## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Cloud deployments consume a verified image and exact-source
migrator.
> - An image alone is not deployable until source checks and artifact
checks pass.
> - GitHub-hosted queues delayed those checks and the final readiness
signal.
> - This PR gives trusted master work a separate concurrency allowance
on existing AWS runners.
> - Community PRs and arbitrary source inputs keep the GitHub-hosted
fallback.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13243.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Time from a master merge to the Cloud deployable v1 signal.
**Current behavior**
For merge d0b7ba4, the image was available after 7m 42s, but readiness
took 16m 05s. Typecheck queued for 6m 40s and the final readiness job
queued for 1m 46s.
**Proposed behavior**
Allow up to 36 concurrent post-merge verification and migrator jobs on
the existing four-vCPU, 16-GiB AWS runners. Workers launch on demand and
terminate after their job; no always-on worker pool or AWS Reserved
Instance purchase is introduced. Keep the combined runner ceiling
unchanged. A separate operator switch enables this route only after the
restricted runner group and Fleet exist.
**Reason and benefit**
Remove GitHub-hosted queue delays from the cloud deployment path. The
gain depends on queue pressure and which remaining job finishes last;
the observed queues are not additive savings.
**Breaking changes**
None to source verification or readiness contracts. Paid routing is
limited to canonical master push/manual events, with exact source checks
on reusable and migrator jobs.
## What Changed
- Route source verification, artifact waiting, dispatch, and readiness
jobs to the separate post-merge Fleet when enabled.
- Require source inputs to match the event's master SHA. Preview inputs
and raced older migrator dispatches stay GitHub-hosted.
- Keep npm publication on GitHub-hosted runners for trusted publishing.
- Bound AWS job timeouts below the 45-minute instance lifetime.
- Document activation, capacity reservation, and rollback.
- Exercise each actual runner selector against allowed and rejected
event/source combinations.
## Verification
- 268 routing and timeout cases pass, including unapproved PR, fork,
branch/tag, arbitrary ref, and disabled-switch cases.
- All 461 focused workflow, preview, and readiness tests pass. The 284
routing/preview cases also pass after the review fixes.
- actionlint passes for changed workflows with the existing
SC2012/SC2016/SC2129 warnings excluded.
- Full local typecheck and build pass (167s and 206s). `pnpm test:run`
completed: 10,600 passed, 65 skipped, and 13 failed in the unchanged
company-skills-service/runtime-skill-cache suites with local filesystem
permission errors. Linux CI is the required test gate; this is not a
claim of a fully passing local suite. Current-head Linux CI is green,
Greptile is 5/5, and all findings are resolved. The final Build retry
passed on a verified 60 GiB AWS runner after correcting the earlier
disk-capacity failure.
- After activation, verify a master run selects the separate group and
all readiness prerequisites pass.
## Risks
- A missing or incorrectly restricted runner group can leave eligible
jobs queued. Enable the switch only after Fleet and group verification.
- PR bursts have 64 slots after reserving 36 for post-merge work. The
image Fleet retains eight, for the same 108-runner total.
- A migrator dispatch racing a newer merge uses GitHub-hosted runners.
This preserves source trust but can retain some queue delay.
- Roll back placement by disabling AWS_POST_MERGE_CI_ENABLED and
rerunning the whole workflow.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code
execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed
by this environment.
## 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 — focused change tests
pass; full-suite local permission failures are disclosed above
- [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>
Reuse the exact master source-verification result before npm canary publication, removing a duplicate verification matrix while preserving fail-closed release checks.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Publish exact-source shared and database migrator packages for each master merge through the existing trusted Release workflow, independently of the full release and image build.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Every master merge publishes an npm canary, and downstream managed
deployments consume the matching `sha-<short>-cloud` Docker image.
> - The canary image relies on the master-push `docker.yml` run, whose
single pending concurrency slot is superseded by every newer push.
> - On a busy day the image build never survives: five consecutive
canaries shipped npm packages with no cloud image on 2026-09-06, and
downstream deploys starved for ~18 hours while master kept moving.
> - The nightly and beta lanes already solve exactly this by dispatching
`docker.yml` at their tag ref after pushing it.
> - This pull request wires the canary lane into the same mechanism, so
every canary tag gets an image build no master push can supersede.
> - The benefit is that a published canary always has its images, and
downstream release resolution stops walking back to day-old builds
during busy merge windows.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12769 / #12855 (the earlier image-publishing incident in the same
pipeline, different failure mode).
**What happened?**
`docker.yml` serialises per ref with one pending slot (`concurrency:
docker-${{ github.ref }}`, `cancel-in-progress: false`). Master pushes
arriving faster than the ~50-minute build supersede the pending build
indefinitely. On 2026-09-06, canaries `2026.906.0-canary.1` through `.3`
(and the commits between) published to npm with no `sha-<short>-cloud`
image on GHCR — the Docker run list shows `cancelled, cancelled,
cancelled` for their commits. Downstream managed rollouts correctly
refused to deploy image-less canaries and pinned at `canary.0` for ~18
hours.
**Expected behavior**
Every published canary has its Docker images. A busy merge window must
not be able to prevent image publication for tagged releases.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Merge to master more often than the Docker build takes to complete,
for several hours.
2. Observe npm canaries advancing while every `Docker` run for their
commits completes `cancelled`.
3. Observe `ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip:sha-<short>-cloud` returning
404 for each of those canaries.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Master at `83987210` (diagnosis time); the starved canaries were
`2026.906.0-canary.1`–`.3`.
**Deployment mode**
GitHub Actions release + image pipeline; consumed by managed cloud
deployments.
## What Changed
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`, `publish_canary` job:
- New step after "Push canary tag": dispatch `docker.yml` at
`refs/tags/canary/v<version>` — identical to the nightly and beta lanes'
existing step, including the step-summary note. The dispatched run keys
its concurrency off the tag ref, so master pushes cannot supersede it,
and `docker.yml`'s `type=sha` mapping publishes `sha-<short>` /
`sha-<short>-cloud` for any ref.
- The job gains `actions: write`, mirroring `publish_nightly`.
- No `docker.yml` changes: it already accepts `workflow_dispatch` for
exactly this pattern.
- No dry-run guard needed: `publish_canary` runs only on `push` events,
so the `dry_run` dispatch input cannot reach it.
## Verification
- YAML lints clean; the step is a line-for-line mirror of the proven
nightly-lane step (tag source swapped for the job's existing
`canary_tag` output).
- The concurrency claim is docker.yml's own documented behavior: groups
are per-ref, and a tag ref is distinct from `refs/heads/master`.
- Not run: a live canary publish — the next master merge after this
lands exercises it end to end; the worst case (double build for a canary
whose master-push run also survives) is benign, since both runs push
identical content-addressed tags.
