## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The CI workflow is responsible for producing and publishing the
Docker images that power Paperclip deployments
> - The cloud image publish was previously coupled to the stock publish
job, so a failure or delay in one path could gate the other
> - That coupling makes the release pipeline less resilient than it
needs to be
> - This pull request gives the cloud publish its own top-level job so
both publishes can run in parallel without a `needs:` dependency
> - The benefit is better failure isolation and less wasted time when
one publish path is slow or broken
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue was found for this change.
Problem statement:
- The cloud image publish was implemented as trailing work inside the
stock publish job.
- That setup meant the cloud publish could be delayed or skipped if the
stock job failed early.
- The desired behavior is for the cloud publish to run independently so
a failure in one publish path does not gate the other.
Proposed solution:
- Split the cloud publish into its own top-level workflow job.
- Keep the same cloud-specific build settings and cache behavior.
- Preserve the existing top-level concurrency behavior.
Alternatives considered:
- Keeping both publishes in one job with conditionals or later steps.
Rejected because it still couples success and runtime between the two
publish paths.
## What Changed
- Split the cloud image publish into a separate top-level Docker
workflow job.
- Removed the dependency coupling so the cloud job does not need the
stock job.
- Expanded the drift-guard test to assert the two-job structure and the
absence of `needs:` on the cloud job.
## Verification
- The workflow YAML was parsed successfully and confirmed to contain two
jobs: `build-and-push` and `build-and-push-cloud`.
- The cloud job was confirmed to have no `needs:` entry.
- The drift-guard assertions were reproduced in a dependency-free
harness and passed.
- PR #10408 completed GitHub Actions with all required checks green,
including the e2e shards.
- Greptile review completed at 5/5 with no unresolved comments.
- No documentation files changed because this is a workflow/test-only
change.
## Risks
- The workflow now duplicates the prep steps across two runners, so any
shared setup change must be kept in sync between both jobs.
- The new job increases workflow surface area slightly, which can make
future maintenance more verbose.
- Overall risk is low because the change is limited to CI orchestration
and test coverage.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex (GPT-5, tool-using code assistant)
## 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 repository uses GitHub Actions workflows to build and publish
Docker images
> - A workflow-level concurrency policy controls whether newer pushes
cancel in-flight builds
> - The current job-level setting can cancel a running image build
before it finishes publishing
> - That leaves the Docker image pipeline brittle when a new push
arrives during an active publish
> - This pull request moves concurrency to the workflow level and
disables cancel-in-progress so running builds finish
> - The benefit is that only pending work is superseded, while a build
already publishing is allowed to complete
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change. This PR addresses the
Docker workflow concurrency behavior directly: it ensures in-flight
image builds are not cancelled by newer pushes, while still serializing
builds per ref.
## What Changed
- Moved the Docker workflow concurrency block from the job level to the
workflow level.
- Set `cancel-in-progress: false` so an active build can finish
publishing.
- Added a drift-guard test that parses `.github/workflows/docker.yml`
and asserts the workflow-level concurrency policy remains `false`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/cloud-image-bundled-plugins.test.ts`
- `python3 -c "import yaml;
yaml.safe_load(open('.github/workflows/docker.yml'))"`
- Verified the fetched remote branch contains a single commit on top of
`origin/master`.
- Searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and issues; none found.
- Checked `ROADMAP.md` and did not find overlapping planned core work.
## Risks
- Low risk: the change is limited to workflow concurrency behavior and a
targeted test assertion.
- If the workflow concurrency key is changed later, the drift-guard test
will fail and require an update.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex (GPT-5, tool use; context window not surfaced 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] 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; it ships as a Docker image that self-hosters and managed
deployments run.
> - The server resolves its own version at runtime in
`server/src/version.ts` (`resolveServerVersion()`), which feeds
analytics and the server debug panel.
> - That resolver derives the real version from `git describe`, and
falls back to `server/package.json`'s `version` when git isn't
available.
