## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip skills guide agents through repeatable work.
> - The plan-to-task skill guides agents when they create issue graphs
from plans.
> - The prior guidance could encourage an issue for every concrete
deliverable.
> - That guidance can create unnecessary subtasks for work that one
owner can complete end to end.
> - This pull request defines the boundaries that justify a separate
task.
> - It also adds a merge-back pass that removes task splits without a
qualifying boundary.
> - The benefit is a smaller issue graph with clear ownership,
dependencies, and review gates.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Issue type**
Unclear or confusing documentation.
**Where is the issue?**
`skills/paperclip-converting-plans-to-tasks/SKILL.md`
**What's wrong?**
The skill says that each concrete deliverable must become an issue. This
can make agents split one end-to-end job into tasks for each step, file,
component, or phase. The result is more coordination work without a real
execution boundary.
**Suggested fix**
Tell agents to start with one end-to-end task. Permit separate tasks
only for ownership, parallel work, dependencies, independent review or
approval, or substantial follow-up work. Require a merge-back pass
before agents create the issue graph.
## What Changed
- Added a rule to use the fewest tasks that can complete and verify the
work.
- Defined the boundaries that qualify work for a separate issue.
- Added a merge-back pass for proposed subtasks without a qualifying
reason.
- Updated dependency, parallel work, verification, and checklist
guidance to enforce the smaller graph.
## Verification
- Ran `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/frontmatter.test.ts`.
- Result: 1 test file passed and 21 tests passed.
- Ran `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD`.
- Confirmed that the PR changes one skill file and has no lockfile,
workflow, image, or migration changes.
## Risks
- Low risk. This change updates skill guidance only.
- Agents might combine work too aggressively. The qualifying boundaries
preserve separate ownership, parallel execution, dependencies, review,
approval, and substantial follow-up work.
> 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 GPT-5 through Codex. The exact deployment ID and context window
are not exposed. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, command
execution, and GitHub tools.
## 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
- [x] 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
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies.
> - Execution semantics define when work may stop, how child work
reports upward, and how watchdog recovery proves liveness was restored.
> - The existing docs did not require a routable waiting path before
entering `blocked`, leaving permission-denial and review workflows
vulnerable to dead ends.
> - Child-to-parent reporting and low-trust review delegation also
needed explicit channels and ownership boundaries.
> - Watchdog recovery needed bounded restoration verification rather
than treating a recovery write as proof of restored progress.
> - The security-sensitive defaults were reviewed and approved before
publication.
> - This pull request documents those contracts and synchronizes the
bundled Paperclip skills that operationalize them.
> - The benefit is clearer stop conditions, safer reporting defaults,
and bounded watchdog recovery without sacrificing liveness.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- No public GitHub issue exists for this execution-semantics
documentation phase, so the problem and solution are described here in
full.
- Problem: `blocked` could be entered without a routable owner/action
path, review findings could be reported on the wrong issue or treated as
blockers, and watchdog recovery lacked bounded verification of restored
liveness.
## What Changed
- Require a routable waiting path for `blocked` and clarify that
permission denial alone is not a blocker.
- Define canonical child-to-parent completion/report channels,
review-delegation ownership, and the sanctioned courier pattern.
- Specify atomic watchdog recovery batches, fingerprint validation,
bounded restoration attempts, and human escalation.
- Document the low-trust preset default for report comments and align
both bundled Paperclip skills.
## Scope and Sequencing
- This is the contract-first P1 documentation PR. Runtime enforcement is
intentionally excluded and follows in the separately owned
implementation phases; these docs define the acceptance contract those
phases must satisfy.
- The five-file patch is approved and frozen for this PR, so review
findings about absent runtime support are tracked as
implementation-phase requirements rather than edits to this docs-only
change.
## Verification
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
- Confirmed the PR diff is exactly 5 approved docs/skill files with 91
insertions and 1 deletion.
- Confirmed the patch preserves the approved execution-semantics
contract after replay on latest `origin/master`.