## Risks
- Low. Roughly one additional Docker build per canary on busy days (on
quiet days the master-push run and the dispatched run both execute —
duplicate work, identical images, no conflict since the sha tags are
content-equivalent for the same commit).
- `actions: write` on `publish_canary` matches the grant
`publish_nightly` already carries for the same purpose.
> 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
Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model id `claude-fable-5`), extended
thinking, agentic tool use in Claude Code: GHCR manifest probing,
Actions run-list forensics, and workflow-lane comparison.
## 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 (workflow-only change; YAML
linted; no test harness targets release.yml)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (not applicable —
CI wiring mirroring an existing proven lane)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (the
step's inline comment documents the invariant)
- [x] I have considered and documented the 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work.
> - Managed deployments need a cloud image and a database migration
package.
> - Branch commits can lack both artifacts until a normal release runs.
> - Operators need to test an exact commit without advancing release
aliases.
> - This pull request adds a preview build mode to the existing release
workflow.
> - Builds use an immutable source SHA and publish isolated, reusable
artifacts.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Release automation, cloud Docker images, and shared/database npm
packages.
**Problem or motivation**
An operator cannot deploy an unpublished branch with new migrations
using only
the normal release artifacts. Publishing it through a normal lane would
also
advance shared release aliases.
**Proposed solution**
Dispatch the trusted release workflow on master with a full source SHA
and a
request UUID. Build missing SHA images and, when needed, deterministic
preview
shared/DB packages. Publish packages under the preview dist-tag with
exact
workspace pins. Reuse matching artifacts on retries.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends release tooling for operator validation. It does not add a
core
product feature or duplicate a planned product capability. Related PR
searches
found no duplicate preview deployment workflow.
## What Changed
- Add the preview channel, request correlation, artifact checks, and
result artifact.
- Compile source packages in a separate job from the npm publisher. The
publisher
uses trusted master code and disables package lifecycle scripts.
- Publish only SHA cloud image tags. Preserve release aliases. Use
full-SHA tags and no shared build cache.
- Verify full source identity for reused packages and images. Both image
and npm publishers
use isolated jobs and the externally master-restricted npm-canary
environment. Fail on registry
authentication errors, outages, or artifact identity mismatches.
- Let bundled-package preparation use patches from the requested source
checkout.
- Document publishing configuration, artifact contracts, and deployment
order.
## Verification
- Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`.
- Passed `pnpm test:release-registry`: 107 tests, including eight
preview tests.
- Passed `actionlint -shellcheck= .github/workflows/release.yml`.
- Built real shared and DB preview tarballs from an isolated exact-SHA
checkout.
Verified package source identity and all 244 SQL files and journal
entries.
- Verified the full revision behind an existing published SHA cloud
image.
- `pnpm test:run` exposed missing local embedded PostgreSQL library
symlinks.
The package's postinstall repair restored initdb; all 12 previously
affected
suites passed on rerun (95 tests). Additional local matrix reruns are in
progress.
The complete PR CI matrix is green, including general/serialized tests,
e2e,
typecheck, build, release registry, canary dry run, and the required
verify gate.
- Live preview publication and staging deployment require this workflow
on master
and the compatible control-plane backend. They have not run yet. No
production
deployment was performed.
## Risks
Preview npm versions are immutable public artifacts. Both packages must
retain
their trusted publisher for release.yml in environment npm-canary.
Source builds
must remain separated from privileged npm publishing. The deploying
control plane
must verify source identity, integrity, and migration compatibility
before use.
Normal release jobs retain their existing conditions. Roll back by
stopping preview
dispatches and reverting the workflow/tooling. Published preview
versions remain
isolated from normal release tags.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository tools, code execution, and
test runs.
The session does not expose a more specific model version or
context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with the available 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
- [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the feature template
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local issues or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket identifier
- [ ] I have run the full tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added tests for the new behavior
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation
- [x] I have considered and documented risks
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open recommendations or follow-ups
- [x] I will address review 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.
> - The onboarding command starts the local server and opens the
first-run wizard.
> - Interactive onboarding stopped opening the browser by default.
> - Organization creation could also succeed in the API while the wizard
stayed on the name step.
> - The npm canary workflow did not prove that the published package
could complete this path.
> - This pull request repairs the startup and organization transitions
and adds an exact-version canary smoke gate.
> - The benefit is a quickstart that works for users and is tested after
each canary publish.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related: #12557 covers a separate final-route onboarding handoff.
**What happened?**
Interactive `paperclipai onboard` runs did not open the onboarding page.
The organization API request could succeed while a same-company context
update caused the wizard to stay on the organization step. The canary
release lane did not test the exact published npm package through this
path.
**Expected behavior**
Interactive onboarding must open the browser once. A successful
organization request must advance to the first-agent step when the
surrounding context adopts the same organization. Each published canary
must install in a clean environment and reach the model connection step.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run `npx paperclipai@canary onboard --data-dir "$(mktemp -d
/tmp/paperclip-canary.XXXXXX)"` in an interactive terminal.
2. Enter an organization name while the company context refreshes from
the create response.
3. Observe that the browser does not open or that the wizard can remain
on the organization step after the API creates it.
4. Inspect the canary release lane and observe that no post-publish
onboarding test runs against the exact npm version.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The issue reproduced with `2026.901.0-canary.8` and the source state
before this pull request.
**Deployment mode**
Local trusted quickstart with embedded PostgreSQL. The install source
can be npm or a source checkout.
## What Changed
- Open the browser once for interactive foreground onboarding.
- Preserve explicit browser opt-outs and restore the prior environment
value after startup.
- Accept a same-company context update after organization creation and
reject a different-company takeover with an explicit error.
- Export the exact canary version from the publish job.
- Install and test that exact npm version in a clean Playwright smoke
job through the "Connect a model" step.
- Upload server logs, traces, screenshots, and the Playwright report
when the canary smoke fails.
- Document the interactive default and headless opt-outs.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts
ui/src/components/OnboardingWizard.step.test.tsx --reporter=dot` passes
with 37 tests.
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`
passes with 9 tests.
- `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
tests/e2e/onboarding.spec.ts` passes with 2 tests.
- `PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=2026.901.0-canary.8 pnpm run
test:canary-onboarding-smoke` passes against the published npm package.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passes.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm build` passes.
- A fresh interactive source run opens the browser and reaches "Connect
a model" after organization and agent naming.
## Risks
- Low risk. Automatic browser opening only applies to interactive
foreground onboarding.
- `PAPERCLIP_NO_BROWSER=1` and `PAPERCLIP_OPEN_ON_LISTEN=false` keep
headless runs silent.
- A different organization context still blocks the pending create
transition.
- The canary package is immutable before the smoke runs. A smoke failure
leaves the package published but makes the release workflow red.
