paperclip/cli
Dotta 889947c238
feat: add experimental native chat connectors (#13038)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - People also ask agents for work in their existing chat tools.
> - Each external conversation needs one task and a current authorized
source.
> - Retries, Stop, and provider failures must not duplicate work or
expose private data.
> - The first chat PR establishes the opt-in provider and data
contracts.
> - This PR adds experimental channel integration and its durable
control plane.
> - Users can request work from connected channels and inspect delivery
in Paperclip.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #13100 and #13092. This is the second of exactly two chat PRs.
Foundation #13100 is merged and changed 143 files. Runner prerequisite
#13092 is also merged. This PR changes 400 files against master, below
the 500-file review limit. It contains no wireframe images or HTML
galleries.

## What Changed

- Add native Slack, GitHub, Microsoft Teams, Telegram, and Discord chat
connections. Keep chat disabled unless the operator enables experimental
chat connectors. Preserve the production GitHub tool connection and its
normal setup path.
- Bind each provider bot identity to one immutable Paperclip agent. Bind
each admitted external conversation to one task. Paperclip owns tasks,
runs, permissions, and audit records.
- Add durable admission, per-conversation queues, questions, task
controls, progress, final replies, images, files, and delivery receipts.
Board comments remain internal unless explicitly sent to the channel.
- Check current identity, provider reach, resource access, credentials,
runtime generation, and exact source before provider effects. Keep
private responses private. Never send raw reasoning, private logs,
credentials, or tool arguments.
- Hold uncertain sends for explicit audited resolution. Make Board
Send-to-channel atomic and idempotent. Keep reconnect and setup
credentials in Paperclip secret storage.
- Preserve current native-runner authority across retries, lost
acknowledgements, and recovery. Keep immutable input and completion
contracts separate from newer user input. Receipt reconciliation cannot
launch a provider.
- Reconcile chat close/new ordering and provider-effect lock order.
Audit resource access changes in the same transaction. Submit only the
selected resource from each UI toggle so stale pages cannot undo
unrelated access changes.
- Drain Codex stdout before certifying process exit. Bound the drain
with the existing shutdown grace. Preserve observed terminal authority
without treating an undrained process as successful or reusable.
- Incorporate master `018ca5da` with its ACP Stop, mobile task layout,
runner packaging, and official lock changes. Preserve dedicated
chat-answer continuations in both directions when ordinary queued
comments are adopted after Stop.
- Fence late adapter readiness behind an earlier Stop for the same run.
Preserve verified cleanup for registered adapters. Handle single Stop,
agent pause, duplicate Stops, and failure release without creating a
false cancellation receipt.
- Incorporate master's `6dd48cad4` wake-queue extraction. Preserve exact
failed-chat retry authorization and lineage, retired question-source
suppression, and the block on generic recovery that would discard the
admitted source. Fresh deferred input retains its separate promotion
path.
- Incorporate master `2a05b5ed3` and its queue-admission extraction,
simplified transaction ports, and separate runner CI job. Preserve exact
durable receipts, actor separation, and dedicated-answer isolation
through the new module. A failed receipt insert rolls back the
accompanying deferred-wake merge.

## Verification

Current head: `afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a`, incorporating
master `2a05b5ed3457ea33efd6895520447d1d97fe98d8`. The conflicts are
resolved. This successor fixes two test-harness boundaries exposed by
CI: per-case route-module preparation and actual durable-save completion
before intentional runner termination. Production code and all existing
test/turn deadlines are unchanged. [Exact-head Greptile
review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13038#issuecomment-5587250594)
is **5/5**, completed September 10 at 13:20:55 UTC, with no actionable
findings or open review threads. [Fresh exact-head
CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34481724341)
passes **all 24 jobs**, including Build and both required aggregates.
Normal exact-head guarded merge was attempted and rejected by the
remaining branch approval policy: CODEOWNER review is required and no
human approval is present. Normal **squash auto-merge is enabled** as of
September 10 at 13:36:26 UTC. Requested CODEOWNERS have been notified;
no approval bypass or self-approval was used. Earlier-head results below
remain historical evidence, not qualification of this successor.