> - But `server/package.json`'s version is a static placeholder — CI
only stamps the real CalVer at publish, so in source it is never the
real version (currently `0.3.1`).
> - A Docker image has no `.git` (it's dockerignored), so `git describe`
can't run inside it. Every image therefore falls back to the placeholder
and reports `0.3.1` in analytics and the debug panel, regardless of
which commit it was built from.
> - This PR computes the real version once on the CI build runner (where
`.git` and tags exist), bakes it into the image, and has
`resolveServerVersion()` prefer that stamp when `git describe` is
unavailable.
> - The benefit: self-hosted and cloud images report their true version
instead of a misleading placeholder, with no change to dev checkouts,
`git describe`-based resolution, or local `docker build`.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists — describing the bug inline (per the bug report
template).
**What happened?**
Docker images built from `master` (and release tags) report the server
version as the `0.3.1` placeholder in analytics and the server debug
panel, instead of the real version of the commit the image was built
from.
**Expected behavior**
An image reports the real version of its build commit (e.g.
`2026.722.0+51.git.<sha>`), so operators can tell which build is
running.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Build the server Docker image from any `master` commit (the `Docker`
workflow, `production` target).
2. Run the image and open the server debug panel (or inspect the version
reported to analytics).
3. Observe the version is `0.3.1` rather than the commit's real version.
**Root cause**
`resolveServerVersion()` derives the real version from `git describe`,
but the image has no `.git` (dockerignored), so it falls back to
`server/package.json`'s `version` — a static placeholder CI only
replaces with the real CalVer at publish time. Nothing bakes the real
version into the image.
**Paperclip version or commit:** reproduces on `master` (`4c55f0d8`) and
any published image.
**Deployment mode:** self-hosted and managed (both the `production` and
`-cloud` images).
**Installation method:** Docker image (`ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip`).
**Related PRs (dedup search):** #9103 (merged — added the `git
describe`-based source-install resolution this builds on) and #9637
(closed). Neither bakes a version into the image; this PR closes that
gap. No duplicate found.
## What Changed
- **`.github/workflows/docker.yml`** — checkout with full history + tags
(`fetch-depth: 0`), and a new `Compute build version` step that runs
`git describe --tags --match 'v*' --long --dirty` on the pristine runner
checkout. The result is passed as a `PAPERCLIP_BUILD_VERSION` build-arg
to both the `production` and `-cloud` image builds.
- **`Dockerfile`** — the `production` stage takes an `ARG
PAPERCLIP_BUILD_VERSION` (default empty) and bakes it into the runtime
`ENV`; the `cloud` stage inherits it via `FROM production`.
- **`server/src/build-version.ts`** (new) — `readBuildVersion()` /
`parseBuildVersion()`, mirroring `build-commit.ts`: reads
`PAPERCLIP_BUILD_VERSION` (or a `.paperclip-build-version` file) as a
single-token stamp.
- **`server/src/version.ts`** — `resolveServerVersion()` prefers the
baked build version when `git describe` is unavailable, parsing it with
the same rules as a live checkout (`parseGitDescribeVersion`), and
falling through to the existing `build-commit` stamp and package version
when unset. A live checkout's `git describe` still wins over any stamp.
- Tests for the new behavior and the precedence.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk ensure-build-deps && tsc
--noEmit` in `server/` — clean.
- `vitest run server/src/__tests__/version.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/build-version.test.ts` — **23 tests pass**,
covering: stamped version used when git describe fails, stamp parsed to
real CalVer, stamp preferred over the build-commit fallback, on-tag
stamp collapses to the release version, a pre-resolved stamp used
verbatim, and a live git describe still winning over a stamp.
- `git describe --tags --match 'v*' --long` for this commit →
`v2026.722.0-51-g<sha>`, which `resolveServerVersion()` reports as
`2026.722.0+51.git.<sha>` — no longer `0.3.1`.
- Not run locally: the full multi-arch image build (CI-only). The
workflow change is verified by inspection; the version is computed on
the pristine checkout before any lockfile refresh, so it carries no
spurious `-dirty`.