- This change does not modify REST APIs, database schemas, or shared
data types.
> 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 based on GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact
deployment snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning,
browser automation, repository tools, shell commands, code editing, and
test 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 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 app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release workflow drafts the upcoming stable's notes skeleton the
moment a beta publishes
> - That skeleton was a bare list of commit subjects, so the notes only
reached the shipped stable's depth after a later authoring pass during
the soak
> - Stable release notes are consistently verbose and thorough; the
initial draft should start that way too
> - This pull request nests each referenced PR's own summary under its
subject line at creation time, and states the density bar in the
authoring skill
> - The benefit is a thorough raw document from day one of the soak,
with no LLM tokens in Actions
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The `draft_stable_notes` skeleton generated at beta publish
(`scripts/draft-stable-notes.sh`).
**Current behavior**
The skeleton groups bare commit subjects by conventional-commit type.
All substance arrives later, when a maintainer or agent rewrites it —
reviewed maintainer feedback: stable notes are a lot more verbose, and
the initial beta notes should be consistent with that.
**Proposed behavior**
Each subject that references a PR carries that PR's own summary nested
beneath it — the PR template's "What Changed" bullets, else the first
prose lines — fetched best-effort via `gh` and skipped silently when
unavailable. The release-changelog skill now states the density bar
explicitly: the beta-keyed draft ships verbatim as the stable's notes
and is written at the previous stable's depth from the first pass.
**Reason and benefit**
The notes author starts from a thorough raw document instead of a commit
list, and beta-time notes match the verbosity the stable will ship with.
## What Changed
- `scripts/draft-stable-notes.sh`: `enrich_pr` nests PR summaries under
subjects; best-effort (`gh` failure or
`DRAFT_NOTES_SKIP_PR_ENRICHMENT=1` degrades to today's output);
pipefail-safe when a "What Changed" section has no bullets.
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`: the `draft_stable_notes` step gets
`GH_TOKEN` so `gh` can read PR bodies.
- `.agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md`: "write at full stable
depth from the first pass" guideline.
- `scripts/draft-stable-notes.test.mjs`: three new tests — enrichment
rendering via a fake `gh`, silent degradation without one, and the
sparse-body case that previously killed the script under `set -o
pipefail`.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/draft-stable-notes.test.mjs` — 11 pass.
- Live run against the real repository for the current beta
(`2026.818.0-beta.1`, 172 commits): exit 0, 439 nested summary lines;
spot-checked entries carry the correct PRs' What Changed bullets.
- `bash -n` on the script; `release.yml` re-parsed as YAML.
## Risks
- Low: the publish path is untouched; enrichment is read-only `gh` calls
in the post-publish draft job and degrades to the current skeleton on
any failure. Roughly one API call per commit in the range (~170 today) —
well inside the token's rate budget, adds a couple of minutes to a job
with a 10-minute timeout.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code)
## Pre-submission 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release workflow publishes every public package to npm and polls
each version's registry visibility before continuing
> - #11834 raised the poll budget from 60 seconds to 5 minutes after npm
CDN propagation lag failed four canary runs
> - The very next canary run missed by ten seconds:
`adapter-opencode-local@2026.821.0-canary.2` was accepted at 07:02:27
UTC and became visible at 07:07:40, just past the final poll
> - This pull request doubles the per-package budget to 10 minutes
> - The benefit is a release train that survives the one consistently
slow package; the 90-minute publish job timeout from #11834 already
absorbs it
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Follow-up to #11834. Evidence in the `Release` run for `16149a75f`:
every package's publish became visible within seconds except
`adapter-opencode-local`, which has lagged 3-5+ minutes on all of
today's runs and exceeded the 5-minute budget by ten seconds on the
latest.
## What Changed
- `NPM_PUBLISH_VERIFY_ATTEMPTS` 30 → 60 (with
`NPM_PUBLISH_VERIFY_DELAY_SECONDS: "10"`, a 10-minute per-package
budget), plus the comment documenting the observed near-miss.
## Verification
- Same env-override plumbing verified in #11834; only the numeric budget
changes. The next master push (this merge) exercises the canary path.
## Risks
- Low risk: a genuinely failed publish reports in up to 10 minutes;
healthy publishes exit the poll on first visibility.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, `claude-fable-5`) with extended thinking and
agentic tool use via the Claude Code CLI.
## 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 (not applicable:
numeric workflow env tuning)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
(workflow comment updated)
- [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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release workflow publishes every public package to npm per
master push (canary) and per promotion channel
> - `release.sh` polls the registry after each publish and aborts the
whole release when a version is not visible within 60 seconds
> - npm accepts publishes immediately, but its CDN can lag packument
propagation by several minutes; on 2026-08-21 this failed four
consecutive canary runs mid-loop even though every publish succeeded
> - This pull request sets the script's existing visibility-budget env
overrides at the workflow level to 10 minutes
> - The benefit is a release train that tolerates registry propagation
lag; a healthy publish still exits the poll on its first visible check
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Not applicable for a `ci:` workflow tuning change. Evidence: four
consecutive `Release` runs on master failed in `publish_canary` with
"npm did not publish and expose <package>@<version>", while the raw
registry packument shows each of those versions present minutes later
(`2026.821.0-canary.0` accepted 01:36 UTC, visible 01:40;
`2026.821.0-canary.1` accepted 05:54, visible 05:57).
## What Changed
- Set `NPM_PUBLISH_VERIFY_ATTEMPTS: "30"` and
`NPM_PUBLISH_VERIFY_DELAY_SECONDS: "10"` in the `Release` workflow's
top-level `env`, raising `release.sh`'s post-publish visibility poll
from 60 seconds to 5 minutes per package for every channel. Both
variables are existing overrides read by the script
(`scripts/release.sh` lines 311-312); no script change.
- Raised the four publish jobs' `timeout-minutes` from 45 to 90 so
several laggard packages fit inside the job without exhausting it before
the tag push / Docker / release steps.
## Verification
- `release.sh` reads the two env overrides with defaults
(`${NPM_PUBLISH_VERIFY_ATTEMPTS:-12}` /
`${NPM_PUBLISH_VERIFY_DELAY_SECONDS:-5}`), so workflow-level env reaches
`publish_package_to_npm_and_wait` unchanged.
- Not run: a live release (needs the npm-canary environment). The next
master push exercises the canary path with the new budget.
## Risks
- Low risk: a genuinely failed publish now takes up to 5 minutes to
report instead of 1, and a pathological batch where most packages lag
the full budget still fails inside the 90-minute job — that pattern
means a real registry incident. The poll exits early on success, so
healthy releases are unaffected.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, `claude-fable-5`) with extended thinking and
agentic tool use via the Claude Code CLI (release log forensics against
raw registry packument timestamps).