- Final exact-head Linux evidence: 995/995 chat integration cases; 36/36
agent-skills routes; 35/35 runner live-session cases, including real
process kill/resume; 1948 runner Vitest cases with three existing
benchmark/platform guards; 870/870 API-authority cases; and 104 browser
cases with four existing optional skips. Rust, conformance/replay, full
repository build, typecheck, canary, all server/workspace shards, and
both required aggregates pass with normal CI concurrency. Earlier failed
attempts remain recorded below.

- Latest test-only qualification: 141/141
route/permissions/authentication cases pass in separate cold forks, with
plain server types and independent review clear. The real-runner suite
passes 35/35, with plain runner types and independent review clear. A
controlled premature-save acknowledgement fails as expected; matching
ownership/effect/process evidence, rejected saves, real turn outcome,
test abort, and pre-kill liveness are covered. No local reproduction of
the original CI scheduling failure is claimed. The preceding [CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34479680858)
passes 21/24 jobs, including all 995 Linux chat cases and browser
aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional skips); only Build, the
skills serialized shard, and the required verification aggregate fail.
Its exact-head Greptile review was 5/5. Both failed job logs are
retained.

- Final fixture qualification: all eight focused Discord cases and all
995 chat integration cases pass. The exact modal statement/PID is
observed before taking the real connection lock; the test then proves
its actual blocking relationship before mutation. Original SQL
execution, provider behavior, negative assertions, and 1s/15s timeouts
remain unchanged. Independent review is clear and test/production hashes
remain frozen. The preceding [CI
attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34477184777)
passed 22 jobs, including Build/runner, typecheck, canary, all other
test shards, and browser aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional
skips); the two fixture failures and failed verification aggregate
remain recorded, not relabeled as a pass.

- Current queue-module composition: 308/308 recovery/batching/queue/Stop
tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 89/89 module tests, including real
PostgreSQL receipt-insert rollback; 24/24 workflow/module-boundary
tests; plain server and UI types. All four actual local process/ACP
browser paths pass in 1.4 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries,
stable reviewed source hashes. The initial boundary failure is retained;
its no-op service wrapper was removed without changing recovery context
or weakening the check. An exploratory standalone test-directory
typecheck fails because its new upstream transformation config is not a
standalone typechecking project; standard CI/build does not invoke it,
and no configuration was weakened to suppress those diagnostics.

- The preceding head `e02a63d462ce5d47433b0aeb632bb6fd20aab1ba` passed
[all 24 CI
jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34436462958)
and exact-head Greptile review at 5/5. Required CODEOWNER review
prevented its normal merge before master advanced again.

- Final extracted-module composition: 307/307 recovery, batching, queue
and Stop-control tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 49/49 module
tests including eight PostgreSQL adapter cases; and 19/19 issue-update
tests. Plain server types pass. All four actual local process/ACP
browser paths pass in 1.3 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries
in these cohorts, frozen source hashes, and independent review clear.

