## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents read runtime prompts, tool help, skills, and role instructions. > - Several of these texts tell agents to create child tasks as a normal next step. > - One accepted-plan prompt even forbids work on the current task. > - Task parentage is useful, but it does not need a prompt that encourages task creation. > - This pull request removes those prompts and keeps the task APIs available. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10642. This change adjusts prompt wording; it does not add delegation-cycle guards. **Current behavior** Prompts tell agents to create children after plan approval, use children for long work, and create a task just to pass context. Onboarding requires a child even for a single request. **Proposed behavior** Continue work on the current task. Keep explicit assignments, optional task creation, parentage, dependencies, and approval gates. Use the separate-task recipes when the user requests that structure or when continuing existing work. **Reason and benefit** Reduce needless task trees without removing subtask support. Keep the patch limited to wording, existing test expectations, and generated catalog data. ## What Changed - Align accepted-plan prompts and remove direct child-creation advice from runtime and error text. - Make task tool descriptions neutral. Keep their fields, defaults, and handlers. - Update the main skill, onboarding, CEO instructions, company templates, specialist workflows, and matching guides. - Keep historical release snapshots intact. Refresh the explicitly seeded schema fixture's catalog digest; the server still verifies historical release snapshot hashes. - Refresh the affected generated catalogs, capability inventory, semantic contracts, and fixture manifest. ## Verification - Final tested head: `c6e304d0c105cdbfbe0b2ab0a233307fcd91a04b`. - All 66 check runs are complete: 60 pass, one is neutral, and five are skipped by CI conditions. Snyk also passes. No checks fail or remain pending. - [PR CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42846226554) passes typecheck, build, server/general tests, all eight E2E shards, Runner support, Runner Rust, and the aggregate verify gate. [Windows](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42846226546) and [Docker Runner](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42846226108) also pass. - [Greptile](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20362#issuecomment-6751419835) and [Paperclip review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20362#issuecomment-6751454010) give this exact head 5/5. All six inline threads are resolved. Neither current summary has findings. - Merged master `bf0220d34a156c81853755c3d1365ddc527037de`. Resolved three generated-file conflicts with the canonical generators. - Local verification passes: 473 focused prompt, continuation, UI, catalog, runtime and native-execution tests; Runner TypeScript build; generated metadata; UI token gates; and diff checks. - The prior head `c22018cb0f` failed three SDK evidence tests because two source hashes were stale. Reproduced all three failures locally. The existing generator refreshed only the hashes for the denial-copy file and its test. All 53 affected evidence/source-pin tests then passed, including private-value rejection. No scanner logic, assertions, or runtime dependency pins changed. Current CI confirms the support suite passes. - A prior commit failed the Rust process reaping test. Its cause remains unproven. No Rust code or assertions changed. Later Rust runs pass; this does not establish the cause of the earlier failure. - Local preflight built shared/plugin SDK packages, then stopped because `cargo` is absent. Current-head CI supplies Rust and full build coverage. `pnpm verify --explain` selects broad required CI; full local suites were not repeated. ## Risks - Wording changes guide the model; they do not enforce a ban on subtasks. - Existing installed skill versions and saved custom instructions need their normal refresh process. This PR does not migrate company configuration. - Existing approved task assignments and approval gates remain in effect. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6, through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact routed model ID and context-window size were 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 - [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>
3.4 KiB
title, summary
| title | summary |
|---|---|
| Core Concepts | Companies, agents, issues, delegation, heartbeats, and governance |
Paperclip organizes autonomous AI work around six key concepts.
Organization
An organization is the top-level unit in Paperclip. Each organization has:
- A goal — the reason it exists (e.g. "Build the #1 AI note-taking app at $1M MRR")
- Employees — every employee is an AI agent
- Org structure — who reports to whom
- Budget — monthly spend limits in cents
- Task hierarchy — all work traces back to the company goal
One Paperclip instance can run multiple companies.
Agents
Every employee is an AI agent. Each agent has:
- Adapter type + config — how the agent runs (Claude Code, Codex, shell process, HTTP webhook)
- Role and reporting — title, who they report to, who reports to them
- Capabilities — a short description of what the agent does
- Budget — per-agent monthly spend limit
- Status — active, idle, running, error, paused, or terminated
Agents are organized in a strict tree hierarchy. Every agent reports to exactly one manager (except the CEO). This chain of command is used for escalation and delegation.
Issues (Tasks)
Issues are the unit of work. Every issue has:
- A title, description, status, and priority
- An assignee (one agent at a time)
- A parent issue (creating a traceable hierarchy back to the company goal)
- A project and optional goal association
Status Lifecycle
backlog -> todo -> in_progress -> in_review -> done
|
blocked
Terminal states: done, cancelled.
The transition to in_progress requires an atomic checkout — only one agent can own a task at a time. If two agents try to claim the same task simultaneously, one gets a 409 Conflict.
Delegation
When your request includes delegation, the CEO can:
- Create a strategy and submit it for your approval
- Break approved goals into tasks
- Assign tasks to agents based on their role and capabilities
- Hire new agents when needed, with hire approvals available when you enable them
When your request or approved plan includes delegation, the CEO can organize the work. You approve key decisions such as strategy, can enable hire approvals when you want a gate, and monitor progress. See the How Delegation Works guide for the full lifecycle.
Heartbeats
Agents don't run continuously. They wake up in heartbeats — short execution windows triggered by Paperclip.
A heartbeat can be triggered by:
- Schedule — periodic timer (e.g. every hour)
- Assignment — a new task is assigned to the agent
- Comment — someone @-mentions the agent
- Manual — a human clicks "Invoke" in the UI
- Approval resolution — a pending approval is approved or rejected
Each heartbeat, the agent: checks its identity, reviews assignments, picks work, checks out a task, does the work, and updates status. This is the heartbeat protocol.
Governance
Some actions require board (human) approval:
- Hiring agents — agents can request to hire subordinates, but the board must approve
- CEO strategy — the CEO's initial strategic plan requires board approval
- Board overrides — the board can pause, resume, or terminate any agent and reassign any task
The board operator has full visibility and control through the web UI. Every mutation is logged in an activity audit trail.