## 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 (not applicable:
workflow env tuning)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
(comment in the workflow documents the budget rationale)
- [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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release channel system promotes builds canary → nightly → beta →
stable, and stable releases publish a GitHub Release from
`releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md`
> - The stable lane requires that notes file to exist inside the
promoted source commit, but the file is named for the promotion date,
which is unknown when the source commit is created
> - A promoted beta can therefore never pass the notes check: every
happy-path stable is forced through the candidate-branch fix path, with
a soak-gate justification, for a notes-only change
> - This pull request drafts the notes automatically when the beta is
published and lets the stable promotion read them from `master`
> - The benefit is a walkable stable happy path: the soak gate stays
exact, notes get a real review window during the soak, and the
justification path returns to its real purpose (cherry-picked fixes)
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The stable promotion path in the release channel system (`release.yml`,
`scripts/release.sh`).
**Current behavior**
`release.sh stable` requires `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md` in the
checked-out source tree, and `publish_stable` checks out the exact
promoted SHA. The soak gate requires a `beta/v*` tag to point at that
same SHA. No commit can satisfy both for a promoted beta, so a stable
promotion must cut a candidate branch with a notes-only commit and
bypass the soak gate with a written justification. Release notes are
also written at promotion time, under time pressure, with no review
window.
**Proposed behavior**
When a beta publishes, a `draft_stable_notes` job generates a grouped
notes skeleton at `releases/beta/v<beta-version>.md` and pushes it to a
machine-owned branch; a human opens the PR and edits it during the 3-day
soak. The stable preflight resolves notes before the `npm-stable`
approval gate: source-tree notes first (the candidate fix path,
unchanged), then the merged beta-keyed file on `master`; it fails early
with the missing path named when neither exists. After the stable ships,
a canonicalization job pushes a branch that moves the file to
`releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md`.
Related (not duplicates): #11006 and #11008 introduced the nightly and
beta lanes this builds on; older changelog PRs (for example #10669)
authored notes manually at promotion time, which is the flow this
replaces.
**Reason and benefit**
The happy path becomes: promote the exact soaked SHA, no justification,
notes reviewed during the soak instead of written at the gate. The
`releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md` invariant still holds durably via the
canonicalization PR.
## What Changed
- `scripts/release.sh`: new `--notes-file PATH` (stable only) overrides
where the pre-publish notes check looks, so notes can live outside the
source checkout without dirtying the worktree.
- `scripts/create-github-release.sh`: same `--notes-file` override for
the GitHub Release body.
- `scripts/draft-stable-notes.sh` (new): deterministic skeleton
generator — commit subjects from the newest stable tag (falling back to
the previous beta, then full history) to the beta's source commit,
grouped into Features / Fixes / Other.
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`:
- `draft_stable_notes` job after `publish_beta`: runs the generator and
force-pushes `release-notes/v<beta-version>`; the job summary links the
compare page. It recreates the beta tag locally if the tag push was
rejected (the known workflows-permission case), so drafting is not
blocked on manual tag recovery.
- `preflight_stable`: computes the target stable version (`release.sh
stable --print-version`) and resolves the notes source (`source_tree` →
`master_beta` → fail early / warn on dry run); new outputs.
- `publish_stable`: materializes `master`-side notes into `RUNNER_TEMP`
and passes `--notes-file` to both scripts; outputs the published stable
version.
- `canonicalize_stable_notes` job: pushes the `git mv` branch after a
stable that used `master`-side notes.
- `doc/RELEASING.md`, `doc/RELEASE-CHECKLIST.md`: document the
drafted-notes flow, the preflight resolution order, and the
canonicalization step; the LLM changelog flow now targets the draft
branch during the soak.
- `.agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md`,
`.agents/skills/release-changelog-discord-message/SKILL.md`: the
notes-authoring skills now describe this flow — range ends at the beta
source commit (not `HEAD`), the file is beta-keyed on the
`release-notes/v<beta-version>` branch (seeded with
`scripts/draft-stable-notes.sh` for betas that predate the automation),
and the canonicalization link caveat is called out for announcements.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/draft-stable-notes.test.mjs` — 6 tests, temp
git-repo fixtures: grouping, stable-tag range, previous-beta and
full-history fallbacks, default output path, malformed version, missing
tag.
- `node --test scripts/release-lib.test.mjs` — unchanged suite still
green.
- `bash -n` on both changed shell scripts; `release.yml` re-parsed as
YAML.
- `./scripts/release.sh stable --print-version` unchanged (prints the
next stable version); `--notes-file` on a non-stable channel fails with
a clear error.
- Not exercised end-to-end: the new workflow jobs need a real beta
publish to run. The first beta after merge is the live test; the draft
job is additive and cannot affect the publish result (it runs after
`publish_beta` completes).
## Risks
- Low risk to publishing itself: `--notes-file` defaults preserve
today's behavior everywhere; the draft and canonicalization jobs are
additive and run after the publishes succeed.
- The preflight now fails a real stable run when no notes are found.
That is the intended fail-early behavior (it previously failed later,
inside `publish_stable`, after the `npm-stable` approval).
- `draft_stable_notes` force-pushes only the machine-owned
`release-notes/v<beta-version>` branch; a beta re-cut regenerates it
cleanly.
- The stable version computed at preflight could differ from the
published one if a run crosses UTC midnight between the two jobs; the
materialized notes are passed by path, so the publish still succeeds,
and the canonicalization job uses the actually-published version.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code)
## Pre-submission 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release channel system re-smokes every published beta as
post-publish verification (`smoke_beta`)
> - The candidate-branch beta lane (#11209) added
`verify_beta_candidate` to `publish_beta`'s needs; that job is skipped
on every normal promote-mode beta
> - `smoke_beta`'s condition has no status-check function, so GitHub
attaches an implicit `success()` that evaluates the needs chain
transitively — a skipped ancestor makes it false
> - This pull request makes the condition explicit so promote-mode betas
smoke again, and pins the shape in the workflow wiring test
> - The benefit is that the post-publish beta gate actually runs instead
of silently skipping
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Beta `2026.818.0-beta.0` (run 32082007439) published successfully, but
its post-publish `smoke_beta` job was skipped. No configuration or input
asked for that: the run was a plain `channel: beta` dispatch with
`dry_run` at its default `false`, and the same expression
`!inputs.dry_run` evaluated true inside `publish_beta`'s own steps (the
Docker dispatch step ran).
**Expected behavior**
Every non-dry-run beta publish is followed by the release smoke suite
against the exact published version, as documented in `doc/RELEASING.md`
and `doc/RELEASE-CHECKLIST.md`.