## Risks
- Low implementation risk: documentation and skill guidance only; no
runtime code, schema, migration, dependency, lockfile, or workflow
changes.
- Semantic risk is limited to readers or agents applying the clarified
contracts; the security-sensitive R1a default was approved before
publication.
> 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 (exact underlying model ID and
context-window size are not exposed by this runtime), with reasoning,
terminal tool use, Git/GitHub operations, and code execution.
## 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 private URLs or internal issue identifiers
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run the applicable docs-only checks locally and they pass
- [x] Tests are not applicable because this is a
docs/skill-guidance-only change
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip agents can load repository and catalog skills, and Codex
renders skill names and frontmatter descriptions into startup context.
> - Long descriptions consume the fixed skill metadata budget before
Codex can use the progressively disclosed skill bodies.
> - The repo `.agents/skills` descriptions and a few shipped catalog
descriptions had grown into operational documentation instead of short
trigger metadata.
> - This pull request keeps the strongest trigger language in
frontmatter while leaving detailed procedures in each skill body.
> - The benefit is lower prompt overhead, more reliable skill
triggering, and a regression guard that prevents description drift from
returning.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue found for this maintenance item.
### Pre-submission checklist
- [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a
duplicate.
- [x] I am working against `master`.
- [x] I have confirmed the issue originates in Paperclip's shipped skill
metadata, not in a local agent adapter or provider.
### What happened?
Codex startup renders discovered skill names and frontmatter
descriptions into a fixed skill metadata budget. Several repository
skill descriptions and one shipped catalog description had grown into
long-form operational guidance, which can force Codex to truncate
descriptions before the model has enough trigger signal to select the
right skill.
### Expected behavior
Skill frontmatter descriptions should stay short trigger summaries: one
capability sentence plus a “use when” clause. Detailed procedures should
stay in the skill body and load only after the skill triggers.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Inspect `.agents/skills/*/SKILL.md` and
`packages/skills-catalog/catalog/**/SKILL.md` frontmatter descriptions.
2. Measure folded YAML `description` values.
3. Observe descriptions above the intended short-trigger range,
including descriptions above 300 characters.
4. Run the new shipped catalog test to verify future descriptions stay
capped.
### Paperclip version or commit
Reproduced on `master` at `cc81eefb6047d8eaf57faf785f421c03dc97073c`.
### Deployment mode
Local dev / source checkout metadata inspection. This is not
database-related.
### Installation method
Built from source.
### Agent adapter(s) involved
Codex, because Codex startup uses the skill metadata prompt budget. The
metadata source itself is core repository/catalog content.
### Database mode
Not database-related.
### Access context
Not applicable; this is static repository metadata.
### Node.js version
`v22.22.2` in the verification environment.
### Operating system
Linux container environment.
### Relevant logs or output
Final measurement after this PR: 29 source `SKILL.md` files, max
description length 215 chars, 5,449 total description chars, estimated
1,363 description tokens at 4 chars/token.
### Relevant config
None.
### Additional context
The shipped catalog manifest was regenerated so the generated package
metadata matches the edited catalog `SKILL.md` sources.
### Privacy checklist
- [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII and redacted where
necessary.
## What Changed
- Shortened long `.agents/skills/*/SKILL.md` frontmatter descriptions to
concise capability plus use-when trigger clauses.
- Shortened the over-budget shipped skills catalog descriptions for
wireframe, Paperclip capsules, and reflection coach.
- Regenerated `packages/skills-catalog/generated/catalog.json` so
shipped metadata matches source skill frontmatter.
- Added a Vitest regression guard that caps repo skill source
descriptions and generated catalog descriptions at 300 characters.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog build:manifest`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` — 5 files passed, 19
tests passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog typecheck`
- Final measurement: 29 source `SKILL.md` files, max description length
215 chars, 5,449 total description chars, estimated 1,363 description
tokens at 4 chars/token.
Note: the clean PR worktree was created from `origin/master` and
contains only this commit, but it does not have `node_modules`; running
`pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` there failed at
tool/package resolution (`vitest`, `tsc`, `@paperclipai/shared`). The
dependency-equipped workspace passed the commands above before the
commit was cherry-picked onto the clean branch.