- The preceding head `3e4e1c1c` passes [all PR CI
jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34415826820),
including Build and required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`. Both the
original Rust failure and the previously load-sensitive lineage fixture
pass with unchanged Linux concurrency. Master advanced afterward and
required this reconciliation.
- Final master composition: 448/448 focused UI tests, 186/186 adapter
tests, 24/24 queue/control tests, and 11/11 packaging tests. Plain UI,
server, shared, and adapter types pass. Token gates and diff checks
pass. Independent server and UI reviews are clear.
- Stop-registration regression: both real-service cases fail against
exact `a95` source and pass with the fix. The full corrected
recovery/control suite passes 265/265. Duplicate-owner and failed-Stop
controls also pass. Plain server types pass. The readiness barrier
prevents provider startup without adding an acknowledgment to an already
terminal run.
- Final qualification strengthens terminal-field equality and repeats
both affected cases successfully on a fresh database. All four actual
local process/ACP browser paths pass again in 1.3 minutes, without skips
or retries. The final screenshot shows Cancelled, a paused subtree,
retained input, and no error toast.
- Two new actual-service regressions fail before the merge fix. They
prove that queued-comment adoption could consume a dedicated chat answer
or add unrelated input to that answer. The fixed four-case cohort
passes, including ordinary upstream continuation and adapter Stop
controls. Full recovery passes 257/257. All four actual local
process/ACP Stop browser flows pass in 1.4 minutes, without skips or
retries, on a fresh database.
- The unchanged runner artifact was qualified with 171/171 transport
tests, 870/870 API-authority tests, conformance 1/1, and replay 11/11.
Six controlled reader tests prove the exit/drain repair. Its local
serial Rust workspace passed 546 top-level cases plus two invoked
helpers; the later passing Linux CI supplies default-concurrency
evidence.
- Prior exact-source full chat integration passes 995/995. Settings
regressions cover concurrent stale pages, 501 destinations, pending
state, rejected updates, and explicit retry. These deterministic tests
do not prove live provider behavior.
- Retained failed attempts and their causes are in the [qualification
log](afe19299d0/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-chat-queue-and-webhook-repair.md).
The first merge adapter run timed out while macOS slept for 290 seconds.
Its unchanged repeat passed with a temporary sleep guard. No assertion,
deadline, or CI gate was weakened.

Review commands include `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest
run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts` and `pnpm exec
playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. Database suites require fresh
disposable databases. See the [browser
runbook](afe19299d0/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-04-chat-adapters-browser-e2e-runbook.md)
for provider setup and separate live acceptance steps.

## Risks

- This remains experimental. Deterministic tests and bounded live
evidence do not establish every provider feature, tenant, permission
layout, or media shape. Teams work-tenant qualification is still open.
- Failed and uncertain provider effects remain visible and can require
operator action. A transport receipt does not prove recipient
visibility.
- Native controller and runner artifacts must remain compatible.
Preserve lease ownership, terminal authority, source binding, and
quarantine during future changes.
- Access and audit rows commit together, but activity notifications
remain best-effort. This is not a new durable event outbox.
- The PR operation does not deploy a live server, replace its runner, or
change provider permissions. Remaining live qualification is documented
in the [temporary
handoff](afe19299d0/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-open-qualification-followups.md).

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex assisted with implementation, tool execution, testing, and
review. The work records `gpt-6-astra` assistance. The environment does
not report a context-window size. No private reasoning traces are
included.

## 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>
2026-09-10 10:06:45 -05:00
..
src feat: add experimental native chat connectors (#13038) 2026-09-10 10:06:45 -05:00
CHANGELOG.md chore: release v0.3.1 2026-03-12 13:09:22 -05:00
README.md fix(build): enforce Node 24 across Paperclip (#11792) 2026-08-21 10:17:52 -07:00
esbuild.config.mjs fix(build): enforce Node 24 across Paperclip (#11792) 2026-08-21 10:17:52 -07:00
package.json build(deps-dev): bump typescript from 5.9.3 to 7.0.2 (#11880) 2026-08-25 14:49:05 -07:00
tsconfig.json feat(connections): connect services from native task feeds (#13058) 2026-09-08 15:55:26 -05:00
vitest.config.ts feat(cli): add client commands and home-based local runtime defaults 2026-02-20 07:10:58 -06:00

README.md

Paperclip is the app people use to manage AI agents for work.

Quickstart · Docs · GitHub · Discord · Twitter · Website

MIT License Stars Discord



Paperclip is the app people use to manage AI agents for work.

Open-source orchestration for teams of AI agents.

If OpenClaw is an employee, Paperclip is the company.

Paperclip is a Node.js server and React UI that orchestrates a team of AI agents to run a business. Bring your own agents, assign goals, and track work and costs from one dashboard.

It looks like a task manager. Under the hood: org charts, budgets, governance, goal alignment, and agent coordination.

Manage business goals, not pull requests.

Step Example
01 Define the goal "Build the #1 AI note-taking app to $1M MRR."
02 Hire the team CEO, CTO, engineers, designers, marketers — any bot, any provider.
03 Approve and run Review strategy. Set budgets. Hit go. Monitor from the dashboard.

