## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies.
> - The public README is the first place many operators and contributors
learn what the product already includes.
> - The existing README explained the product promise but did not give a
compact, concrete tour of the major systems behind it.
> - This made Paperclip easier to underestimate as a wrapper around
agents instead of a full control plane with identity, work, execution,
governance, budgets, plugins, and portability.
> - This pull request adds an under-the-hood README section that names
those systems and shows how adapters connect into the server.
> - Greptile caught consistency gaps between the diagram and prose, so
the final version aligns the system labels and adapter examples across
both surfaces.
> - The benefit is a clearer first-read model of Paperclip's
architecture and shipped capabilities without changing runtime behavior.
## What Changed
- Added a `What's Under the Hood` section to `README.md`.
- Added an ASCII architecture diagram for the Paperclip server and
external agent adapters.
- Added a systems table covering identity, org charts, tasks, heartbeat
execution, workspaces, governance, budgets, routines, plugins,
secrets/storage, activity/events, and company portability.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by aligning diagram labels with table rows
and grouping adapter examples consistently.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD`
- Attempted `pnpm exec prettier --check README.md`, but this checkout
does not expose a `prettier` binary through `pnpm exec`.
- Greptile review rerun passed after addressing its two comments; review
threads are resolved.
- Remote PR checks passed on the latest head: `policy`, `verify`, `e2e`,
`security/snyk (cryppadotta)`, and `Greptile Review`.
- Not run locally: Vitest/build suites, because this is a README-only
documentation change and the PR's remote `verify` job ran typecheck,
tests, build, and release canary dry run.
## Risks
- Low runtime risk: documentation-only change.
- The main risk is wording drift if the README overstates or
underspecifies evolving product capabilities; the section was aligned
against the current product/spec docs and roadmap.
> 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 in a Paperclip heartbeat, with shell
and GitHub CLI tool use. Exact runtime model identifier and context
window were not exposed by the adapter.
## 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>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip models companies as teams of human and AI operators
> - The org chart is the primary visual map of that company structure
> - Mobile users need to pan and inspect the chart without awkward
gestures or layout jumps
> - The roadmap also needed to reflect that the multiple-human-users
work is complete
> - This pull request improves mobile org chart gestures and updates the
roadmap references
> - The benefit is a smoother company navigation experience and docs
that match shipped multi-user support
## What Changed
- Added one-finger mobile pan handling for the org chart.
- Expanded org chart test coverage for touch gesture behavior.
- Updated README, ROADMAP, and CLI README references to mark
multiple-human-users work as complete.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/OrgChart.test.tsx`
- Result: 4 tests passed.
## Risks
- Low-medium risk: org chart pointer/touch handling changed, but the
behavior is scoped to the org chart page and covered by targeted tests.
> 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, tool-enabled local shell and
GitHub workflow, exact runtime context window not exposed in this
session.
## 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, or documented why targeted interaction tests are sufficient
here
- [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>
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle
semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep
regressions visible
> - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime
correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area
> - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused
issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch
overlapping issue APIs
> - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat,
telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch
> - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness
work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit
comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting
## What Changed
- Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review
stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded
execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and
blocked-to-todo wake resumption
- Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads,
compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and
capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces
- Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on
task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material
- Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster
route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation
from local state, and repo verification follow-ups
- Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small
follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were
dropped during branch reconstruction
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts`
- `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted
on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported
init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they
are noted as environment-limited
## Risks
- Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and
reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow
rather than isolated UI polish
- Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should
pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure
modes and not just reshaping harness behavior
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution 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)
- [ ] 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>
Add the shared telemetry sender, wire the CLI/server emit points,
and cover the config and completion behavior with tests.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
- README: mark plugin system as shipped in roadmap
- SPEC: update adapter table with openclaw_gateway, gemini-local, hermes_local
- SPEC: update plugin architecture section to reflect shipped status
- Add .doc-review-cursor for future maintenance runs
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Add esbuild config to bundle CLI with all workspace code for npm publishing
- Add build-npm.sh script that runs forbidden token check, type-check,
esbuild bundle, and generates publishable package.json
- Add generate-npm-package-json.mjs to resolve workspace:* refs to actual
npm dependencies for publishing
- Add version-bump.sh for patch/minor/major/explicit version bumping
- Add check-forbidden-tokens.mjs that scans codebase for forbidden tokens
(mirrors git hook logic, safe if token list is missing)
- Add esbuild as dev dependency
- Add build:npm, version:bump, check:tokens scripts to root package.json
- Update .gitignore for build artifacts
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Rename all workspace packages from @paperclip/* to @paperclipai/* and
the CLI binary from `paperclip` to `paperclipai` in preparation for
npm publishing. Bump CLI version to 0.1.0 and add package metadata
(description, keywords, license, repository, files). Update all
imports, documentation, user-facing messages, and tests accordingly.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Update dev origin allowlist and tests to use port 3100 only, matching
the unified dev server setup. Fix AGENTS.md and README accordingly.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
