change these protected files and cause extra review. > - Greptile needs a clear instruction to discourage these additions. > - This pull request adds the requested sentence to the Greptile prompt. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** The repository review prompt in `.greptile/rules.md`. **What's wrong?** Agents add package scripts for utilities and specialized checks. These additions trigger the extra review intended for protected package manifests. No duplicate open PR or issue was found in the GitHub search. **Suggested fix** Add this exact instruction: Do not add package.json scripts for new utilities, checks, benchmarks, or specialized tests. ## What Changed - Added the requested sentence to `.greptile/rules.md`. ## Verification - `git diff --check` passed. - Confirmed that the diff contains only the requested sentence and its separating blank line. - Local prompt and PR-template checks passed. - Full typecheck, test, and build checks were not completed. This worktree has no installed dependencies. The typecheck attempt stalled during pnpm startup and was stopped; the test and build commands were not run. ## Risks - Low risk. This changes review instructions only. Greptile may flag future additions in the listed categories. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection and shell tools. The exact runtime model ID and context window size were not exposed to this session. The user supplied the added sentence verbatim. ## 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 (focused prompt and PR-template checks only; full-suite limits are recorded above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (no new tests needed for this prose-only change) - [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 - [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>
Greptile configuration
This directory tracks the supported review configuration for
paperclipai/paperclip. It was prepared from a read-only dashboard inventory
on 2026-10-13. No dashboard settings or custom context were changed.
config.jsonrecords the observed review settings supported by Greptile's documented file schema.files.jsonloads repository context and scopes architectural rule files.rules.mdexplains how to apply the canonical Markdown rules inrules/.
Settings migrated to Git
| Dashboard setting | Repository configuration |
|---|---|
| Automatic reviews on all events | autoReview: ["open", "push", "rebase"] |
Exclude dependabot[bot]; remaining reviews use Base |
excludeAuthors, effort: "base" |
| High strictness (dashboard says it does not comment on P2s) | strictness: 3 |
| Do not replace the PR description | shouldUpdateDescription: false |
| Include PR summary, confidence score, and findings; no sequence diagram | The four section settings in config.json |
| Summary is not collapsible; default-open option is off | summarySection.collapsible and defaultOpen are false |
| Include a prompt to fix findings | fixWithAI: true |
| Status checks and status comments enabled | statusCheck and statusCommentsEnabled are true |
| Auto-approval disabled; stored risk ceiling is Low | autoApprove.enabled: false, riskCeiling: "low" |
The existing PR-description and 1,000-line growth guidance is in
rules/pull-request-review.mdc. That file also preserves the active,
repository-specific rule not to request UI screenshots. This resolves the
contradiction with the older organization instruction asking for screenshots.
The active dashboard pattern **/[Aa][Gg][Ee][Nn][Tt][Ss].md reported two files:
AGENTS.md and docs/api/agents.md. Both are explicit references in
files.json; the latter remains API context, not contributor policy. Future
context files need explicit manifest entries. The inactive Contribution
guidelines context remains inactive; it is not added as a separate context
file. Rules scoped to other repositories are not copied here.
Settings still managed in Greptile
The following observed controls do not have equivalents in the published
.greptile/ schema used for this migration. They remain dashboard settings:
- Review draft pull requests: enabled.
- Required confidence to pass the status check: 5/5.
- Image badges: enabled.
- Comment header: empty.
- Default coding-agent badges: no agents shown.
Repository enablement, provider authentication, billing, integrations, and learned memory also remain service settings. Auto-approval risk instructions, if used later, are explicitly dashboard-only in Greptile's reference. Do not invent config keys for unsupported controls.
Cutover and maintenance
Greptile reads committed configuration from the reviewed branch. No reindex is required. Local changes alone are not visible to the hosted reviewer.
File-based review settings override dashboard defaults, but dashboard rules and instructions are additive. The existing dashboard copies are still active. This is a staged migration, not a completed dashboard cleanup. After a hosted review verifies the configuration, an authorized maintainer can retire duplicate dashboard context scoped to this repository. Do not remove shared organization instructions while other repositories still depend on them.
Keep each policy's body in rules/; update the files.json scope together with
the rule's MDC frontmatter. The chat-channel rule includes both the directory
and its sibling service entry point. See rules/README.md for authoring steps.
References: configuration and precedence, supported fields and file references.