**Steps to reproduce**
Dispatch `release.yml` with `channel: beta` promoting a nightly (promote
mode). `verify_beta_candidate` is skipped by design; `publish_beta` runs
through its explicit `!cancelled()` condition; `smoke_beta` then skips
because its implicit `success()` sees the skipped ancestor in the
transitive needs chain (actions/runner#2205 semantics). The beta
published on 2026-08-11 predated #11209, so this never surfaced before.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master at `43ab441f0` (workflow file, current head).
Related (not duplicates): #11209 introduced the candidate lane whose
skipped job triggers this; #11208 covers the adjacent tag-push failure
playbooks.
## What Changed
- `smoke_beta`'s condition becomes `!cancelled() &&
needs.publish_beta.result == 'success' && !inputs.dry_run` — an explicit
status-check function suppresses the implicit `success()`, and the
result check keeps the dependency on a successful publish.
- A comment above the job records why the explicit form is load-bearing.
- `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` pins the new
shape so the implicit form cannot silently return.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` — 8
pass, including the new assertion.
- `release.yml` re-parsed as YAML.
- The exact skip is visible on run 32082007439 (`smoke_beta: skipped`
after `publish_beta: success`); the coverage gap for that beta was
closed manually by dispatching `release-smoke.yml` with
`paperclip_version: beta` (run 32084880767).
- Not exercised end-to-end: the corrected condition needs the next real
promote-mode beta to demonstrate; the expression change is minimal and
the semantics are the documented actions/runner behavior.
## Risks
- Low risk: condition-only change on one job plus a test. Dry runs still
skip the smoke (`!inputs.dry_run` retained). Candidate-mode betas, where
`verify_beta_candidate` actually runs, behave as before.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code)
## Pre-submission 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
> Follow-up to #11208 (merged): rebased onto master and ready for
review.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release channels promote artifacts along canary → nightly → beta
→ stable, with the happy path being promotion of an existing build
> - When one or two targeted fixes are needed before a beta or stable,
the only options today are waiting for the next nightly or absorbing a
whole day of unrelated master changes
> - The channel model was designed with an escape hatch for exactly
this: short-lived candidate branches carrying only cherry-picked fixes
> - This pull request implements candidate-branch beta builds with full
verification, documents the stable fix path through the
soak-justification gate, and adds the release captain's checklist
> - The benefit is that a surgical fix can ship forward without either
delay or blast radius, with its provenance recorded
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11008 — completes the fix-path half of the channel model
introduced there.
**Subsystem affected**
Release automation: `scripts/release.sh`,
`.github/workflows/release.yml`, `doc/RELEASING.md`, new
`doc/RELEASE-CHECKLIST.md`, tests.
**Problem or motivation**
Beta promotion only accepts commits that already shipped as a nightly,
and stable promotion expects a soaked beta. There is no supported way to
ship one or two cherry-picked fixes between lanes: an urgent fix must
wait for the nightly cycle or pull in every unrelated master change from
the day. The original channel design called for candidate branches to
cover this, and they were deferred from the initial implementation.
**Proposed solution**
Candidate-branch beta builds: cut `candidate/beta-<target>` from a
nightly's source commit, cherry-pick the fixes, and dispatch `channel:
beta` with the new `candidate_branch` input. Selection enforces the
naming convention, rejects heads that already shipped as a beta or
predate the candidate tooling, and records the cherry-picked commits in
the job summary. Because candidate heads never went through a canary or
nightly, publication is gated on a full `release-verify` run (promoted
nightlies keep skipping re-verification). The stable fix path
(`candidate/release-<target>` as `source_ref`) works through the
existing soak gate: the justification requirement is the deliberate,
recorded trade-off for shipping unsoaked bits, and is now documented as
such.
## What Changed
- `scripts/release.sh`: `--from-candidate` flag (beta only) waives the
shipped-a-nightly requirement while keeping the duplicate-beta guard
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`: `candidate_branch` dispatch input;
candidate mode in `select_beta` (naming validation, duplicate and
tooling-era rejection, cherry-pick recording); new
`verify_beta_candidate` job gating candidate publishes on full
verification
- `doc/RELEASING.md`: beta fix-path and stable fix-path sections
- `doc/RELEASE-CHECKLIST.md` (new): the release captain's checklist for
all four lanes as built
- Tests: dry-run fixture coverage for `--from-candidate` (waives the
nightly guard, keeps the duplicate guard, rejected outside beta) and
wiring tests for candidate validation plus the verification gate
## Verification
- `node --test` on the four affected suites: 42 pass in total (17 + 25
across the two runs), including the 5 new tests
- `bash -n` on `release.sh`; YAML parse of the workflow
- After merge: exercise the path end to end the first time a real
cherry-picked beta is needed — dispatch with a `candidate/beta-*` branch
and confirm the summary records the picks and verification runs
## Risks
- Candidate builds bypass the smoke-tested-nightly provenance by design;
the compensating controls are full verification before publish, the
post-publish beta smoke, the human `npm-beta` gate, and recorded
cherry-picks
- The stable fix path rides the existing justification mechanism rather
than adding a second bypass — one recorded escape hatch, not two
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use. All changes model-authored under
human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release subsystem's promotion lanes publish to npm, then push a
lane tag and dispatch the Docker image build at that tag
> - The first nightly of the beta-tooling merge published to npm and
then died at the tag push: GITHUB_TOKEN may not create refs pointing at
workflow-modifying commits from dispatch or scheduled runs
> - The failure was a bare `remote rejected` with no guidance, leaving
the release half-finished (npm live, no tag, no images) until an
operator reverse-engineered the recovery
> - This pull request makes every lane's tag push degrade into exact
recovery instructions in the job summary
> - The benefit is that a rare platform-permission rejection becomes a
two-minute runbook operation instead of a forensic exercise
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11008 — the incident occurred promoting that change's own merge
commit, the first workflow-modifying commit to flow through the lanes it
introduced.
**Subsystem affected**
Release automation: `.github/workflows/release.yml`, `doc/RELEASING.md`,
workflow wiring tests.
**Problem or motivation**
Run 31445344811 published `2026.811.0-nightly.0` to npm, then failed
pushing `nightly/v2026.811.0-nightly.0`: `refusing to allow a GitHub App
to create or update workflow .github/workflows/release.yml without
workflows permission`. The tagged commit modifies workflow files, and
GITHUB_TOKEN may not create refs pointing at such commits from dispatch
or scheduled runs (push-event runs are exempt, which is why the canary
tag on the same commit succeeded). The job failed with no explanation
and the Docker dispatch never ran.
**Proposed solution**
Wrap the nightly, beta, and stable tag pushes: on rejection, write the
exact recovery commands into the job summary — create and push the tag
with maintainer credentials, dispatch `docker.yml` at the tag, and for
stable also run `create-github-release.sh` — then fail the job. Document
the cause and recovery in the failure playbooks and pin the three
recovery blocks with a wiring test.
