mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-04 19:28:46 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
a61cf38106
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map describes product capabilities and user journeys. > - Small fixes and test changes have added long notes to that map. > - These notes make substantial features harder to find. > - This pull request removes those additions from the last week's changes and sets a clear rule for future additions. > - The benefit is a smaller map with stable capability IDs and accurate entry points. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Unclear or confusing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `maps/feature-map/`, the map maintenance instructions, and repository rules. **What's wrong?** Between October 27 and November 3, 2026, 115 commits changed the feature map. Many additions describe bug fixes, performance details, small UI changes, or new tests. They do not introduce substantial product features. The old synchronization instructions also encouraged a map edit for every behavior change. **Suggested fix** Add a rule that requires a substantial new feature before expanding the map. Remove minor-update notes. Keep genuine feature additions and minimal corrections to existing instructions. The review covers master through `b22ef22d56`; it does not revert application code. Conflict resolution preserves later map changes from master outside that audit snapshot. Searched open GitHub PRs and issues for related feature-map work. No duplicate cleanup was found. Substantial feature additions retained here include Coordinator (#17983), the agent YAML editor (#18036), document image galleries (#18157), remote workspace storage (#18403), native Kimi (#18391), proactive chat messages (#18374), and the Sentry receiver added in #18714. ## What Changed - Add `rules/feature-map-scope.mdc` and register its `maps/**` scope with Greptile. - Align `AGENTS.md` and the shared map contract with that rule. Routine fixes and test changes no longer require incidental map edits. - Remove 755 net lines from 23 feature recipes. Preserve all 35 areas and 192 capability IDs. - Keep substantial features and the corrections needed for current navigation, provider availability, and access boundaries. Examples from the reviewed changes: | Removed or shortened addition | Why it does not need a feature-map expansion | | --- | --- | | Rounded composer image thumbnails (#18689) | Small UI change within existing task creation. | | Connection profile reads and review-count queries (#18687, #18688) | Performance details within existing app permissions. | | Warm-session, Retry, export-capacity, and tool-wait cases | Regression details for existing execution and recovery. | | New task-search, project-context, document-persistence, and routine test journeys | Test additions for existing capabilities. The tests remain in place. | | New task button placement (#18703) | Another entry to an existing task form. | | Local browser verification notes | Run evidence belongs in the PR or test report. | ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes: 35 areas, 192 capability IDs, valid references and contract fields. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` passes: 328 files and 3,068 stories. Generated indexes remain ignored. - Compared capability keys and navigation metadata in every edited recipe with the original source. All are unchanged. - Checked rule frontmatter, Greptile registration, representative scope matches, and `git diff --check`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass on `9a60eef8eb8da9bc7c3a02203c79bec12e8c8b6b`. The final `a0801e8a939494ecde3739097a80258917428e94` commit only corrects two lines in the plugin-panel recipe; map and catalog checks pass again. - Greptile reviewed the final `a0801e8a939494ecde3739097a80258917428e94` head at 5/5 with no findings. The earlier review found one inaccurate phrase about unavailable plugin panels. The hook confirms that readiness gates automatic opening, while declared panels remain selectable. The final documentation commit corrects that phrase and the thread is resolved. Paperclip's refreshed review is advisory and remains queued. - The earlier CI run failed two assertions: [server 4/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41634761842/job/125914173960) counted three Anthropic identity calls instead of two in `connection-management.integration.test.ts`; [chat 1/3](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41634761842/job/125914174257) observed zero publications instead of one in the same-principal endpoint-settlement case. Both exact tests pass locally on the rebased head. This PR changes neither their source nor their expectations. These failed results remain historical evidence. - Final-head CI passed server 4/12 and all other suites except the first [chat 1/3 attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41637834618/job/125925926131), which repeated the same zero-publication assertion. The browser gate passed. The single failed-job retry was accepted for this unchanged head in [workflow attempt 2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41637834618/attempts/2). [Chat 1/3 passed on that retry](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41637834618/job/125933199635), and the aggregate verification gate passed. Both required gates, `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`, are green on `a0801e8a939494ecde3739097a80258917428e94`. The one retry allowance is consumed. - The first full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was interrupted before completion so master could be rebased without changing source under running tests. It is not a passing test result. Full current-head CI remains required. - No application code, tests, schemas, or lockfiles changed. ## Risks - Low runtime risk. This change only edits documentation and review guidance. - Detailed regression instructions become less visible in the feature map. Their tests and technical documentation remain available. - Some additions mix a new feature with a small fix. Those blocks retain the feature and shorten the incidental detail. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, Git history inspection, repository tools, and code execution. The session does not expose a more specific model deployment ID or context-window size. ## 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 — map, catalog, capability-ID, and rule-scope checks; full Vitest limits are stated above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable — no new runtime tests apply to this documentation 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>
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.