## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is an open-source agentic AI management platform that
ships anonymous usage telemetry to understand product health and
adoption.
> - The telemetry system has a generated contract
(`packages/shared/src/telemetry/generated/paperclip-telemetry.ts`) that
types every first-party event the product emits.
> - When a product change needs a new first-party event that is not yet
in the generated contract, contributors had no public workflow
explaining how to propose an event or later promote it into the contract
once accepted.
> - The gap leads to confusion at call sites: contributors either skip
tracking entirely or emit untyped events that bypass the privacy and
governance safeguards built into the contract.
> - This PR fills that gap by adding `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md` — a
public contributor guide that covers the full propose → promote
lifecycle: the `@ts-expect-error -- proposed-telemetry(...)` marker, the
canonical multi-line `track()` shape, the TS2578 expiry signal, and the
look-up-by-event-name promotion step.
> - `packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md` gains a cross-reference so
readers of the data-contract doc can find the workflow guide without
searching.
> - `README.md` gains a one-line pointer in the telemetry section so the
workflow is discoverable from the project entry point.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No pre-existing public GitHub issue covers this doc gap. Inline
description:
**Problem:** Contributors adding product telemetry for events not yet in
the generated contract have no documented workflow. The
`@ts-expect-error -- proposed-telemetry(...)` pattern exists in the
codebase but is undocumented, leading to inconsistent usage and missing
adoption signals.
**Solution:** A new public guide (`doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`) documents
the marker format, the recommended multi-line `track()` shape that
preserves the TS2578 expiry signal, the dimension rules, and the
promotion checklist. Cross-references are added to
`packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md` and the top-level `README.md`.
No related open PRs found.
## What Changed
- **New file `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`** — public contributor guide
for the propose/promote lifecycle: marker format, canonical multi-line
example, TS2578 single-line trap, dimension rules, and step-by-step
promotion checklist.
- **`packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md`** — added one-line
cross-reference pointing at `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md` for proposed
events not yet in the generated contract.
- **`README.md`** — added one-line pointer in the telemetry section so
the new workflow guide is reachable from the top-level project entry.
## Verification
This is a docs-only change. Verification steps:
1. Open `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md` and confirm it contains:
- The `^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9._:-]{1,63}$` event-name grammar.
- The exact `// @ts-expect-error -- proposed-telemetry(<issue>):
<rationale>` marker.
- The multi-line `client.track()` copy-paste example (directive on line
before event-name string).
- The explanation of the TS2578 single-line trap and the
look-up-by-event-name step.
- The promotion checklist in the "Promote An Event" section.
2. Confirm `packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md` cross-references
`doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`.
3. Confirm the `README.md` telemetry section links to
`doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`.
## Risks
Low risk — docs-only change. No runtime behavior, schema, or existing
telemetry emission is affected. The risk is that the guidance could
diverge from the actual enforcement in the codebase over time; mitigated
by linking to the generated contract and keeping the doc in the same
repo.
## Model Used
Claude — `claude-sonnet-4-6` (Anthropic Claude Sonnet 4.6). Tool use
enabled. Extended context. Produced via the Paperclip agentic workflow
with `Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>`.
## 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
> - It emits telemetry events to understand product usage — registered
event names are gated by a generated `PAPERCLIP_EVENTS` registry so the
client only enqueues known, schema-approved events
> - When product teams want to instrument a new behaviour, they must
first register the event name — but schema registration is a
commit-and-release cycle, which creates friction in fast-moving product
iterations
> - A proposal lane is needed: let developers mark a `track()` call with
a typed `@ts-expect-error` proposal marker so the event name can be
reviewed and tracked in CI before the schema is formally registered
> - The existing client had no guard against unregistered event names,
so any call with an out-of-registry name (or a prototype-inherited key)
would silently enter the queue, state, and network flush path
> - This PR adds an `Object.hasOwn(PAPERCLIP_EVENTS, eventName)` guard
at the entry point of `track()` to swallow unregistered calls before any
side effects, adds `scripts/extract-proposed-events.mjs` to scan source
for proposal markers and emit a v2 JSON manifest with provenance and
rationale, and documents the complete proposal workflow
> - The benefit is that new instrumentation can be proposed and reviewed
in code without touching the registered schema, and tooling can surface
missing rationale before events graduate to stable
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing GitHub issue covers this change. This PR introduces a new
feature.
**Feature motivation:** Paperclip's telemetry schema is intentionally
stable — registered event names are code-generated and gated. Product
engineers who want to instrument a new behaviour today must land a
schema change first, creating a two-step process that slows iteration. A
proposal lane lets developers write the instrumentation call ahead of
schema registration, protected by a compile-time `@ts-expect-error`
marker that an extractor script can surface for review. This PR
implements both the client-side safety gate and the extraction tooling.
Refs: #9518 (closed predecessor — docs-only; this PR supersedes it with
the full implementation)
## What Changed
- Added `Object.hasOwn(PAPERCLIP_EVENTS, eventName)` guard at the top of
`TelemetryClient.track()`: unregistered event names (including
prototype-inherited keys) are now swallowed before any state, queue, or
network operation
- Added `scripts/extract-proposed-events.mjs`: scans TypeScript source
for `@ts-expect-error -- proposed-telemetry(<issue>): <rationale>`
markers; emits a v2 JSON manifest per proposed event including name,
rationale, provenance (repo-relative file + line), and a
`rationale_missing` flag for CI enforcement
- Added `scripts/extract-proposed-events.test.mjs`: test suite covering
marker parsing, multi-line markers, path validation, out-of-repo
rejection, and the v2 schema output contract
- Added `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`: documents the proposal workflow,
the canonical multi-line marker example, rationale requirements, and how
to graduate a proposed event to stable schema
- Updated `packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md`: added "Proposed
Events" section to the Telemetry Data Contract per the contributing
guide requirement for telemetry changes
## Verification
Run all of the following from the repo root:
```sh
# Extractor unit tests
node --test scripts/extract-proposed-events.test.mjs
# Telemetry client + types tests
pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts \
src/telemetry/client.test.ts src/telemetry/client-types.test.ts \
--reporter=verbose
# (run from packages/shared)
# Type-check
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck
# Smoke-run the extractor in local-test mode
node scripts/extract-proposed-events.mjs --ref local-test
```
All four commands pass locally.