## What Changed
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`: recovery-summary wrappers on the
nightly, beta, and stable tag-push steps
- `doc/RELEASING.md`: failure-playbook entry for the
workflows-permission rejection
- `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: wiring test
asserting all three lanes carry the recovery summary
## Verification
- Wiring tests: 6 pass; YAML parse of the workflow
- The recovery commands are exactly the ones used to resolve the real
incident (tag push + `docker.yml` dispatch for
`nightly/v2026.811.0-nightly.0`)
## Risks
- Low. The happy path is unchanged (a successful push skips the
wrapper); the failure path trades a bare error for actionable output and
still fails the job, since the release state is genuinely incomplete
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use. All changes model-authored under
human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release subsystem promotes builds along canary → nightly → beta
→ stable, and each publish job checks out the promotion's source commit
and runs that tree's release tooling
> - The first beta dispatch failed with `unexpected argument: beta`: the
selected nightly's source predated the beta channel, so its `release.sh`
did not know the argument
> - The failure was clean (argument parsing, nothing published) but
cryptic, and the same trap waits for any promotion of a source older
than its target channel's tooling
> - This pull request makes the selection jobs reject such sources with
an actionable error and documents the property
> - The benefit is that a bootstrapping or old-source promotion fails in
seconds with instructions, instead of mid-publish with a parser error
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11008 — the guard hardens the beta promotion flow introduced
there, after its first dispatch surfaced the gap described below.
**Subsystem affected**
Release automation: `.github/workflows/release.yml`, `doc/RELEASING.md`,
workflow wiring tests.
**Problem or motivation**
Run 31444045044 (first beta dispatch) failed in `publish_beta` with
`unexpected argument: beta`. Promotions deliberately build from the
pinned source commit, which means they also run that commit's
`scripts/release.sh` — and a source that predates the target channel's
introduction cannot publish it. Nothing guards this today; the error
surfaces deep in the publish job with no explanation.
**Proposed solution**
Guard at selection time: `select_nightly` requires the source canary's
`release.sh` to know the nightly channel, and `select_beta` requires the
source nightly's `release.sh` to know the beta channel. Each guard
literally matches the channel case arm and fails closed with a clear
message naming the remedy (promote a newer source). Document the
tooling-era property in `RELEASING.md` and pin the guards with a wiring
test.
## What Changed
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`: tooling-era guards in
`select_nightly` and `select_beta`
- `doc/RELEASING.md`: documents that promotions run the source commit's
release tooling
- `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: wiring test
pinning both guards
## Verification
- Wiring tests: 5 pass
- Guard expressions exercised against real commits: accepts the
beta-capable merge commit of the beta-channel change, rejects a pre-beta
commit
- YAML parse of the workflow
- After merge: the next beta dispatch selects a beta-capable nightly and
passes the guard
## Risks
- Low. Selection-time check only; the guards match the channel case arm
literally and fail closed (with the same actionable message) if that
line is ever reformatted
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use. All changes model-authored under
human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
> Follow-up to #11006 (merged): rebased onto master and ready for
review.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release subsystem now publishes canary (every master push),
nightly (scheduled, smoke-gated, added in #11006), and stable (manual)
> - There is still no human-approved release-candidate lane between
nightly and stable, and nothing enforces that a stable actually soaked
anywhere before shipping
> - Betas need a real approval gate, and stables need a soak policy that
is data, not prose
> - This pull request adds the beta channel: a manual promotion of a
chosen nightly behind the `npm-beta` environment gate, re-smoked after
publish, plus a stable preflight that enforces a 3-day beta soak with a
written-justification bypass
> - The benefit is a complete canary → nightly → beta → stable train
where every stable shipped as a beta first, and emergencies leave a
written trace
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Release automation: `scripts/release.sh`, `scripts/release-lib.sh`,
`.github/workflows/release.yml`, `.github/workflows/docker.yml`,
`.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`.
**Problem or motivation**
After #11006 the project has canary and nightly prerelease lanes, but no
release-candidate lane. Stable promotion has no enforced soak: any ref
can ship as stable directly. There is no approval boundary for a
broader-audience prerelease, and no structured way to record why an
emergency release skipped validation.
**Proposed solution**
Add a `beta` channel: a manual dispatch that promotes a chosen nightly's
source commit, publishes behind the `npm-beta` GitHub environment
(required reviewers are the gate), re-smokes the published beta, and
tags `beta/vX`. Enforce in the stable path that the source commit
shipped as a beta at least 3 days earlier (measured from the beta's npm
publish time), with a `skip_soak_justification` input as the recorded
emergency bypass.
**Alternatives considered**
Codifying the soak policy in docs only. Rejected: an unenforced policy
decays; the preflight makes the policy executable while the
justification input keeps the emergency path usable and auditable.
## What Changed
- `scripts/release.sh` + `scripts/release-lib.sh`: `beta` channel —
requires HEAD to carry a `nightly/v*` tag, publishes the package set as
`YYYY.MDD.P-beta.N` under dist-tag `beta`, tags
`beta/vYYYY.MDD.P-beta.N`
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`:
- `channel: beta` dispatch path: `select_beta` resolves the newest (or
an explicit `source_version`) nightly and fails loudly on selection
problems; `publish_beta` runs behind the `npm-beta` environment, pushes
the tag, and dispatches `docker.yml`; `smoke_beta` re-runs the release
smoke suite against the exact published beta version
- stable path: new `preflight_stable` job enforces the 3-day beta soak
from the beta's npm publish time; `skip_soak_justification` bypasses
with the reason echoed into the job summary; dry runs report without
blocking
- `.github/workflows/docker.yml`: `beta/v*` tags publish `:beta` on both
images, with exact version stamping
- `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`: `beta` added to the dispatch
choice list
- Docs: `CHANNELS.md` beta entries; `RELEASING.md` beta lane, soak gate,
and failure playbook; `RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md` `npm-beta`
environment setup, including the warning to create the environment
before the first beta dispatch (GitHub auto-creates unprotected
environments on first reference)
- Tests: beta version-counting coverage in
`scripts/release-registry-versions.test.mjs`; beta identity and
nightly-tag guard coverage in
`scripts/__tests__/release-dry-run-notes.test.mjs`
## Verification
- `node --test` on the two touched suites: 17 pass, including the 3 new
beta tests
- `bash -n` on both shell scripts and YAML parse of all three workflows
- After merge, in order: create the `npm-beta` environment, dispatch
`channel: beta` with `dry_run: true` to preview, then a real promotion
of a published nightly through the approval gate, then a stable dry-run
against a young beta to see the soak gate report
## Risks
- If the `npm-beta` environment does not exist when the first beta
dispatch runs, GitHub creates it with no protection rules and the beta
publishes without approval. Mitigated by documentation and by creating
the environment before merge (operator step)
- Until the first beta exists, every stable dispatch requires
`skip_soak_justification`. This is deliberate — the first beta ships
immediately after this merges — but it is a behavior change to the
stable dispatch
- The soak clock reads the beta's npm publish time from the registry; a
registry outage makes the preflight fall back to requiring justification
(fail-closed)
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use (repository exploration, local test
execution, live registry and git verification). All code, tests, and
docs in this PR were model-authored under human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release subsystem publishes the `paperclipai` npm package set
and the Docker images on two lanes: canary on every master push, and
stable on manual promotion
> - There is no middle ground between those lanes. Users must track
every merge or wait weeks for a stable. Docker `:latest` also tracks
master, so Docker users have no stable image at all
> - A calm prerelease lane needs to exist, and it must never ship a
build that failed its checks
> - This pull request adds the nightly channel: a scheduled job that
selects the newest master commit with a green canary publish, runs the
full release smoke suite against that exact published canary, and only
then republishes it as the nightly. It also separates Docker tags by
lane, so `:latest` finally means stable
> - The benefit is that users can follow prereleases at a nightly
cadence with a smoke-tested guarantee, and Docker users get real
`:canary`, `:nightly`, and stable image tags
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Release automation: `scripts/release.sh`, `scripts/release-lib.sh`,
`.github/workflows/release.yml`, `.github/workflows/docker.yml`,
`.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`.