Works
with
OpenClaw
OpenClaw
Claude
Claude Code
Codex
Codex
Cursor
Cursor
Bash
Bash
HTTP
HTTP

If it can receive a heartbeat, it's hired.


Paperclip is right for you if

  • You want to build autonomous AI companies
  • You coordinate many different agents (OpenClaw, Codex, Claude, Cursor) toward a common goal
  • You have 20 simultaneous Claude Code terminals open and lose track of what everyone is doing
  • You want agents running autonomously 24/7, but still want to audit work and chime in when needed
  • You want to monitor costs and enforce budgets
  • You want a process for managing agents that feels like using a task manager
  • You want to manage your autonomous businesses from your phone

Features

🔌 Bring Your Own Agent

Any agent, any runtime, one org chart. If it can receive a heartbeat, it's hired.

🎯 Goal Alignment

Every task traces back to the company mission. Agents know what to do and why.

💓 Heartbeats

Agents wake on a schedule, check work, and act. Delegation flows up and down the org chart.

💰 Cost Control

Monthly budgets per agent. When they hit the limit, they stop. No runaway costs.

🏢 Multi-Company

One deployment, many companies. Complete data isolation. One control plane for your portfolio.

🎫 Ticket System

Every conversation traced. Every decision explained. Full tool-call tracing and immutable audit log.

🛡️ Governance

Approve hires, override strategy, pause or terminate any agent — at any time.

📊 Org Chart

Hierarchies, roles, reporting lines. Your agents have a boss, a title, and a job description.

📱 Mobile Ready

Monitor and manage your autonomous businesses from anywhere.

Problems Paperclip solves

Without Paperclip With Paperclip
You have 20 Claude Code tabs open and can't track which one does what. On reboot you lose everything. Tasks are ticket-based, conversations are threaded, sessions persist across reboots.
You manually gather context from several places to remind your bot what you're actually doing. Context flows from the task up through the project and company goals — your agent always knows what to do and why.
Folders of agent configs are disorganized and you're re-inventing task management, communication, and coordination between agents. Paperclip gives you org charts, ticketing, delegation, and governance out of the box — so you run a company, not a pile of scripts.
Runaway loops waste hundreds of dollars of tokens and max your quota before you even know what happened. Cost tracking surfaces token budgets and throttles agents when they're out. Management prioritizes with budgets.
You have recurring jobs (customer support, social, reports) and have to remember to manually kick them off. Heartbeats handle regular work on a schedule. Management supervises.
You have an idea, you have to find your repo, fire up Claude Code, keep a tab open, and babysit it. Add a task in Paperclip. Your coding agent works on it until it's done. Management reviews their work.

Why Paperclip is special

Paperclip handles the hard orchestration details correctly.

Atomic execution. Task checkout and budget enforcement are atomic, so no double-work and no runaway spend.
Persistent agent state. Agents resume the same task context across heartbeats instead of restarting from scratch.
Runtime skill injection. Agents can learn Paperclip workflows and project context at runtime, without retraining.
Governance with rollback. Approval gates are enforced, config changes are revisioned, and bad changes can be rolled back safely.
Goal-aware execution. Tasks carry full goal ancestry so agents consistently see the "why," not just a title.
Portable company templates. Export/import orgs, agents, and skills with secret scrubbing and collision handling.
True multi-company isolation. Every entity is company-scoped, so one deployment can run many companies with separate data and audit trails.

What's Under the Hood

Paperclip is a full control plane, not a wrapper. Before you build any of this yourself, know that it already exists:

