mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-14 17:22:00 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
2f35eb1080
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates agents that make and verify repository changes. > - Local verification currently defaults to the complete Vitest suite. > - Contributor instructions also require broad local checks at each PR handoff. > - CI already owns conservative affected-test selection and broad final-revision checks. > - This pull request adds local selection and pass reuse from those existing contracts. > - Agents can get focused feedback and use CI to close the remaining coverage gaps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Developer verification scripts and contributor guidance. Related selection work: #18398 and #18464. **Problem or motivation** An agent that repeats an unchanged local verification step starts the complete suite again. The handoff guidance also duplicates broad CI coverage locally. **Proposed solution** Add `pnpm verify` for the actual working tree. Select affected Vitest specifications with the CI task policy and dependency graph. Reuse successful checks whose inputs are modeled. Run opaque checks fresh. Report exit 2 when broader verification is required. Update the contributor contract to accept applicable final-revision CI coverage. **Alternatives considered** Plain `vitest related` omits filesystem and opaque dependencies. Commit-only cache keys miss dirty files. Running full local suites at every handoff repeats CI work. **Roadmap alignment** This is repository development tooling. It does not change the product roadmap. ## What Changed - Add `pnpm verify`, `--explain`, `--base`, `--full`, and `--no-cache`. - Reuse CI selection and exact runner ownership for dirty, staged, committed, deleted, renamed, and untracked inputs. - Keep native server suites and serialized suites in their local owners. Keep six sequential chat shards. - Cache selected passes within one worktree. Hash source, fixtures, installed package contents, dependency bindings and installation metadata, dotenv files, child environment, toolchains, platform, and selection. - Run opaque consumers fresh. Preserve failed, interrupted, mutated-input, and partial-coverage outcomes. - Update AGENTS.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, and DEVELOPING.md guidance. Record the shared `verify` command as the sole exception to the package-script rule. Register the new tests in the existing CI contract-test command. - Add optional root/environment inputs to shared graph helpers. Existing CI defaults stay the same. ## Verification - Fourteen new integration tests pass locally across focused runs with real Vitest selection and execution; CI colors are covered. - 51 existing targeted selector/input, project-isolation, and stable-runner checks passed. Four relevant runner contracts also pass after the workspace change. - Repeated unchanged execution skips reusable tests. Source, environment, installed code, dependency bindings, and new untracked tests invalidate results. - Installed-code mutation with a restored modification time still invalidates a cached pass. Internal skill-directory links preserve reuse. - Workspace B/C tests prove discovery, reusable/fresh partition execution, pass reuse, and external-input failure. Chat selection produces exactly six single-worker partitions. - A deliberate unrelated failing test is omitted by narrow selection and caught by `--full`. - Red/green regressions prove fingerprints preserve file boundaries and reject edits made between diff discovery and snapshotting. - Opaque external-file changes still fail on a subsequent run. Source mutation and process interruption cannot publish reusable passes. - `pnpm verify --explain` works in the checkout and requests broad CI coverage for this tooling change. No duplicate full local suite was started. - [Final-revision CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42117291789) passed on `ed85d96ddff82c05c325948680b593b0f48c473d` (attempt 2). The scoped Canary retry preserved all passing test/build results. - [Greptile review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/19345#issuecomment-6670050175) is 5/5; all four review threads are resolved. - The additional Paperclip review concluded neutral because its execution stopped; it produced no assessment. ## Risks - Pass reuse depends on conservative dependency classification. Opaque consumers, external database/live settings, and non-isolated projects retain fresh or broad coverage. - Local passes cover selected Vitest checks. Required CI, build/typecheck, release, browser, and platform acceptance remain separate obligations. - Cross-worktree caching and cross-agent scheduling are outside this change. - The initial installation scan reads dependency contents; stat-validated, worktree-local digest memoization avoids rereading unchanged contents. Subsequent scans still inspect file identity and nanosecond change/modification times. - No dependency lockfile or workflow changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, max reasoning, with local shell and file tools. Context window size is not exposed by this host. ## 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>
842 B
842 B
Repository rule loading
The .mdc files under rules/ are repository review requirements.
.greptile/files.json identifies the rule files to read for matching source
paths. Read their full Markdown bodies and apply their review criteria and
allowed exceptions to the affected code.
Each rule's YAML frontmatter declares its scope with repository-relative
globs, or alwaysApply: true for a repository-wide rule. Respect that scope;
do not apply a channel rule to unrelated subsystems. Keep the policy in the
referenced file as the source of truth rather than maintaining a separate copy
in dashboard instructions.
Do not add package.json scripts for new utilities, checks, benchmarks, or specialized tests.
The shared verify entry point is the repository-wide exception. Keep new
specialized checks as direct script invocations.