paperclip

gb_flea/paperclip

Fork 0

forked from farhoodlabs/paperclip

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Dotta	8f45d12447	docs: update plugin authoring guide for managed resources (#6261 ) ## 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 orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - The plugin system is how optional capabilities extend the control plane without adding hidden core behavior. > - Plugin authors need accurate guidance for the current managed capabilities model. > - The existing docs under-described managed skills and the routine-first pattern for durable plugin automation. > - Content-oriented plugins such as LLM Wiki should model recurring work with visible managed agents, projects, routines, and skills. > - This pull request aligns the authoring guide, local development guide, and longer plugin spec with that model. > - The benefit is clearer plugin guidance that preserves Paperclip visibility, budgets, pause controls, and audit trails. ## What Changed <!-- Bullet list of concrete changes. One bullet per logical unit. --> - Documented plugin-managed skills alongside managed agents, projects, and routines. - Added guidance for content-oriented plugins to use managed projects, agents, skills, and routines instead of private daemon-like state. - Updated the manifest/spec examples and capability lists for current plugin-managed surfaces. - Clarified when to use managed routines instead of plugin runtime jobs for board-visible recurring work. - Added a short local plugin development note pointing authors toward routine-first automation. - Addressed Greptile docs feedback by marking top-level `launchers` as legacy and removing a redundant `slug` from the managed skill example. ## Verification <!-- How can a reviewer confirm this works? Include test commands, manual steps, or both. For UI changes, include before/after screenshots. --> - `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` - Reviewed `ROADMAP.md`; this is docs alignment for the completed plugin system milestone and does not add roadmap-level core feature work. - Greptile Review: success on the latest head; `3 files reviewed, 0 comments added` after follow-up fixes. - GitHub PR checks are green on the latest head, including Build, Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, Snyk, and aggregate `verify`. ## Risks <!-- What could go wrong? Mention migration safety, breaking changes, behavioral shifts, or "Low risk" if genuinely minor. --> - Low risk: documentation-only changes. - Main risk is documentation drift if the plugin API changes again before these docs are reviewed. > 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". --> - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with shell and GitHub connector 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-18 10:14:27 -05:00
Dotta	b947a7d76c	[codex] Improve local plugin development workflow (#5821 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI-agent companies. > - Plugins are the extension point for adding capabilities without expanding the core product surface. > - Local plugin development needed a tighter CLI-first loop so plugin authors can scaffold, run, install, inspect, and reload plugins without reaching into internal package paths. > - The server plugin install path also needed local-path handling that keeps plugin identity, dashboard routes, and development watchers coherent. > - This pull request adds the CLI scaffold/install workflow, fixes the server and SDK edge cases that blocked that loop, and updates the agent-facing plugin creation skill and docs. > - The benefit is that contributors can develop plugins from local folders with a documented, repeatable happy path. ## What Changed - Added `paperclipai plugin init` coverage and CLI wiring for local plugin scaffolding. - Improved local plugin install handling, plugin key route resolution, dashboard capability behavior, and dev watcher startup/reload behavior. - Fixed plugin SDK worker entrypoint validation for symlinked package layouts. - Added targeted tests for plugin init, server plugin authz/watcher behavior, SDK worker host validation, and the authoring smoke example. - Added a short local plugin development guide and refreshed the plugin authoring guide plus `paperclip-create-plugin` skill instructions. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/create-paperclip-plugin typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project paperclipai cli/src/__tests__/plugin-init.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/plugin-sdk packages/plugins/sdk/tests/worker-rpc-host.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/plugin-dev-watcher.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm --dir packages/plugins/examples/plugin-authoring-smoke-example test` - Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the PR diff. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches plugin install routing, CLI command behavior, and the local development watcher. - Local path plugin installs execute trusted local code by design; the new docs call out that trust boundary. - No database migrations are included. > 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, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled local shell and git workflow, medium reasoning effort. Context window details were not exposed in this runtime. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge UI screenshots: not applicable; this PR changes CLI/server/plugin docs and tests, not board UI rendering. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-12 17:38:24 -05:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

Dotta

8f45d12447

docs: update plugin authoring guide for managed resources (#6261 )

## 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 orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The plugin system is how optional capabilities extend the control
plane without adding hidden core behavior.
> - Plugin authors need accurate guidance for the current managed
capabilities model.
> - The existing docs under-described managed skills and the
routine-first pattern for durable plugin automation.
> - Content-oriented plugins such as LLM Wiki should model recurring
work with visible managed agents, projects, routines, and skills.
> - This pull request aligns the authoring guide, local development
guide, and longer plugin spec with that model.
> - The benefit is clearer plugin guidance that preserves Paperclip
visibility, budgets, pause controls, and audit trails.

