mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
71a6535792
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Execution semantics define when work may stop, how child work reports upward, and how watchdog recovery proves liveness was restored. > - The existing docs did not require a routable waiting path before entering `blocked`, leaving permission-denial and review workflows vulnerable to dead ends. > - Child-to-parent reporting and low-trust review delegation also needed explicit channels and ownership boundaries. > - Watchdog recovery needed bounded restoration verification rather than treating a recovery write as proof of restored progress. > - The security-sensitive defaults were reviewed and approved before publication. > - This pull request documents those contracts and synchronizes the bundled Paperclip skills that operationalize them. > - The benefit is clearer stop conditions, safer reporting defaults, and bounded watchdog recovery without sacrificing liveness. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No public GitHub issue exists for this execution-semantics documentation phase, so the problem and solution are described here in full. - Problem: `blocked` could be entered without a routable owner/action path, review findings could be reported on the wrong issue or treated as blockers, and watchdog recovery lacked bounded verification of restored liveness. ## What Changed - Require a routable waiting path for `blocked` and clarify that permission denial alone is not a blocker. - Define canonical child-to-parent completion/report channels, review-delegation ownership, and the sanctioned courier pattern. - Specify atomic watchdog recovery batches, fingerprint validation, bounded restoration attempts, and human escalation. - Document the low-trust preset default for report comments and align both bundled Paperclip skills. ## Scope and Sequencing - This is the contract-first P1 documentation PR. Runtime enforcement is intentionally excluded and follows in the separately owned implementation phases; these docs define the acceptance contract those phases must satisfy. - The five-file patch is approved and frozen for this PR, so review findings about absent runtime support are tracked as implementation-phase requirements rather than edits to this docs-only change. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` - Confirmed the PR diff is exactly 5 approved docs/skill files with 91 insertions and 1 deletion. - Confirmed the patch preserves the approved execution-semantics contract after replay on latest `origin/master`. ## Risks - Low implementation risk: documentation and skill guidance only; no runtime code, schema, migration, dependency, lockfile, or workflow changes. - Semantic risk is limited to readers or agents applying the clarified contracts; the security-sensitive R1a default was approved before publication. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent (exact underlying model ID and context-window size are not exposed by this runtime), with reasoning, terminal tool use, Git/GitHub operations, and code execution. ## 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 private URLs or internal issue identifiers - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [x] I have run the applicable docs-only checks locally and they pass - [x] Tests are not applicable because this is a docs/skill-guidance-only change - [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>