**Problem or motivation**
The project publishes only `canary` (every master push) and `latest`
(manual stable). Users who want prereleases without per-merge churn have
no option. Docker has a second problem: master builds overwrite
`:latest`, and CI-published stables never produced Docker images,
because tags pushed with `GITHUB_TOKEN` do not fire the `v*` tag trigger
in `docker.yml`. No stable-versioned image exists in ghcr today.
**Proposed solution**
Add a `nightly` channel. A scheduled job selects the newest
canary-tagged master commit, smoke-tests that exact published canary,
and republishes the same commit as `YYYY.MDD.P-nightly.N` under the
`nightly` dist-tag. Separate Docker tags by lane (`:canary` for master,
`:nightly` for nightly tags, `:latest` plus version tags for stable tags
only), and have the release jobs dispatch `docker.yml` at the new tag so
lane images actually build.
**Alternatives considered**
Moving the `nightly` dist-tag to the existing canary version without a
republish. Rejected: the version string would say `canary` while the
user is on nightly, which breaks at-a-glance lane identification in bug
reports and `--version` output.
## What Changed
- `scripts/release-lib.sh`: channel-parameterized
`next_prerelease_version` and `prerelease_tag_name` helpers (canary
helpers delegate to them), a `require_channel_tag_at_head` guard, and
the no-provenance retry for Sigstore transparency-log duplicates now
covers the `nightly` dist-tag as well as `canary`
- `scripts/release.sh`: new `nightly` channel. It requires HEAD to carry
a `canary/v*` tag, publishes the full public package set as
`YYYY.MDD.P-nightly.N` under dist-tag `nightly`, and tags the source
commit `nightly/vYYYY.MDD.P-nightly.N`
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`: scheduled nightly chain (09:00 UTC) —
select candidate, smoke it via `release-smoke.yml`, publish on green
under the existing `npm-canary` environment, push the tag, dispatch
`docker.yml`. New `channel` dispatch input (default `stable`, so
existing stable dispatches are unchanged) with `nightly_source_version`
and `dry_run` support for forced runs. The stable path now also
dispatches `docker.yml` at the new `v*` tag
- `.github/workflows/docker.yml`: lane tag mapping for both image jobs —
master pushes publish `:canary` and no longer move `:latest`;
`nightly/v*` tags publish `:nightly`; only stable `v*` tags publish
`:latest` and the versioned tags. New `workflow_dispatch` trigger for
the release-job dispatches. Build-version stamping uses the exact
nightly version on nightly tag builds
- `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`: `nightly` added to the dispatch
choice list
- `doc/CHANNELS.md` (new): user-facing guide to the channels
- `doc/RELEASING.md`: nightly lane documentation, Docker tag mapping
table, and a nightly failure playbook
- `doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md`: note that nightly reuses
`npm-canary` and needs no npm trusted-publisher changes
- Tests: channel-parameterized version helper coverage in
`scripts/release-registry-versions.test.mjs`, and nightly flow coverage
(publish identity, notes not required, canary-tag guard) in
`scripts/__tests__/release-dry-run-notes.test.mjs`
## Verification
- `node --test` on the release script suites: 68 pass, including 6 new
tests. The only failure, `acpx-patch-packaging.test.mjs`, needs
installed `node_modules` and fails identically on a pristine checkout of
master in the same environment
- `bash -n` on both shell scripts and YAML parse of all three workflows
- Live fail-path check: `./scripts/release.sh nightly --print-version`
from a master tip with no canary tag fails with `HEAD has no canary/v*
tag`
- Live success-path check: the same command from the
`canary/v2026.806.0-canary.7` commit prints `2026.806.0-nightly.0`
- Live selection check: the candidate-selection shell logic run against
the real repository selects the commit of `canary/v2026.806.0-canary.7`,
which matches the current npm `canary` dist-tag exactly
- After merge: dispatch `release.yml` with `channel: nightly` and
`dry_run: true` to preview, then a real forced run to validate end to
end before the first scheduled run
## Risks
- Docker `:latest` changes meaning from "latest master build" to "latest
stable release". This is deliberate and will be announced. Users who
want the old behavior pull `:canary`. Until the first stable release
after this change, `:latest` stays at its current (master-built) image
- The nightly is a rebuild of the same source commit, not the
byte-identical canary artifact that was smoked. The lockfile pins
dependencies, and the publish path's registry-visibility and
clean-prefix install gates still run on the nightly artifacts
- All npm publishing must stay inside `release.yml` because npm trusted
publishing pins that workflow file per package. The nightly jobs were
added to `release.yml` for exactly that reason; this constraint is now
documented in `RELEASING.md`
- The stable-lane Docker dispatch fails gracefully (a warning with
manual instructions) when the source ref predates `docker.yml`'s
`workflow_dispatch` trigger
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use (repository exploration, local test
execution, live registry and git verification). All code, tests, and
docs in this PR were model-authored under human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip publishes a coordinated set of packages through its
release workflows
> - Bundled packages use a pinned npm CLI so trusted publishing works
consistently
> - The canary publisher now crashes deterministically inside npm before
useful output reaches the workflow log
> - The npm debug log that contains the underlying failure disappears
with the hosted runner
> - This pull request upgrades the pinned publish CLI and preserves both
verbose HTTP activity and npm debug logs on failure
> - The benefit is that the plausible HTTP-layer fix ships immediately,
while any remaining CI-only failure becomes diagnosable
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- **Problem:** The canary release workflow fails on the first bundled
package with `npm error Exit handler never called!` and no preceding
diagnostic output.