## What Changed

<!-- Bullet list of concrete changes. One bullet per logical unit. -->

- Documented plugin-managed skills alongside managed agents, projects,
and routines.
- Added guidance for content-oriented plugins to use managed projects,
agents, skills, and routines instead of private daemon-like state.
- Updated the manifest/spec examples and capability lists for current
plugin-managed surfaces.
- Clarified when to use managed routines instead of plugin runtime jobs
for board-visible recurring work.
- Added a short local plugin development note pointing authors toward
routine-first automation.
- Addressed Greptile docs feedback by marking top-level `launchers` as
legacy and removing a redundant `slug` from the managed skill example.

## Verification

<!--
  How can a reviewer confirm this works? Include test commands, manual
  steps, or both. For UI changes, include before/after screenshots.
-->

- `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD`
- Reviewed `ROADMAP.md`; this is docs alignment for the completed plugin
system milestone and does not add roadmap-level core feature work.
- Greptile Review: success on the latest head; `3 files reviewed, 0
comments added` after follow-up fixes.
- GitHub PR checks are green on the latest head, including Build,
Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, serialized server suites,
e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, Snyk, and aggregate `verify`.

## Risks

<!--
  What could go wrong? Mention migration safety, breaking changes,
  behavioral shifts, or "Low risk" if genuinely minor.
-->

- Low risk: documentation-only changes.
- Main risk is documentation drift if the plugin API changes again
before these docs are reviewed.

> 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".
-->

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with shell and GitHub connector 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-05-18 10:14:27 -05:00

Dotta

b947a7d76c

[codex] Improve local plugin development workflow (#5821 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI-agent companies.
> - Plugins are the extension point for adding capabilities without
expanding the core product surface.
> - Local plugin development needed a tighter CLI-first loop so plugin
authors can scaffold, run, install, inspect, and reload plugins without
reaching into internal package paths.
> - The server plugin install path also needed local-path handling that
keeps plugin identity, dashboard routes, and development watchers
coherent.
> - This pull request adds the CLI scaffold/install workflow, fixes the
server and SDK edge cases that blocked that loop, and updates the
agent-facing plugin creation skill and docs.
> - The benefit is that contributors can develop plugins from local
folders with a documented, repeatable happy path.

## What Changed

- Added `paperclipai plugin init` coverage and CLI wiring for local
plugin scaffolding.
- Improved local plugin install handling, plugin key route resolution,
dashboard capability behavior, and dev watcher startup/reload behavior.
- Fixed plugin SDK worker entrypoint validation for symlinked package
layouts.
- Added targeted tests for plugin init, server plugin authz/watcher
behavior, SDK worker host validation, and the authoring smoke example.
- Added a short local plugin development guide and refreshed the plugin
authoring guide plus `paperclip-create-plugin` skill instructions.

## Verification

- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/plugin-sdk build && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/create-paperclip-plugin typecheck && pnpm --filter
paperclipai typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck
&& pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project paperclipai
cli/src/__tests__/plugin-init.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/plugin-sdk
packages/plugins/sdk/tests/worker-rpc-host.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/plugin-dev-watcher.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `pnpm --dir packages/plugins/examples/plugin-authoring-smoke-example
test`
- Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the PR diff.

## Risks

- Medium risk: this touches plugin install routing, CLI command
behavior, and the local development watcher.
- Local path plugin installs execute trusted local code by design; the
new docs call out that trust boundary.
- No database migrations are included.

> 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, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled local shell and git
workflow, medium reasoning effort. Context window details were not
exposed in this runtime.

## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

UI screenshots: not applicable; this PR changes CLI/server/plugin docs
and tests, not board UI rendering.

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-05-12 17:38:24 -05:00

2 Commits