## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agents that use different model providers and
adapters.
> - Paperclip must keep agent execution rules clear and predictable.
> - The cheap-model profile added a second execution mode across
adapters, task recovery, APIs, and the UI.
> - That mode increased configuration and recovery complexity.
> - This pull request removes the cheap-model profile as a product
feature.
> - The benefit is one model-selection path for normal work and recovery
work.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This change simplifies model selection across agent configuration, task
execution, recovery, and adapter capabilities.
**Current behavior**
Paperclip exposes cheap-model profiles in adapter metadata, agent
runtime configuration, task overrides, recovery rules, APIs, and the
board UI. Recovery work can select a different model profile from the
agent's configured model.
**Proposed behavior**
Paperclip uses the agent's configured model for normal work and recovery
work. Status-only recovery stays limited to coordination work. The API
rejects legacy model-profile configuration. A migration removes stored
model-profile values from existing agent, issue, and historical revision
records.
**Reason and benefit**
One model path reduces configuration, API, UI, and recovery complexity.
It also prevents status recovery from becoming a separate product-level
model-routing feature.
**Breaking changes**
This change removes model-profile fields and adapter capability
metadata. Existing stored model-profile values are removed by an
idempotent migration. The validators reject new legacy profile values
with clear errors.
## What Changed
- Removed model-profile types, adapter capabilities, API fields, and
model selection logic.
- Removed cheap-model controls from agent and task UI surfaces.
- Kept status-only recovery limited to coordination context while normal
continuations use the configured agent model.
- Added an idempotent migration that removes stored model-profile values
from agents, issues, and configuration revisions without changing issue
update timestamps.
- Updated tests and product documentation for the single-model behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passes.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm build` passes.
- `pnpm test:run` completed with 5,607 passing tests and 8
environment-sensitive failures in unrelated fixed-port and
database-deadlock suites. The same failures repeated in an isolated
rerun. CI is the final clean-room result.
## Risks
- This is an intentional breaking change for clients that send
model-profile fields.
- The migration changes legacy agent, issue, and configuration-revision
JSON. It is idempotent and preserves unrelated fields and issue update
timestamps.
- The change is cross-cutting because the removed feature existed in
adapters, shared contracts, the server, plugins, and the UI.
> 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 with `gpt-5`. Reasoning and tool use were enabled. The
runtime did not expose the 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 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)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [ ] 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 orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The plugin system is the extension surface for optional product
capabilities without baking every workflow into core.
> - The LLM Wiki plugin package was reviewed in stacked PR #5592, which
targeted `pap-9173-llm-wiki-rest`.
> - The stack base PR #5597 merged to `master` before #5592 was merged
into that branch, so the plugin package never reached `master`.
> - A direct PR from `pap-9173-llm-wiki-rest` back to `master` would be
noisy because that branch has diverged from current `master`.
> - This pull request reapplies the reviewed
`packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/` package onto current `master` and
updates Docker deps-stage manifest coverage.
> - The branch intentionally no longer changes `pnpm-workspace.yaml`
after maintainer feedback; because the new package is now a root
workspace importer, the remaining integration question is how
maintainers want the root lockfile handled under the current PR policy.
## What Changed
- Added the LLM Wiki plugin package under
`packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/` from the merged PR #5592 head.
- Preserved the post-review cleanup from #5592: generated
design/screenshot artifacts are not committed, and `src/ui/index.tsx` /
`src/wiki.ts` are small public entrypoints.
- Added the new plugin package manifest to the Docker deps stage so
policy can validate package manifest coverage.
- Removed the earlier `pnpm-workspace.yaml` exclusion per maintainer
request, so the plugin is included by the existing `packages/plugins/*`
workspace glob.
## Verification
Current head:
- PGlite migration harness: ran migrations 001-003, verified old
non-space distillation unique constraints were removed, inserted
duplicate cursor and work-item keys in a second space, then reran
migration 003 successfully
- `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs`
- `git diff --check`
Known current-head install result after removing the workspace
exclusion:
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` fails because `pnpm-lock.yaml` has no
importer for `packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/package.json`.
Previously verified on the same plugin source before the
workspace-exclusion removal:
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build`
- `cd packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki && pnpm install --lockfile=false
&& pnpm test`
## Risks
- The branch now includes `packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki` in the root
workspace but does not update `pnpm-lock.yaml`. Root frozen install will
fail until maintainers choose a lockfile path that fits repo policy.
- Committing `pnpm-lock.yaml` directly on this PR conflicts with the
current PR policy check, while excluding the package from
`pnpm-workspace.yaml` was rejected in maintainer feedback.
- The package includes UI code already reviewed in #5592; generated
screenshot/design artifacts were intentionally removed per maintainer
request, so visual review should regenerate screenshots locally if
needed.
- The package depends on plugin host support from #5597, which is
already merged to `master`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Codex CLI, tool use and local code execution
enabled; context window not exposed.
## 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 the targeted checks listed above
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Stack context: #5592 was merged into `pap-9173-llm-wiki-rest` after
#5597 had already merged that branch to `master`, so this follow-up PR
is needed to carry the plugin package itself into `master`.
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Dotta