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                       PAPERCLIP SERVER                       │
│                                                              │
│  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  │
│  │Identity & │  │  Work &   │  │ Heartbeat │  │Governance │  │
│  │  Access   │  │   Tasks   │  │ Execution │  │& Approvals│  │
│  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  │
│                                                              │
│  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  │
│  │ Org Chart │  │Workspaces │  │  Plugins  │  │  Budget   │  │
│  │ & Agents  │  │ & Runtime │  │           │  │ & Costs   │  │
│  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  │
│                                                              │
│  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  │
│  │ Routines  │  │ Secrets & │  │ Activity  │  │  Company  │  │
│  │& Schedules│  │  Storage  │  │ & Events  │  │Portability│  │
│  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
         ▲              ▲              ▲              ▲
   ┌─────┴─────┐  ┌─────┴─────┐  ┌─────┴─────┐  ┌─────┴─────┐
   │  Claude   │  │   Codex   │  │   CLI     │  │ HTTP/web  │
   │   Code    │  │           │  │  agents   │  │   bots    │
   └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘

The Systems

Identity & Access — Two deployment modes (trusted local or authenticated), board users, agent API keys, short-lived run JWTs, company memberships, invite flows, and OpenClaw onboarding. Every mutating request is traced to an actor.

Org Chart & Agents — Agents have roles, titles, reporting lines, permissions, and budgets. Adapter examples match the diagram: Claude Code, Codex, CLI agents such as Cursor/Gemini/bash, HTTP/webhook bots such as OpenClaw, and external adapter plugins. If it can receive a heartbeat, it's hired.

Work & Task System — Issues carry company/project/goal/parent links, atomic checkout with execution locks, first-class blocker dependencies, comments, documents, attachments, work products, labels, and inbox state. No double-work, no lost context.

Heartbeat Execution — DB-backed wakeup queue with coalescing, budget checks, workspace resolution, secret injection, skill loading, and adapter invocation. Runs produce structured logs, cost events, session state, and audit trails. Recovery handles orphaned runs automatically.

Workspaces & Runtime — Project workspaces, isolated execution workspaces (git worktrees, operator branches), and runtime services (dev servers, preview URLs). Agents work in the right directory with the right context every time.

Governance & Approvals — Board approval workflows, execution policies with review/approval stages, decision tracking, budget hard-stops, agent pause/resume/terminate, and full audit logging. Nothing ships without your sign-off.

Budget & Cost Control — Token and cost tracking by company, agent, project, goal, issue, provider, and model. Scoped budget policies with warning thresholds and hard stops. Overspend pauses agents and cancels queued work automatically.

Routines & Schedules — Recurring tasks with cron, webhook, and API triggers. Concurrency and catch-up policies. Each routine execution creates a tracked issue and wakes the assigned agent — no manual kick-offs needed.

Plugins — Instance-wide plugin system with out-of-process workers, capability-gated host services, job scheduling, tool exposure, and UI contributions. Extend Paperclip without forking it.

Secrets & Storage — Instance and company secrets, encrypted local storage, provider-backed object storage, attachments, and work products. Sensitive values stay out of prompts unless a scoped run explicitly needs them.

Activity & Events — Mutating actions, heartbeat state changes, cost events, approvals, comments, and work products are recorded as durable activity so operators can audit what happened and why.

Company Portability — Export and import entire organizations — agents, skills, projects, routines, and issues — with secret scrubbing and collision handling. One deployment, many companies, complete data isolation.


What Paperclip is not

Not a chatbot. Agents have jobs, not chat windows.
Not an agent framework. We don't tell you how to build agents. We tell you how to run a company made of them.
Not a workflow builder. No drag-and-drop pipelines. Paperclip models companies — with org charts, goals, budgets, and governance.
Not a prompt manager. Agents bring their own prompts, models, and runtimes. Paperclip manages the organization they work in.
Not a single-agent tool. This is for teams. If you have one agent, you probably don't need Paperclip. If you have twenty — you definitely do.
Not a code review tool. Paperclip orchestrates work, not pull requests. Bring your own review process.

Quickstart

Open source. Self-hosted. No Paperclip account required.

npx paperclipai onboard --yes

That quickstart path now defaults to trusted local loopback mode for the fastest first run. To start in authenticated/private mode instead, choose a bind preset explicitly:

npx paperclipai onboard --yes --bind lan
# or:
npx paperclipai onboard --yes --bind tailnet

If you already have Paperclip configured, rerunning onboard keeps the existing config in place. Use paperclipai configure to edit settings.

