mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
131d476a7e
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Contributors use the PR template to describe changes before review > - The linked-issue gate reads literal template labels, not freeform prose > - The template did not state that rule, so a good prose summary could fail on first submission > - The gate also skipped two issue template paths that the PR template already points to > - This pull request makes the template and the gate match the same contract > - The benefit is that a good-faith author can pass the check on the first try ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. Related public PR: #7762. The problem is a mismatch between the PR template and the linked-issue gate. The template gave a bare placeholder and did not explain the literal-label rule. The gate also missed the enhancement and docs issue templates. ## What Changed - Replaced the bare PR-template placeholder with labeled inline skeletons for bug, feature, and adapter paths. - Added one sentence that says the gate reads literal labels on separate lines. - Added the enhancement and docs issue template field sets to the linked-issue gate. - Added and updated tests for prose-only bodies, template skeleton bodies, and extra issue template coverage. ## Verification - `node --test .github/scripts/tests/check-pr-linked-issue.test.mjs` - The branch contains one commit: `561f1ed3a1434ed4562306f74d40968163ef1444` ## Risks Low risk. The three-field minimum stays in place. The main change is clearer author guidance in the PR template. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use. ## 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 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>
109 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
109 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
|
||
|
||
## Thinking Path
|
||
|
||
<!--
|
||
Required. Trace your reasoning from the top of the project down to this
|
||
specific change. Start with what Paperclip is, then narrow through the
|
||
subsystem, the problem, and why this PR exists. Use blockquote style.
|
||
Aim for 5–8 steps. See CONTRIBUTING.md for full examples.
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work
|
||
> - [Which subsystem or capability is involved]
|
||
> - [What problem or gap exists]
|
||
> - [Why it needs to be addressed]
|
||
> - This pull request ...
|
||
> - The benefit is ...
|
||
|
||
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
|
||
|
||
<!--
|
||
Required. Pick ONE of the two paths below.
|
||
|
||
(A) Issue exists — replace the placeholder below with your issue links.
|
||
Tag each linked issue with `Fixes: #123`, `Closes #123`, or `Refs #123`.
|
||
Include duplicates and closely related issues too.
|
||
|
||
Only reference PUBLIC GitHub issues/PRs here. Do NOT paste internal,
|
||
instance-local Paperclip references — ticket ids like PAPA-123 / PAP-224,
|
||
/PAP/issues/... or agent://... links, or localhost/tailnet URLs. Other
|
||
contributors cannot open them. See CONTRIBUTING.md → "No Internal Issue
|
||
References".
|
||
|
||
(B) No issue exists — describe the underlying problem here. Follow the issue
|
||
template that fits your change. Open the matching file and copy its field
|
||
labels into your description:
|
||
• Bug: .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml
|
||
• Feature: .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml
|
||
• Adapter: .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/adapter_request.yml
|
||
• Enhancement: .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml
|
||
• Docs: .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs_issue.yml
|
||
An automated check reads the literal bold labels AND the content under
|
||
each label. Keep at least three of these labels, each alone on its own
|
||
line, and write real content under each. A label with only the bare "-"
|
||
placeholder does not count, and the check fails.
|
||
|
||
See CONTRIBUTING.md → "Link Issues or Describe Them In-PR".
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
-
|
||
|
||
## What Changed
|
||
|
||
<!-- Bullet list of concrete changes. One bullet per logical unit. -->
|
||
|
||
-
|
||
|
||
## Verification
|
||
|
||
<!--
|
||
How can a reviewer confirm this works? Include test commands, manual
|
||
steps, or both.
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
-
|
||
|
||
## Risks
|
||
|
||
<!--
|
||
What could go wrong? Mention migration safety, breaking changes,
|
||
behavioral shifts, or "Low risk" if genuinely minor.
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
-
|
||
|
||
> 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
|
||
|
||
<!--
|
||
Required. Specify which AI model was used to produce or assist with
|
||
this change. Be as descriptive as possible — include:
|
||
• Provider and model name (e.g., Claude, GPT, Gemini, Codex)
|
||
• Exact model ID or version (e.g., claude-opus-4-6, gpt-4-turbo-2024-04-09)
|
||
• Context window size if relevant (e.g., 1M context)
|
||
• Reasoning/thinking mode if applicable (e.g., extended thinking, chain-of-thought)
|
||
• Any other relevant capability details (e.g., tool use, code execution)
|
||
If no AI model was used, write "None — human-authored".
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
-
|
||
|
||
## Checklist
|
||
|
||
- [ ] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change
|
||
- [ ] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details)
|
||
- [ ] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work
|
||
- [ ] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above
|
||
- [ ] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template
|
||
- [ ] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs)
|
||
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
|
||
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
|
||
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable
|
||
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
|
||
- [ ] I have considered and documented any risks above
|
||
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
|
||
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
|
||
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge
|