DottaandPaperclip
14afc12124
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Coding agents extend connectors and shared control-plane services. > - Provider details can leak into shared services during these changes. > - Moving code into a new file does not explain why shared behavior must change. > - This pull request adds module ownership and shared-change review rules. > - The rules help agents justify the change before implementation and review. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** Repository architecture rules and the connector authoring playbook. **What's wrong?** Subsystem rules describe some ownership boundaries. The repository lacks a general rule for deciding which behavior belongs in a feature module, what shared contracts must change, and how to review the resulting scope. An integration can therefore add provider-specific logic to shared code or bundle large platform changes into one connector PR. **Suggested fix** Add a repository-wide rule and load it in Greptile. Apply the rule during connector planning and PR preparation. Keep provider protocol behavior with its owner. Require a reason for shared changes and checks through affected consumers. Related public context: [Notebook connector PR #16984](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16984). This PR changes instructions only. ## What Changed - Add a concise module-boundary rule for ownership, narrow contracts, shared controls, delivery scope, and verification. - Register the rule as repository-wide Greptile context. - Add planning and PR review steps to the connector playbook. Keep tests and docs with their behavior. ## Verification - Passed rule frontmatter, Greptile registration, referenced-file, and playbook-link checks. - Passed `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`. - Reviewed the rule against the relevant connector failure and allowed cases: small dispatch branches, one-consumer shared capabilities, and unrelated fixes. - Fresh Greptile and Paperclip reviews both scored commit `759572fe503e1b6dfa9527f53de6c326a2c3bff6` 5/5. No actionable findings or unresolved review threads remain. - Final current-commit GitHub checks: 55 successful, 1 neutral, and 2 skipped; no pending or failed checks. Both required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` gates passed. - Initial CI attempt: the build and runtime boot smoke test passed. The spot runner received a shutdown signal during the clean public npm install check, canceling that step and failing the build job. [Interrupted job log](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39601811838/job/119228042468). Retried failed jobs once. Attempt 2 passed the complete build, runtime boot, and clean-install verification. The initial runner interruption remains recorded here. - Full local application checks are unavailable: this checkout has no workspace dependencies, and `pnpm -r typecheck` stopped during pnpm bootstrap because registry fetches failed and the requested pnpm version could not be verified. Local application tests and build were not run. GitHub checks must pass before merge. ## Risks - The rule could cause unnecessary abstractions or extra PRs if applied mechanically. It permits small dispatch branches and useful capabilities with one consumer. It rejects arbitrary file counts and unrelated restructuring. - Prose and metadata checks do not prove that future agents will follow the rule. Hosted review receives it when this branch is reviewed. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex: `gpt-6-astra` authored the guidance; `gpt-6.1-sol` prepared delivery. Both used reasoning, filesystem tools, and GitHub tooling. Context window size was not recorded in the available model settings. ## 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 documentation and metadata validation; application checks unavailable as stated above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (no runtime change; targeted structural checks cover the changed instructions) - [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>
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.