## Risks
Low. Additive and image-only:
- No runtime behavior changes for dev checkouts (git describe still
primary and wins over any stamp) or for local `docker build` (empty arg
→ server keeps its existing fallbacks).
- Not a breaking change; no schema or API surface. The stamp is
informational (version reporting only).
- `fetch-depth: 0` makes the release-image checkout fetch full
history/tags — a modest cost on a workflow that already runs at release
cadence with a 60-minute budget.
- Rollback: revert the commit; images simply return to reporting the
placeholder.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`, 1M-context variant), extended
thinking, with tool use / code execution — agentic edits, `tsc` +
`vitest` runs, and a `git describe` resolution check.
## 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 (bugfix, not core feature work)
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above (#9103, #9637 — related, not duplicates)
- [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 (`fix/build-version-stamp`)
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 (no
user-facing docs affected; behavior is documented inline in `version.ts`
/ `build-version.ts` and the workflow/Dockerfile)
- [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
> - Managed (cloud-hosted) deployments configure instances through
`PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG`, including a `plugins.autoInstall` key list
that the boot-time installer resolves against the bundled plugin catalog
> - The installer requires each bundled plugin's `dist/manifest.js`
(`server/src/services/bundled-plugins.ts`), but the published image only
ships the sandbox providers' *source* — they are intentionally excluded
from the pnpm workspace, and the Dockerfile never builds them
> - Every managed auto-install therefore logs `bundled plugin bundle not
present; skipping auto-install` and no sandbox provider can be
provisioned through managed config
> - Baking built plugins into the single published image would fix it
but makes every self-hosted pull carry the providers' `node_modules` for
a managed-only mechanism
> - This pull request adds a `cloud` Dockerfile target extending
`production` with built bundled plugins — parameterized by build arg and
currently just `daytona` — published alongside the default image with a
`-cloud` tag suffix
> - The benefit is working plugin auto-provisioning for managed
deployments while the self-hosted image stays byte-identical and the
cloud variant only carries what is actually deployed
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#10158 (filed for this problem; no prior issue existed — searched
for duplicate/related PRs and issues around bundled plugins, docker
image variants, and auto-install). Summary: **What happened:** on a
managed instance with `plugins.autoInstall: ["daytona"]` delivered via
`PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG`, boot logs `bundled plugin bundle not
present; skipping auto-install` with `pluginPath:
/app/packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona`, and the plugin is
never installed. **Expected:** the advertised bundled-catalog keys are
installable from the published image. **Why:** the image ships plugin
source without `dist/` — nothing in the Dockerfile builds the
workspace-excluded sandbox providers.
## What Changed
- `Dockerfile`: new `cloud-plugins` stage (based on `build`, so
devDependencies are available for `tsc`) that installs and builds each
provider named in the `CLOUD_BUNDLED_PLUGINS` build arg standalone
(`pnpm install --ignore-workspace --no-lockfile && pnpm build`, exactly
as the providers' READMEs prescribe), asserting `dist/manifest.js`
exists per plugin and failing loudly on unknown names; new `cloud` stage
= `production` + the built plugin tree. The arg defaults to `daytona` —
the only provider managed deployments auto-install today; every entry
adds its `node_modules` to the image, so the list grows only with actual
need (a one-line workflow change).
- `.github/workflows/docker.yml`: the existing build step is pinned to
`target: production` (without this, the new trailing stage would
silently become the default build target — this pin is what keeps the
self-hosted image identical); new metadata + build-push steps publish
the `cloud` target (with `CLOUD_BUNDLED_PLUGINS=daytona`) under the same
tag set with a `-cloud` suffix (`sha-<short>-cloud`, `latest-cloud`,
`<version>-cloud`), same schema labels, reusing the GHA layer cache
## Verification
- All seven sandbox providers build standalone from a clean checkout
with the exact commands the new stage runs, each producing
`dist/manifest.js` — so the current `daytona` default works and future
list additions are known-good
- The stage's shell loop was dry-run against the checkout (directory
existence + per-plugin assertion logic)
- Workflow YAML lints clean
- **Not run:** a full multi-arch `docker build` (no local docker
daemon). The `cloud` stage is additive and the default target is pinned,
so the risk is contained to the new build step; the first master build
after merge proves it end-to-end
## Risks
- Self-hosted behavior: unchanged. The default image build is pinned to
the `production` target, which produces the same layers as before this
change; the `cloud` stages run only for the new build step.