## Risks
Low risk. This changes skill metadata and tests only. The main risk is
over-trimming a useful trigger phrase, mitigated by keeping explicit
“use when” clauses and leaving detailed guidance in the skill bodies.
> 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 GPT-5 Codex coding agent via Paperclip/Codex, with shell and
file-edit tool use. Exact API model ID and context window were not
exposed in the 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 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
- [x] 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip planning skills turn approved plans into executable issue
graphs for agents
> - The executor starts assigned tasks that have no open blockers
> - Parent/child nesting gives structure, but it does not create
execution dependencies
> - Planning guidance that does not make this distinction can let
dependent tasks run too early
> - This pull request clarifies that hard dependencies must be encoded
as `blockedByIssueIds`
> - The benefit is that agents converting plans into tasks have a
clearer checklist for creating and verifying runnable task graphs
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue was found for this documentation update.
Problem:
- The planning guidance could be read as if hierarchy, phase order, or
prose blocker notes were enough to sequence execution.
- In Paperclip, only explicit blockers prevent an otherwise-ready
assigned task from starting.
Expected behavior:
- Skill guidance should tell planners to encode each hard dependency as
`blockedByIssueIds` on the dependent issue.
- It should also tell planners to verify the created issue graph before
closing the source planning issue.
## What Changed
- Clarified that parent/child issue nesting is structural and not an
execution blocker.
- Added guidance to build a compact task matrix with task, owner,
initial status, and blockers when converting accepted plans into tasks.
- Added verification guidance to re-fetch or otherwise inspect created
issues before marking the source planning issue done.
- Updated the bundled task-planning skill handoff text to point at the
same dependency expectations without duplicating the full companion
skill text.
## Verification
- Ran `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` locally.
- Rebased cleanly onto the latest `master` from `paperclipai/paperclip`
before pushing.
- Greptile completed at 5/5 on the latest head; the previous P2 wording
thread was fixed and resolved.
- GitHub PR checks are green on latest head
`2b07db9aef22ca32c65fa66fcca2db86c5b01220`, including policy,
commitperclip review, typecheck/release registry, general test shards,
build, serialized server suites, e2e, canary dry run, verify, Socket,
security-review, Snyk, and Greptile.
- No additional local unit test command was run because this is a
documentation/skill-text-only change and the remote PR suite covered the
repository gates.
## Risks
Low risk. This changes skill guidance only; it does not alter runtime
behavior, database schema, migrations, workflows, or UI code.
> 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-based coding agent in the Paperclip local adapter
runtime. Exact backend model ID and context window were not exposed by
the runtime. Used shell, git, GitHub CLI, and the GitHub connector for
repository inspection and PR creation.
## 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
- [ ] 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] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [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 through a company-scoped control
plane
> - Contributors and agents need docs and skills that match the current
V1 behavior
> - The source branch included documentation updates alongside
implementation work
> - Keeping docs and skill guidance separate makes the implementation PR
easier to review
> - This pull request refreshes the V1 docs and agent-operating guidance
without changing runtime behavior
> - The benefit is current contributor guidance that can merge
independently from code changes
## What Changed
- Refreshed V1 product, goal, implementation, database, and development
documentation.
- Updated the Paperclip heartbeat skill guidance and create-agent skill
references.
- Added the Paperclip plan-to-task conversion skill.
- Updated release changelog skill guidance.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` passed in the PR worktree
after the Greptile fix.
- Greptile Review passed on head `673317ed` with zero unresolved review
threads.
- GitHub PR checks passed on head `673317ed`: `policy`, `verify`, `e2e`,
and `security/snyk (cryppadotta)`.
## Risks
- Low runtime risk because this branch only changes docs and skill
guidance.
- Documentation may need follow-up wording adjustments if reviewers want
a different framing for V1 behavior.
> 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 terminal/GitHub
workflow. Exact runtime context window was not exposed by the harness.
## 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>
Dotta