mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-10 20:50:08 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
6fe5a425ac
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The skills directories decide which operational workflows are shipped as runtime-facing Paperclip skills versus maintainer/internal agent workflows. > - PR #8664 added the `paperclip-page` publishing workflow under top-level `skills/`. > - That made the workflow look like a runtime/bundled Paperclip skill even though it is currently intended as an internal agent skill. > - This pull request moves the package into `.agents/skills/`, matching the repository convention used for maintainer-only operational skills. > - The benefit is a cleaner skill boundary without changing the publish helper behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #8664 ### What happened? The Paperclip page publishing skill landed under top-level `skills/`, but it should live under `.agents/skills/` while it remains an internal operational skill. ### Expected behavior Internal-only agent skills should live under `.agents/skills/`, while top-level `skills/` remains reserved for runtime/bundled Paperclip skills. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Inspect the repository after #8664. 2. Observe `paperclip-page` under `skills/paperclip-page`. 3. Compare with existing internal skills under `.agents/skills`. ### Paperclip version or commit Current `master` after #8664. ### Deployment mode Repository skill layout only; not deployment-mode specific. ### Installation method Built from source. ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific. ### Database mode Not database-related. ### Access context Maintainer/internal agent skill workflow. ### Relevant logs or output Not applicable. ### Relevant config Not applicable. ### Additional context This follow-up preserves the helper script, tests, and docs, and only updates command examples to the new internal path. ### Privacy checklist - All pasted output was reviewed for sensitive data; this PR body contains no private config, logs, or internal instance links. ## What Changed - Moved `paperclip-page` from `skills/paperclip-page` to `.agents/skills/paperclip-page`. - Updated the skill and README command examples to use the new `.agents/skills/paperclip-page` path. ## Verification - `bash -n .agents/skills/paperclip-page/scripts/publish.sh` - `node --test .agents/skills/paperclip-page/scripts/publish.test.mjs` ## Risks Low risk. This is a repository layout follow-up for an internal skill. The publish helper behavior, tests, and operator guidance are unchanged except for paths. > 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 using GPT-5 (`gpt-5`) with repository shell/tool access. The follow-up branch was prepared by an AI coding agent with local command execution for git inspection, shell syntax validation, and targeted Node.js tests. ## 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>