- The plugin installs in the `cloud-plugins` stage use `--no-lockfile`
(the providers are workspace-excluded and lockfile-less by design), so
plugin dependency resolution is not pinned at image-build time. This
mirrors the existing Plugins-page install path, which resolves from npm
at install time.
- CI cost: one additional build-push per master push. It reuses the
layer cache from the production build, so the marginal work is the
single plugin's build layers.
- An unknown name in `CLOUD_BUNDLED_PLUGINS`, or a provider that stops
producing `dist/manifest.js`, fails the cloud build loudly rather than
publishing a broken variant.
## Model Used
Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5[1m]` via Claude Code CLI —
extended thinking and tool use (code edits, standalone plugin build
verification, workflow lint).
## Checklist
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] Self-hosted behavior unchanged (default build target pinned to
`production`)
- [x] One clear change: publish a cloud image variant with built bundled
plugins
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Docker image publish workflow (`.github/workflows/docker.yml`)
builds and pushes the multi-arch `ghcr.io` image on every master push,
so users pulling the container get the latest code
> - The two newest master runs of that workflow failed, so no images
have been published past a recent master commit
> - The failures had two distinct causes: run
[30054330748](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/30054330748)
hit `ERR_PNPM_LOCKFILE_CONFIG_MISMATCH` (committed `pnpm-lock.yaml`
drifted from `patchedDependencies` in package metadata), and run
[30050197392](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/30050197392)
hit `no space left on device` during the multi-arch buildx export
> - This pull request hardens the publish job against both failure
modes: it refreshes the lockfile (lockfile-only, guarded) before the
build, and frees runner disk space before buildx setup
> - The benefit is that image publishing keeps working through routine
lockfile drift and the growing multi-arch build footprint, so `ghcr.io`
images stay current with master
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #8286 — same class of Docker-build lockfile mismatch failure
- Refs #8827 — pnpm 9.15.x pin / lockfile regeneration discussion
- Note: the immediate lockfile drift on master was fixed by #10132; the
refresh step here prevents the *next* drift from breaking image
publishing again
## What Changed
- Added a pnpm + Node setup and a **"Refresh lockfile for Docker build
context"** step to the image job in `.github/workflows/docker.yml`: runs
`pnpm install --lockfile-only --ignore-scripts --no-frozen-lockfile`,
exits cleanly if nothing changed, and **fails the job if anything other
than `pnpm-lock.yaml` was modified** by the refresh
- Added a **"Free runner disk"** step (before buildx setup) that prunes
the pnpm store, apt caches, preinstalled toolchains
(`/usr/share/dotnet`, Android SDK, Swift, Boost, PowerShell, GHC,
CodeQL/PyPy/Ruby toolcache), and dangling Docker state, logging `df -h`
before/after
- No changes outside the workflow file (54 added lines, nothing removed)
## Verification
- Pulled the logs of both failed master runs and matched each failure to
the step that addresses it:
[30054330748](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/30054330748)
failed with `ERR_PNPM_LOCKFILE_CONFIG_MISMATCH`,
[30050197392](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/30050197392)
failed with `no space left on device` during the buildx export
- Confirmed pnpm `9.15.4` in the new setup step matches the repo
`packageManager` field and the version used in the Dockerfile, so the
refreshed lockfile is generated by the same pnpm the image build
consumes
- Validated the workflow YAML parses cleanly
- The workflow triggers on master pushes / manual dispatch; the
definitive check is the first master run after merge — reviewers can
also `workflow_dispatch` it from this branch if desired
## Risks
- The lockfile refresh runs with `--ignore-scripts` and a guard that
aborts on any non-lockfile change, so it cannot silently pull unexpected
code into the image; worst case it fails the job with a clear diff
- The published image could be built from a refreshed lockfile that
differs from the committed one when drift exists — that keeps publishing
alive but can mask drift on master, which still needs the committed
lockfile fixed (as #10132 did)
- Disk cleanup removes preinstalled toolchains only on the ephemeral
runner for this job; other jobs/workflows are unaffected
- Low risk overall: additive steps in a single workflow file
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic) — `claude-fable-5` (Claude Code agent harness,
extended thinking, tool use). Used to diagnose the failing CI runs from
logs, author the workflow changes, and prepare this PR.
