mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-07 07:23:08 +02:00
Devin Foley
592cade5a6
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Runs that must push to GitHub have a pre-dispatch credential preflight (`push_write_credential_missing`) so the missing token surfaces as a configuration-incomplete blocker instead of a late runtime failure > - The preflight only triggers when the issue mentions the GitHub PR workflow *skill* — routine-created issues and agent-to-agent handoffs rarely do, even when their text literally says "push the branch and open a PR" > - In practice the credential gap then surfaced only after implementation and review were complete, stranding finished work > - This pull request adds a conservative, verb-anchored text heuristic over the issue title and description as a second preflight trigger > - The benefit is that the credential ask reaches the human before any work is burned ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #10644 (completes the prevention set with #10648, #10650, #10658) ## What Changed - `issueTextImpliesPrDeliverable(text)`: matches verb-anchored deliverable statements — "open/create/raise/submit a (draft) pull request/PR", "push … branch/remote/origin/upstream". Verb anchoring deliberately ignores passing mentions ("the PR merged yesterday", "PR feedback addressed"). - `requiresPushCapabilityPreflight` takes the issue's title+description and ORs the text heuristic with the existing skill-mention trigger; adapter-type and issue gating are unchanged. The run-dispatch call site threads the already-loaded issue text — no extra query. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` — new heuristic matrix (4 positive, 6 negative including null/empty) and preflight-by-text cases (text triggers, passing mention does not, no issue → no preflight); 122 tests total. - `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`. ## Risks - A false positive turns into a configuration-incomplete blocker asking for a GitHub token on an issue that didn't need one — the heuristic is intentionally conservative (verb-anchored) to keep that rare, and the blocker names the exact remediation. - No behavior change for issues that neither mention the skill nor state a PR deliverable. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved. ## 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 - [ ] 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