forked from farhoodlabs/paperclip
Devin Foley
e458145583
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - As the project grows, more contributors want to build features — which is great > - Without a public roadmap or clear contribution guidance, contributors spend time on PRs that overlap with planned core work > - This creates frustration on both sides when those PRs can't be merged > - This PR publishes a roadmap, updates the contribution guide with a clear path for feature proposals, and reinforces the workflow in the PR template > - The benefit is that contributors know exactly how to propose features and where to focus for the highest-impact contributions ## What Changed - Added `ROADMAP.md` with expanded descriptions of all shipped and planned milestones, plus guidance on coordinating feature contributions - Added "Feature Contributions" section to `CONTRIBUTING.md` explaining how to propose features (check roadmap → discuss in #dev → consider the plugin system) - Updated `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md` with a callout linking to the roadmap and a new checklist item to check for overlap with planned work, while preserving the newer required `Model Used` section from `master` - Added `Memory / Knowledge` to the README roadmap preview and linked the preview to the full `ROADMAP.md` ## Verification - Open `ROADMAP.md` on GitHub and confirm it renders correctly with all milestone sections - Read the new "Feature Contributions" section in `CONTRIBUTING.md` and verify all links resolve - Open a new PR and confirm the template shows the roadmap callout and the new checklist item - Verify README links to `ROADMAP.md` and the roadmap preview includes "Memory / Knowledge" ## Risks - Docs-only change — no runtime or behavioral impact - Contribution policy changes were written to be constructive and to offer clear alternative paths (plugins, coordination via #dev, reference implementations as feedback) ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex local agent (GPT-5-based coding model; exact runtime model ID is not exposed in this environment) - Tool use enabled for shell, git, GitHub CLI, and patch application - Used to rebase the branch, resolve merge conflicts, update the PR metadata, and verify the repo state ## 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 - [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable (N/A — docs only) - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A — no UI changes) - [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>
69 lines
2.4 KiB
Markdown
69 lines
2.4 KiB
Markdown
## 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
|
||
> - [Which subsystem or capability is involved]
|
||
> - [What problem or gap exists]
|
||
> - [Why it needs to be addressed]
|
||
> - This pull request ...
|
||
> - The benefit is ...
|
||
|
||
## 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. For UI changes, include before/after screenshots.
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
-
|
||
|
||
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
|
||
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable
|
||
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots
|
||
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
|
||
- [ ] I have considered and documented any risks above
|
||
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge
|