## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip skills guide agents through repeatable work.
> - The plan-to-task skill guides agents when they create issue graphs
from plans.
> - The prior guidance could encourage an issue for every concrete
deliverable.
> - That guidance can create unnecessary subtasks for work that one
owner can complete end to end.
> - This pull request defines the boundaries that justify a separate
task.
> - It also adds a merge-back pass that removes task splits without a
qualifying boundary.
> - The benefit is a smaller issue graph with clear ownership,
dependencies, and review gates.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Issue type**
Unclear or confusing documentation.
**Where is the issue?**
`skills/paperclip-converting-plans-to-tasks/SKILL.md`
**What's wrong?**
The skill says that each concrete deliverable must become an issue. This
can make agents split one end-to-end job into tasks for each step, file,
component, or phase. The result is more coordination work without a real
execution boundary.
**Suggested fix**
Tell agents to start with one end-to-end task. Permit separate tasks
only for ownership, parallel work, dependencies, independent review or
approval, or substantial follow-up work. Require a merge-back pass
before agents create the issue graph.
## What Changed
- Added a rule to use the fewest tasks that can complete and verify the
work.
- Defined the boundaries that qualify work for a separate issue.
- Added a merge-back pass for proposed subtasks without a qualifying
reason.
- Updated dependency, parallel work, verification, and checklist
guidance to enforce the smaller graph.
## Verification
- Ran `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/frontmatter.test.ts`.
- Result: 1 test file passed and 21 tests passed.
- Ran `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD`.
- Confirmed that the PR changes one skill file and has no lockfile,
workflow, image, or migration changes.
## Risks
- Low risk. This change updates skill guidance only.
- Agents might combine work too aggressively. The qualifying boundaries
preserve separate ownership, parallel execution, dependencies, review,
approval, and substantial follow-up work.
> 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 through Codex. The exact deployment ID and context window
are not exposed. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, command
execution, and GitHub tools.
## 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>
3435920ae1