- **Expected behavior:** Bundled packages publish through trusted
publishing, or the workflow retains enough npm diagnostics to identify
the actual failure.
- **Reproduction:** Run the canary release workflow in GitHub Actions;
the failure reproduced on both attempts of run 29948506814.
- **Version/commit:** Current `master` after #10024 and #10030.
- **Deployment mode:** GitHub-hosted release workflow using Node.js 24
and npm trusted publishing.
- Related: #10024, #10030.
## What Changed
- Bumped the bundled publish CLI from npm 11.16.0 to npm 11.18.0.
- Added `--loglevel verbose` to bundled npm publish invocations.
- Dumped the last 300 lines of every npm debug log after failed canary
or stable publishes, with common registry credential forms redacted.
- Updated release assertions to pin npm 11.18.0 and verify verbose
logging.
## Verification
- `pnpm test:release-registry` — 66 tests passed.
- `bash -n scripts/release-lib.sh`.
- Parsed `.github/workflows/release.yml` with Python/PyYAML.
- Smoke-tested npm log redaction with representative Authorization,
`_authToken`, and token environment values.
- Smoke-tested npm debug-log redaction against Authorization,
`_authToken`, and `npm_token` examples.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`.
- The merge-triggered canary workflow remains the live
trusted-publishing verification.
## Risks
- Low code risk: changes are isolated to the release publisher and its
workflow diagnostics.
- npm 11.18.0 could expose a different registry/runtime regression;
failure-time debug log dumping makes that actionable.
- Verbose npm output increases release log volume but does not change
package contents or dist-tags; common credential forms are redacted
before debug logs are printed.
> 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-5.3 Codex, tool-enabled coding agent with repository
and shell execution; context window size is not exposed in this
environment.
## 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 app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Releases publish the same app and package set that operators
install, so release verification should keep full release-strength
coverage.
> - The release workflow currently verifies stable and canary releases
with one serial job that typechecks, runs all tests, and builds.
> - The PR workflow already proves the test surface can be split into
grouped general suites and serialized shards without changing coverage.
> - This pull request extracts the release verify work into a reusable
workflow and fans out the independent lanes.
> - The benefit is faster stable and canary release verification while
preserving the existing publish and preview gates.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this CI improvement.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (multiple of the above)
**Problem or motivation**
Release verification spends most of its wall time in a single serial
test step even though the same stable test surface is already
partitioned for PR CI. Stable dispatches and master-push canaries
therefore wait on one long runner after setup, typecheck, tests, and
build run sequentially.
**Proposed solution**
Add a reusable release verification workflow with parallel typecheck,
grouped general tests, serialized test shards, and build lanes. Have
both stable and canary release verification call it with the ref they
need to verify.
**Alternatives considered**
Keeping the serial `pnpm test:run` job preserves the old shape but keeps
stable and canary releases waiting on one long runner. Skipping
verification when a source SHA already has green CI would be faster, but
adds stale-check and lookup risk beyond this change.
**Roadmap alignment**
No overlapping item found in `ROADMAP.md`; this is release CI
maintenance.
**Additional context**
The new workflow keeps the release-strength full `pnpm -r typecheck`,
uses the existing stable test grouping/sharding entry points, and leaves
publish/preview jobs unchanged.
## What Changed
- Added `.github/workflows/release-verify.yml` as a `workflow_call`
workflow accepting a `ref` input.
- Split release verification into parallel `typecheck`, `general_tests`,
`serialized_tests`, and `build` jobs with 20-minute lane timeouts.
- Mirrored the PR workflow's stable test partition: `general-server`
shards 1-3, `general-workspaces-a`, `general-workspaces-b`, and four
serialized shards.
- Replaced `release.yml` `verify_canary` and `verify_stable` job bodies
with calls to the reusable workflow while leaving publish and preview
jobs unchanged.
- Added a Node test that guards the release workflow delegation and
split verify surface.
## Verification
- `actionlint 1.7.12 .github/workflows/release.yml
.github/workflows/release-verify.yml`
- `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check`
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs
./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
- Release verification now starts more jobs per release event,
increasing total runner setup/install minutes. This matches the existing
PR CI tradeoff and should reduce release wall time substantially.
- The called workflow checks out the requested ref shallowly. That is
intentional for verify lanes; publish and preview jobs still retain
their existing full-history checkouts.
> 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-class coding agent in local tool-use mode with shell
execution, repository editing, GitHub connector access, and medium
reasoning.
## 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 a control plane for autonomous agent companies, so its
release automation is part of the core operator trust boundary.
> - The affected subsystem is npm/GitHub Actions release publishing for
the public monorepo packages.
> - The concrete failure was that a newly added package reached
`master`, the canary workflow attempted its first publish, and npm
trusted publishing was not yet bootstrapped for that package.
> - That means the problem is not just one broken run; it is a missing
pre-merge guard that lets release-ineligible packages land and only fail
once `publish_canary` runs.
> - This pull request makes release enrollment explicit, validates that
enrollment in CI, and adds a PR-time bootstrap check against npm for
changed release-enabled package manifests.
> - The result is that we keep trusted publishing, avoid teaching CI to
`npm adduser`, and move this class of failure from post-merge canary
time to pre-merge review time.
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/release-package-manifest.json` so release-managed
public packages are explicitly enrolled instead of being inferred from
every non-private workspace package.
- Hardened `scripts/release-package-map.mjs` to validate the manifest
before release workflows rewrite versions or assemble publish payloads.
- Added `scripts/check-release-package-bootstrap.mjs` and wired it into
`.github/workflows/pr.yml` so PRs that change a release-enabled package
manifest fail if that package does not already exist on npm.
- Added release-package manifest coverage tests to
`scripts/release-package-map.test.mjs` and included them in `pnpm run
test:release-registry`.
- Wired manifest validation into `.github/workflows/release.yml` and
documented the first-publish bootstrap policy in `doc/PUBLISHING.md` and
`doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md`.
## Verification
- `pnpm run test:release-registry`
- `./scripts/release.sh canary --skip-verify --dry-run`
- Confirmed the committed diff contains no obvious PII/secrets via
targeted pattern scan before pushing.
## Risks
- Low risk overall: this is CI/release-policy code, not product runtime
logic.
- The new PR bootstrap check depends on npm metadata availability, so a
transient npm outage could block a PR that changes a release-enabled
package manifest.
- The manifest introduces a new source of truth that must stay aligned
with public package additions, but that is intentional and now enforced.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via the `codex_local` Paperclip adapter; GPT-5-based
coding agent with tool use, terminal execution, git, and GitHub CLI.
Exact served model ID/context window are not exposed by the local
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
Devin Foley
Dotta
dependabot[bot]
dotta
Dotta