mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 07:12:00 +01:00
DottaandClaude
84007892e9
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - `AGENTS.md` is the instruction file that each human and AI contributor reads before a change > - Pull request #20557 shortened the file, but several sections still held detail that applies to only some changes > - The scoped-rules section told agents to read each matching rule in full, and most changes match five rules > - The core engineering rules mixed three product invariants with process conventions > - This pull request moves that detail to the docs and to scoped rules, and adds a section on how to fix a bug > - The benefit is a 211-line file that states what applies to every change and points to the rest ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20557 **Issue type** Outdated or unclear contributor documentation. **Where is the issue?** `AGENTS.md` at the repository root, and `rules/`. **What's wrong?** - The scoped-rules section made agents read the full body of each matching rule before a change. The rule bodies total about 47 KB. - Sections 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 repeated detail that belongs in `doc/DEVELOPING.md`, `doc/DATABASE.md`, a route rule, `DESIGN.md` and `CONTRIBUTING.md`. - Section 4 had a database reset command for `data/pglite`. That directory does not exist. - Section 5 had seven rules. Four of them were process conventions or path-specific detail. - The file did not say how to fix a bug. **Suggested fix** Make the rule headers the index. Move section detail to the document or rule that owns it. Keep only the three invariants in section 5. Add a bug-fixing section. ## What Changed - The scoped-rules section now tells agents to list the rule headers with one `grep` command. Agents read a rule body only for a design decision in its area, when the description is not sufficient, or when a reviewer cites it. - `rules/README.md` says that each `description` must state the required behavior in one sentence. - `rules/pull-request-review.mdc` has a description that states its requirements. - Section 4 (dev setup) and section 11 (pull requests) now point to `doc/DEVELOPING.md` and `CONTRIBUTING.md`. - The schema change workflow moved from section 6 to `doc/DATABASE.md`. - The API and auth expectations moved from section 8 to the new `rules/api-route-expectations.mdc`. - Section 9 links to `DESIGN.md` for design rules. `AGENTS.md` no longer tells contributors to run `pnpm check:token-gates`. - Added section 10, "Fixing a Bug": reproduce the error, write a failing test, write the fix, see the test pass, and verify the fix. - Section 5 now has three rules: company scope, contract synchronization, and the control-plane invariants. - The company-scope exceptions moved to the new `rules/company-scope-exceptions.mdc`. - Removed the strategic-docs rule. The plan-doc convention moved to the repo map. The artifact rule moved to section 7. - Removed rule 7. Five code comments that cited `AGENTS.md §5.7` now cite `rules/data-paths.mdc`. - Regenerated the SDK public source pin, because one of those comments is in `packages/shared/src/crash-points.ts`. - Added both new rules to `.greptile/files.json`. - The API route rule applies only to routes that read or write company data. Its status code list is a list of common codes. - The company-scope rule lists the sidebar company order as an instance-wide exception. - The `honeycomb-tracing` skill now points to `rules/data-paths.mdc` for the Telemetry workflow. ## Verification - Open `AGENTS.md` and confirm that each link resolves. A local script checked this. - Run `grep -E '^(description|globs|alwaysApply):' rules/*.mdc` and confirm that each rule prints a description. - Run `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check`. It passes locally. - `packages/shared/src/crash-points.test.ts` passed locally before the rebase onto `master`. - Five source files changed in comments only. No other test suite ran locally. ## Risks - An agent that reads only rule descriptions can miss a detail in a rule body. Reviewers still apply the full rules. - Pull requests and the definition of done are now sections 11 and 12. Sections 1 to 9 keep their numbers. - Dated plan documents under `doc/plans/` still cite `AGENTS.md §5.7`. They are historical records. - Pull request #20565 also changes `AGENTS.md`. The second one to merge needs a conflict fix in section 1 and section 2. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), in Claude Code with tool use. - `claude-fable-5-2`. ## 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 - [ ] 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
26 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
26 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
---
|
|
description: Fill in every PR template section, keep failures visible in verification claims, do not request UI screenshots, and give a reason when a source file grows past 1,000 lines.
|
|
alwaysApply: true
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Pull request review
|
|
|
|
This rule applies when reviewing pull requests throughout this repository.
|
|
|
|
- Follow the PR description guide in `CONTRIBUTING.md` and the sections in
|
|
`.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md`. Request missing thinking paths and missing
|
|
explanations of what changed, why it matters, the benefits, verification, or
|
|
risks.
|
|
- For verification claims, read and apply
|
|
[Preserve failures through acceptance](../.agents/skills/verify-paperclip/SKILL.md#preserve-failures-through-acceptance).
|
|
Check that material failures remain accounted for after a successful retry.
|
|
- Do not request UI screenshots in PR reviews for this repository. Visual state
|
|
verification is described through component tests, enumeration of states in
|
|
the PR description, and use of existing design tokens. This repository rule
|
|
takes precedence over the older organization instruction to request
|
|
screenshots for visual changes.
|
|
- When a PR grows a source file from fewer than 1,000 lines to more than 1,000
|
|
lines, require a concrete reason for keeping the implementation together.
|
|
Flag an unexplained crossing and suggest a cohesive extraction. This check
|
|
does not require unrelated cleanup of every existing large file.
|