Or manually:

git clone https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
cd paperclip
pnpm install
pnpm dev

This starts the API server at http://localhost:3100. An embedded PostgreSQL database is created automatically — no setup required.

Requirements: Node.js 24.11+, pnpm 9.15+


FAQ

What does a typical setup look like? Locally, a single Node.js process manages an embedded Postgres and local file storage. For production, point it at your own Postgres and deploy however you like. Configure projects, agents, and goals — the agents take care of the rest.

If you're a solo entrepreneur you can use Tailscale to access Paperclip on the go. Then later you can deploy to e.g. Vercel when you need it.

Can I run multiple companies? Yes. A single deployment can run an unlimited number of companies with complete data isolation.

How is Paperclip different from agents like OpenClaw or Claude Code? Paperclip uses those agents. It orchestrates them into a company — with org charts, budgets, goals, governance, and accountability.

Why should I use Paperclip instead of just pointing my OpenClaw to Asana or Trello? Agent orchestration has subtleties in how you coordinate who has work checked out, how to maintain sessions, monitoring costs, establishing governance - Paperclip does this for you.

(Bring-your-own-ticket-system is on the Roadmap)

Do agents run continuously? By default, agents run on scheduled heartbeats and event-based triggers (task assignment, @-mentions). You can also hook in continuous agents like OpenClaw. You bring your agent and Paperclip coordinates.


Importing & Exporting Companies

Export a company to a portable package and import it into any other instance — local or cloud — from a local path or GitHub:

paperclipai company export <company-id> --out ./my-export
paperclipai company import ./my-export --dry-run
paperclipai company import org/repo --target new

The board UI has matching Export and Import pages in company settings: the Export page shows a fidelity panel listing what the bundle will not carry, and the Import page starts imported agents and routines paused by default, with a post-import activation step. See the Importing & Exporting guide for details.

Development

pnpm dev              # Full dev (API + UI, watch mode)
pnpm dev:once         # Full dev without file watching
pnpm dev:server       # Server only
pnpm build            # Build all
pnpm typecheck        # Type checking
pnpm test             # Cheap default test run (Vitest only)
pnpm test:watch       # Vitest watch mode
pnpm test:e2e         # Playwright browser suite
pnpm db:generate      # Generate DB migration
pnpm db:migrate       # Apply migrations

pnpm test does not run Playwright. Browser suites stay separate and are typically run only when working on those flows or in CI.

See doc/DEVELOPING.md for the full development guide.


Roadmap

  • Plugin system (e.g. add a knowledge base, custom tracing, queues, etc)
  • Get OpenClaw / claw-style agent employees
  • companies.sh - import and export entire organizations
  • Easy AGENTS.md configurations
  • Skills Manager
  • Scheduled Routines
  • Better Budgeting
  • Agent Reviews and Approvals
  • Multiple Human Users
  • Cloud / Sandbox agents (e.g. Cursor / e2b / Novita agents)
  • Artifacts & Work Products
  • Memory / Knowledge
  • Enforced Outcomes
  • MAXIMIZER MODE
  • Deep Planning
  • Work Queues
  • Self-Organization
  • Automatic Organizational Learning
  • CEO Chat
  • Cloud deployments
  • Desktop App

This is the short roadmap preview. See the full roadmap in ROADMAP.md.


Community & Plugins

Find Plugins and more at awesome-paperclip

Telemetry

Paperclip collects anonymous usage telemetry to help us understand how the product is used and improve it. No personal information, issue content, prompts, file paths, or secrets are ever collected. Private repository references are hashed with a per-install salt before being sent.

Telemetry is enabled by default and can be disabled with any of the following:

Method How
Environment variable PAPERCLIP_TELEMETRY_DISABLED=1
Standard convention DO_NOT_TRACK=1
CI environments Automatically disabled when CI=true
Config file Set telemetry.enabled: false in your Paperclip config

Contributing

We welcome contributions. See the contributing guide for details.


Community


License

MIT © 2026 Paperclip Labs, Inc

Star History

Star History Chart



Open source under MIT. Built for people who want to get work done, not babysit agents.