forked from farhoodlabs/paperclip
dev
3 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin Foley
|
d2cbe2cb23 |
Prefer pushing feature branches to a user fork in paperclip-dev skill (#4572)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The `paperclip-dev` skill is the canonical reference agents read before doing development work on the Paperclip repo itself > - Today the skill assumes feature branches get pushed to `origin` (= `paperclipai/paperclip`), which clutters the upstream branch list when contributors actually have personal forks > - This is the standard open-source contribution pattern (push to fork, PR upstream) and the skill should reflect it > - This pull request adds a "Forks — Prefer Pushing to a User Fork" section that teaches agents to detect a fork remote, push there, and only fall back to `origin` when no fork is configured > - The benefit is cleaner upstream branch hygiene and behavior that matches typical contributor workflows without any code/runtime change ## What Changed - Added a new **Forks — Prefer Pushing to a User Fork** section to `skills/paperclip-dev/SKILL.md` covering: - How to detect a user fork via `git remote -v` (treat any non-`paperclipai` GitHub remote as the fork) - How to push to the fork (`git push -u <fork-remote> HEAD`) - How to create the PR from the fork (`gh pr create --repo paperclipai/paperclip --head <fork-owner>:<branch>`) - The no-fork fallback (push to `origin`, do not auto-create a fork — ask first) - Keeping the fork's `master` in sync - Added a reinforcing entry to the **Common Mistakes** table linking back to the new section ## Verification - Docs-only change to a single markdown skill file. Reviewer can confirm by reading the diff in `skills/paperclip-dev/SKILL.md`: - New `## Forks — Prefer Pushing to a User Fork` section sits between `## Worktrees` and `## Pull Requests` - New row appended to the `## Common Mistakes` table - No tests, no build, no runtime behavior affected. ## Risks - Low risk. Documentation-only edit. The instructions are advisory — they only change agent behavior on future runs that read the skill. ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic (Claude) - Model ID: `claude-opus-4-7` (Claude Opus 4) - Capabilities: tool use (file read/edit, shell, git, gh CLI), extended reasoning - Context: invoked via Claude Code / Paperclip heartbeat for issue PAPA-139 ## 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 (N/A — docs-only change; no test surface) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (N/A) - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A — no UI change) - [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 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
d1484551ee |
Add open-source hygiene note to paperclip-dev skill (#4541)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - The `paperclip-dev` skill is part of the contributor and agent workflow layer that tells developers how to work in this repository safely. > - That skill already references the public upstream `origin`, but it did not explicitly say that pushes there must be treated as publishable open-source output. > - Without that reminder, contributors are more likely to leak secrets, PII, private logs, machine-local config, or noisy throwaway git history into the public repo. > - This pull request adds a prominent `OPEN SOURCE HYGIENE` callout near the top of the skill, before the git workflow guidance. > - The benefit is clearer safety guidance for contributors and less accidental disclosure or branch/commit noise on the upstream project. ## What Changed - Added an `OPEN SOURCE HYGIENE` callout near the top of `skills/paperclip-dev/SKILL.md`. - Explicitly warned that anything pushed to `origin` must be publishable. - Called out avoiding secrets, API keys, PII, private logs, machine-local config, and noisy throwaway branches or checkpoint commits. ## Verification - N/a ## Risks - Low risk. This is a docs-only change in a skill file; the main risk is wording tone or placement, not runtime behavior. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via the `codex_local` Paperclip adapter, GPT-5-based coding agent runtime. Exact backend serving model ID is not exposed in this heartbeat environment. Tool use, shell execution, and patch application were enabled. ## 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 - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
91333ec86f |
feat: add paperclip-dev skill with optional bundled skill support (#3854)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Agents working on the Paperclip codebase itself need guidance on dev workflows: server lifecycle, worktrees, builds, database ops, diagnostics > - There was no bundled skill covering these workflows — agents had to figure it out from scratch each time > - Additionally, not every skill should be force-installed on every agent — a dev-focused skill should be opt-in > - This PR adds a `paperclip-dev` skill with `required: false` frontmatter so it ships with Paperclip but isn't auto-installed > - The skill's PR section references canonical files (`.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md`, `CONTRIBUTING.md`) instead of duplicating their content, with gated instructions that force agents to read those files before creating any PR > - The benefit is that developers (human or agent) can opt in to structured dev guidance without polluting the default agent skill set or creating drift between duplicated docs ## What Changed - Added `skills/paperclip-dev/SKILL.md` covering server management, worktree lifecycle, builds, database ops, diagnostics, agent operations, and common mistakes - The Pull Requests section uses gated, reference-based instructions — agents MUST read `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md` and `CONTRIBUTING.md` before running `gh pr create`, with a brief checklist of required section names (no content duplication) - Updated `packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts` to respect `required: false` frontmatter — optional skills are bundled but not auto-installed on agents - Added test in `server/src/__tests__/paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts` verifying that optional skills are excluded from the default install set ## Verification ```bash # Run tests pnpm test # Manual verification: create a fresh worktree without seeding npx paperclipai worktree:make test-optional-skill --no-seed cd ~/paperclip-test-optional-skill eval "$(npx paperclipai worktree env)" npx paperclipai run # Verify paperclip-dev appears in company skill library but is NOT auto-assigned # Call listPaperclipSkillEntries() — paperclip-dev should show required: false # Call resolvePaperclipDesiredSkillNames() — paperclip-dev should NOT be in the default set # Cleanup npx paperclipai worktree:cleanup test-optional-skill ``` ## Risks - Low risk. The `required` field defaults to `true` when absent, so all existing skills behave identically. Only the new `paperclip-dev` skill sets `required: false`. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.6 (`claude-opus-4-6`) via Claude Code, with tool use and extended context. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] 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> |