## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane operators use to manage AI-agent
companies.
> - Board operators rely on the settings UI and CLI docs to understand
which product surfaces are stable to depend on.
> - Experimental features already existed in the product, but the
operator-facing contract around them was too soft and too fragmented.
> - That created a risk that users would enable experiments without
being told clearly that they can break, change, or disappear.
> - The docs and the in-product settings page both needed the same
explicit warning language so the contract is visible at the moment of
decision.
> - This pull request adds that warning to the board-operator guide, CLI
references, and the experimental settings page.
> - The benefit is clearer operator expectations without changing the
underlying feature flags or rollout behavior.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this docs/polish gap.
Problem description:
- Board operators could enable experimental features without a clear
operator-facing statement that those features are opt-in and come
without compatibility guarantees.
- The docs site, repo CLI reference, and in-product experimental
settings page did not present one consistent warning contract.
- This PR closes that gap by documenting the risk explicitly where
operators discover and enable those settings.
Related public search:
- Searched public issues/PRs for related work with `gh search issues
--repo paperclipai/paperclip 'experimental features warning'` and `gh
search prs --repo paperclipai/paperclip 'experimental features
warning'`.
- Reviewed open PR #6165 during that search and found it unrelated; it
changes experimental auth/routing flags rather than documenting
experimental-feature risk.
## What Changed
- Added a new board-operator guide at
`docs/guides/board-operator/experimental-features.md` that defines the
Paperclip contract for experimental features.
- Registered that guide in `docs/docs.json` so it appears in the public
docs navigation.
- Added matching caveat language next to `instance
settings:experimental` in `docs/cli/control-plane-commands.md`.
- Added the same caveat to `doc/CLI.md` so the repo CLI reference does
not drift from the published docs.
- Added a single page-level warning banner to
`ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.tsx` stating that
experimental features are opt-in, carry no compatibility guarantees, and
may change, break, or be removed.
- Added a targeted UI test in
`ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` that asserts
exactly one page-level warning renders with the new risk language.
## Verification
- `jq empty docs/docs.json`
- `git diff --check`
- `cd ui && pnpm vitest run
src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx`
- Manual review of the warning contract across:
- `docs/guides/board-operator/experimental-features.md`
- `docs/cli/control-plane-commands.md`
- `doc/CLI.md`
- `ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.tsx`
UI note:
- This is a copy-level warning addition rather than a layout rework. I
did not attach before/after screenshots in this PR body.
## Risks
- Low risk: this changes operator-facing documentation and warning copy,
not feature-flag behavior.
- The main failure mode is wording drift across docs and UI in future
edits, which is why this PR adds the same contract to all relevant
operator-facing surfaces.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md` before opening this PR. This is docs/UI polish
around an existing experimental surface, not overlapping roadmap-level
core feature work.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex Local using `gpt-5.4` with high reasoning and tool use
for coordination, review, docs changes, and PR preparation.
- Anthropic Claude Local using `claude-opus-4-8` with high reasoning and
tool use for the in-product warning and targeted UI test.
## 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
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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>
fce3b439af