## Risks
- **Silent drop on unregistered events:** The `Object.hasOwn` guard
fails closed — any event name not in `PAPERCLIP_EVENTS` is silently
dropped. If the generated registry is missing an event that was
previously tracked, those calls will be silently lost. Mitigation: the
extractor script surfaces proposed events that need registration; the
TypeScript type system already enforces `TelemetryEventName ⊆
PAPERCLIP_EVENTS` at compile time.
- **Extractor is read-only:** `extract-proposed-events.mjs` reads source
and emits JSON; it does not modify any files. No runtime or schema risk.
- Overall risk: **low**. The guard is additive and defensive; the
extractor and docs are additive only.
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic
- Model ID: `claude-sonnet-4-6`
- Context window: 200 K tokens
- Capabilities: tool use, extended context, code generation
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The shared telemetry package (`packages/shared/src/telemetry`)
defines the public contract for first-party telemetry events — event
names, dimension shapes, and now retention windows
> - A new telemetry event, `codex.credential_health`, carries
credential-observability fields (enums, booleans, counts, coarse
buckets) — no token material and no PII
> - The retention window for this event and its class was undocumented
at the contract level, leaving data-infra and reviewers without a
discoverable source of truth
> - This pull request adds `retention.ts` as the canonical
retention-contract surface, assigns `codex.credential_health` to the
`operational_enum_count` class (90-day window), exports the contract
from the shared package, and updates the README
> - The benefit is that the retention window is discoverable from the
event definition rather than being implicit pipeline knowledge, and the
no-token/no-PII note is locked in a contract test rather than relying on
prose
## Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline description
follows the [feature request
template](.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml):
### Problem or motivation
`packages/shared/src/telemetry/` applies a 90-day retention window to
`codex.credential_health` events at the pipeline level, but this policy
is not stated anywhere in the shared telemetry contract. Without a
discoverable retention declaration, reviewers and data-infra must read
pipeline configuration to understand retention behaviour — there is no
contract-level source of truth. The `codex.credential_health` event
carries only enums, booleans, counts, and coarse buckets — no token
material and no PII.
### Proposed solution
Add a `retention.ts` module to the shared telemetry package that defines
the `operational_enum_count` retention class (90-day window) and maps
`codex.credential_health` to it. Export the contract from the package
index and add a focused contract test. Update the README with a
Retention section and a pointer in the Public Sources table. This is
additive documentation only — no runtime paths change.
### Alternatives considered
Keep retention implicit in pipeline configuration only. Rejected: this
leaves no discoverable, versioned contract for reviewers or data-infra,
and means every consumer must read pipeline config to understand
retention semantics. A schema-level declaration is the correct long-term
home.
### Roadmap alignment
Aligns with the telemetry contract hardening track — making implicit
operational knowledge explicit and testable at the shared-package level.
## What Changed
- **`packages/shared/src/telemetry/retention.ts`** (new): defines
`RETENTION_DAYS` (class → days) and `EVENT_RETENTION_CLASS` (event name
→ class). `operational_enum_count` is the only class: 90-day window for
enum/count/bucket events with no token material or PII.
`codex.credential_health` is the first entry. The `string` key type is
intentional to accommodate cross-system events (e.g. the Codex CLI) not
yet promoted to the first-party `PaperclipEventName` schema.
- **`packages/shared/src/telemetry/retention.test.ts`** (new): three
focused assertions — `operational_enum_count` is 90 days,
`codex.credential_health` is assigned that class, and the resolved
window is 90 days.
- **`packages/shared/src/telemetry/index.ts`**: exports
`RETENTION_DAYS`, `EVENT_RETENTION_CLASS`, and `RetentionClass` from the
shared package.
- **`packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md`**: adds `retention.ts` to
the Public Sources table and a new Retention section with a class
reference table and guidance for future assignments.
## Verification
- `git diff --check` passes (no whitespace errors)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run
src/telemetry/retention.test.ts src/telemetry/readme-contract.test.ts` —
runs the new contract tests and the existing readme-contract test
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — confirms the new
exports compile cleanly
- CI gates green
## Risks
Low risk. This is a documentation-only addition:
- No new telemetry event, dimension, emitter, or schema change
- No runtime code paths changed
- The new file is tree-shaken away in any consumer that doesn't import
from it
- `satisfies Record<string, number>` on `RETENTION_DAYS` ensures the
type stays correct as new classes are added
## Model Used
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`) — Anthropic, 200k context
window, tool use enabled, no extended thinking mode. Used for code
authoring and PR composition.
## 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: Harold Kim <harold.kim@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Harold Kim <harold-kim@paperclip.ing>
Adds the public telemetry data contract README, links it from contributor docs, and adds a focused README contract test for generated helper names.
Verification:
- git diff --check origin/master..HEAD
- pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/telemetry/readme-contract.test.ts
- PR CI green
- Greptile 5/5
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Nicky Leach