## 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 (no runtime code touched;
workflow YAML validated — see Verification)
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable (n/a — CI workflow
change)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (none
needed)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending — will confirm once
checks run)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending review pass)
- [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 publishes Docker images from this repo that self-hosters
and orchestration tooling deploy; the server refuses to start when its
database is missing any schema migration the build bundles
(`ensureMigrations`)
> - Anything that deploys these images therefore needs to know an
image's schema expectations *before* deploying it — today that requires
pulling the image or checking out the matching commit, both heavyweight
for tooling that just wants to answer "will this image boot against a
database migrated to N?"
> - Getting this wrong is expensive: an image ahead of the applied
schema crash-loops at startup and fails healthchecks after deployment
resources are already created
> - This pull request labels every published image with its bundled
migration set (last migration file and count), computed at build time
from `packages/db/src/migrations` in the same tree the image is built
from
> - The benefit is image/schema compatibility verification with two
cheap registry requests (manifest + config blob), no pull, and no drift
risk between label and image contents
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing public issue; inline description per the feature request
template:
- **Subsystem affected**: Docker image publishing
(`.github/workflows/docker.yml`), `packages/db` migrations
- **Problem or motivation**: deployment tooling cannot cheaply determine
which schema migrations a published image expects; the only options are
pulling the image or checking out the matching commit. Deploying an
image whose bundled migrations exceed the applied schema makes the
server refuse to start, so this check is needed *before* resources are
created.
- **Proposed solution**: OCI labels
(`io.github.paperclipai.schema.last-migration`,
`io.github.paperclipai.schema.migration-count`), computed from the
migrations directory at build time via the existing
`docker/metadata-action` step. Keys use org-based reverse-DNS (the
GitHub org) so the label contract survives product-domain migrations.
- **Alternatives considered**: a schema manifest published beside the
image (second artifact to keep in sync — rejected); encoding schema info
in tags (tags already carry semver/sha meaning — rejected).
- **Roadmap alignment**: checked `ROADMAP.md` — no overlap with planned
core work; this is build metadata only.
## What Changed
- `.github/workflows/docker.yml`: a `Compute schema migration labels`
step (`ls` + `sort` over `packages/db/src/migrations/*.sql`) feeding two
custom labels into the existing `docker/metadata-action` step.
## Verification
- Workflow YAML validated locally.
- The label-computation commands run against the current tree produce
`last=0181_decision_training_retention_policy.sql`, `count=180`.
- After merge, verify with: fetch the image config blob for a fresh
`sha-*` tag from ghcr and confirm both `io.github.paperclipai.schema.*`
labels are present.
## Risks
- Low. Labels are metadata only; no change to image contents. If the
migrations directory ever moves, the label step fails the workflow
loudly (`ls` exits non-zero) rather than publishing wrong labels.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic) — model id `claude-fable-5`, via the Claude Code
CLI harness with tool use (shell, file edits). Change authored and
verified agent-assisted, human-directed.
## 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 (YAML validation; label
commands — no app code changed)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (n/a — CI metadata
only)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (n/a —
workflow comment documents the labels)
- [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
Nicky Leach
Devin Foley
dependabot[bot]
Dotta
albttx