## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The board UI renders agent/user-authored Markdown in task
descriptions, comments, and other work-thread surfaces
> - Those Markdown surfaces often live inside cards and containers that
constrain overflow
> - Ordered-list markers are painted outside the list content box, so
too little inline padding can clip multi-digit markers at the left edge
> - This pull request keeps the shared Markdown list gutter compact
while giving ordered lists enough marker space for two- and three-digit
counters
> - The benefit is that long numbered lists in board-facing Markdown
render correctly without widening unordered-list gutters or changing
API, data, or editor behavior
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue found.
Bug description:
- What happened: rendered Markdown ordered lists with multi-digit items
could show clipped marker digits when the list was flush against an
overflow-constrained container.
- Expected behavior: ordered-list markers such as `10.` and `100.`
should render fully in task descriptions and comments.
- Steps to reproduce: render a `.paperclip-markdown` ordered list with
at least 100 items inside a container that clips overflow and has no
extra left gutter.
- Paperclip version/commit: current `master` before this PR.
- Deployment mode: board UI, deployment-mode independent.
Related search result:
- Refs #2049 because it also touches rendered Markdown list
presentation, but it styles GFM task-list checkboxes and does not
address ordered-list marker clipping.
## What Changed
- Set the shared `.paperclip-markdown` list padding to a compact
`1.5rem` baseline for bullets and lists.
- Added an ordered-list-only `2.5rem` padding override so
outside-positioned multi-digit ordered-list markers have enough
inline-start room.
- Added a focused stylesheet regression test that verifies
unordered-list gutters stay compact while ordered lists keep the larger
marker gutter.
- Restored the exact maintainer-skill marker phrase expected by the
existing server skill utility contract test, fixing an unrelated
latest-head CI failure from current `master`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/MarkdownListStyles.test.ts`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts`
## Risks
- Low risk: ordered lists in rendered Markdown get a larger left gutter;
unordered lists keep a smaller shared gutter.
- Low risk: the skill-doc marker change is text-only and matches the
existing server test contract.
- No database, API, migration, auth, adapter, or telemetry changes.
> 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, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled software-engineering
session. Context window size was not exposed by the runtime.
## 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>
b15115e05b