mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
aed4478c81
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies > - Maintainers use the pr-gardening skill to keep referenced pull requests reviewable and moving toward merge > - The skill previously treated every recently referenced repository PR as owned work, including community PRs and stale references > - That oversized scope caused noisy reports, capped-search failures, and follow-up actions aimed at PRs this Paperclip instance should not manage > - The workflow also stopped at reminders instead of dispatching the repository's standard PR-preparation process > - This pull request scopes gardening to the authenticated instance identity by default and makes exclusions explicit and inspectable > - The benefit is a smaller, ownership-correct queue that automatically routes actionable PRs through the established preparation workflow ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this maintenance fix, so the bug report is included inline. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I searched existing open and closed issues and found no duplicate. - [x] The behavior reproduces on the current `master` branch. - [x] The behavior originates in Paperclip's repository skill, not an adapter, provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? The `pr-gardening` skill included community-authored and stale pull requests in its actionable candidate set, aborted when issue-to-PR extraction hit its cap, and only notified assignees rather than dispatching the standard PR-preparation workflow. ### Expected behavior By default, gardening should act only on PRs authored by the current GitHub identity, report excluded community and stale PRs explicitly, tolerate capped match sets, and dispatch actionable PRs through `/prepare-paperclip-pr`. Operators should retain explicit overrides for broader author scopes. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Run Stage A against issue history containing recently referenced PRs from both the authenticated operator and community contributors. 2. Include an issue whose PR-reference extraction reaches the configured match cap and an open PR with no activity inside the configured window. 3. Observe that the prior workflow admits non-owned and stale PRs, aborts on the capped extract, and leaves Stage C at assignee reminders. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on upstream `master` at `2568bdecc4577c60d76d58a45c5eaf3dc58f7e13`. ### Deployment mode Local repository skill execution. ### Installation method Built from source. ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific; this is a repository maintenance skill. ### Database mode Not database-related. ### Access context Agent execution using the repository's authenticated GitHub CLI identity. ### Node.js version Current repository development environment. ### Operating system Linux. ### Relevant logs or output Live verification before the fix showed 264 community PRs entering discovery scope. The corrected discovery retained 54 candidates, all authored by `cryppadotta`. ### Relevant config Default author resolution via `gh api user --jq .login`; no secret or user-specific configuration is included. ### Additional context The fix retains `--authors` and `--include-community` overrides for intentionally broader maintenance runs. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I reviewed all included output and configuration details for secrets and PII. ## What Changed - Resolve the default author allowlist from the authenticated `gh` login, with `--authors` and `--include-community` overrides. - Default the activity window to 14 days and record community-authored and stale PRs in explicit dropped lists. - Preserve capped issue-extract match sets with warnings instead of aborting discovery. - Add PR author and a one-line purpose summary to readiness data and rendered reports. - Rewrite Stage C to dispatch `/prepare-paperclip-pr` for PRs that need gardening. - Expand the focused Node test suite to cover the new scoping, stale-drop, cap, summary, reporting, and guardrail behavior. ## Verification - `node --test .agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` — 15/15 passing, including contributor-controlled Markdown escaping. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — clean. - Live discovery verification excluded 264 community PRs and retained 54 candidates, all authored by `cryppadotta`. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate behavioral risk: default candidate scope is intentionally narrower; operators who want community PRs must opt in with `--include-community` or provide `--authors`. - The authenticated `gh` login must be available unless an explicit author override is supplied. - No database, API, UI, migration, workflow, or dependency-lock changes. > 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-5.4 with reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, GitHub CLI access, and focused test execution. The original implementation commit also records Claude Fable 5 assistance. ## 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>