mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
24bbc0f57e
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is an open-source agentic AI management platform that
ships anonymous usage telemetry to understand product health and
adoption.
> - The telemetry system has a generated contract
(`packages/shared/src/telemetry/generated/paperclip-telemetry.ts`) that
types every first-party event the product emits.
> - When a product change needs a new first-party event that is not yet
in the generated contract, contributors had no public workflow
explaining how to propose an event or later promote it into the contract
once accepted.
> - The gap leads to confusion at call sites: contributors either skip
tracking entirely or emit untyped events that bypass the privacy and
governance safeguards built into the contract.
> - This PR fills that gap by adding `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md` — a
public contributor guide that covers the full propose → promote
lifecycle: the `@ts-expect-error -- proposed-telemetry(...)` marker, the
canonical multi-line `track()` shape, the TS2578 expiry signal, and the
look-up-by-event-name promotion step.
> - `packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md` gains a cross-reference so
readers of the data-contract doc can find the workflow guide without
searching.
> - `README.md` gains a one-line pointer in the telemetry section so the
workflow is discoverable from the project entry point.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No pre-existing public GitHub issue covers this doc gap. Inline
description:
**Problem:** Contributors adding product telemetry for events not yet in
the generated contract have no documented workflow. The
`@ts-expect-error -- proposed-telemetry(...)` pattern exists in the
codebase but is undocumented, leading to inconsistent usage and missing
adoption signals.
**Solution:** A new public guide (`doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`) documents
the marker format, the recommended multi-line `track()` shape that
preserves the TS2578 expiry signal, the dimension rules, and the
promotion checklist. Cross-references are added to
`packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md` and the top-level `README.md`.
No related open PRs found.
## What Changed
- **New file `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`** — public contributor guide
for the propose/promote lifecycle: marker format, canonical multi-line
example, TS2578 single-line trap, dimension rules, and step-by-step
promotion checklist.
- **`packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md`** — added one-line
cross-reference pointing at `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md` for proposed
events not yet in the generated contract.
- **`README.md`** — added one-line pointer in the telemetry section so
the new workflow guide is reachable from the top-level project entry.
## Verification
This is a docs-only change. Verification steps:
1. Open `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md` and confirm it contains:
- The `^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9._:-]{1,63}$` event-name grammar.
- The exact `// @ts-expect-error -- proposed-telemetry(<issue>):
<rationale>` marker.
- The multi-line `client.track()` copy-paste example (directive on line
before event-name string).
- The explanation of the TS2578 single-line trap and the
look-up-by-event-name step.
- The promotion checklist in the "Promote An Event" section.
2. Confirm `packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md` cross-references
`doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`.
3. Confirm the `README.md` telemetry section links to
`doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`.
## Risks
Low risk — docs-only change. No runtime behavior, schema, or existing
telemetry emission is affected. The risk is that the guidance could
diverge from the actual enforcement in the codebase over time; mitigated
by linking to the generated contract and keeping the doc in the same
repo.
## Model Used
Claude — `claude-sonnet-4-6` (Anthropic Claude Sonnet 4.6). Tool use
enabled. Extended context. Produced via the Paperclip agentic workflow
with `Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>`.
## 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>