ake/paperclip
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/alkimake/paperclip.git synced 2026-06-14 01:50:39 +09:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity
2572 commits 5 branches 0 tags 39 MiB
Commit graph

3 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Devin Foley
03e1e3abd2
Revert "Remove linked-issue gate from commitperclip" (#7426) 
Reverts paperclipai/paperclip#7423

Decided to keep this in place so we can automate issue reproduction in
the future. We all make mistakes. Even me, if you can believe it.
 2026-06-03 08:54:52 -07:00
Devin Foley
68401f82f3
Remove linked-issue gate from commitperclip (#7423) 
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The `commitperclip` PR quality gates enforce hygiene on every PR
before merge
> - One of those gates required PRs to link to a tracking issue, which
adds friction for small/internal changes that don't need a tracker entry
> - The repository owner decided the linked-issue requirement is no
longer the right default
> - This pull request removes the linked-issue gate (the script, its
tests, and the orchestrator wiring)
> - The benefit is fewer false-failing PR checks and one less mandatory
authoring step

## What Changed

- Deleted `.github/scripts/check-pr-linked-issue.mjs`
- Deleted `.github/scripts/tests/check-pr-linked-issue.test.mjs`
- Removed the `checkLinkedIssue` import, the
`Promise.resolve(checkLinkedIssue(...))` entry in the `Promise.all`
block, the `issueResult` destructured binding, and the
`...issueResult.failures` spread from
`.github/scripts/run-quality-gates.mjs`

## Verification

- `node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs` — 72/72 tests pass
across the remaining 4 gate suites
- `git grep -n
'check-pr-linked-issue\|checkLinkedIssue\|check-pr-linked'` — no matches
- Inspected `run-quality-gates.mjs` — no orphaned `issueResult`
references

## Risks

- Low risk. Pure removal of one optional gate; the
`.github/workflows/commitperclip-review.yml` workflow only invokes the
orchestrator and needs no changes. PR template and `CONTRIBUTING.md` do
not mention linked issues, so no docs change is required.

## Model Used

- Claude (Anthropic), `claude-opus-4-7`, extended-thinking mode, tool
use enabled

## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (existing
gate-suite tests still pass; removed gate's tests deleted with it)
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (n/a — CI script change)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (no
docs reference the removed gate)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
 2026-06-02 17:12:41 -07:00
brandonburr
96feaa331a
feat(commitperclip): add automated PR quality and security gates (#6469) 
Fixes #6470

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is an open-source AI agent platform receiving a high
volume of community PRs — currently 2,398 open
> - The contributor experience is broken: PRs sit for months with no
feedback, contributors don't know why they're stuck, and maintainers
spend review time on PRs that are missing basics
> - Common problems: no linked issue, no test coverage, incomplete PR
template, manually-edited lockfile — all catchable before human review
> - At the same time, accepting untrusted PRs from unknown contributors
is a real attack surface: malicious packages, secret injection,
tampering with CI scripts, and code touching the sensitive paths from
the April security advisories
> - This PR adds automated gates that run on every PR: quality failures
get a clear comment telling contributors exactly what to fix, security
concerns are silently flagged as draft advisories and block merge via a
pending check run
> - The benefit is a dramatically faster feedback loop for good-faith
contributors and a meaningful security layer for the maintainers
reviewing them

## What Changed

- **`.github/workflows/commitperclip-review.yml`** — new workflow using
`pull_request_target` (runs in base branch context, has secrets, never
executes PR code). Runs quality gates + security gates on every PR
open/update.
- **`.github/dependabot.yml`** — weekly automated dependency
vulnerability PRs for npm and GitHub Actions.
- **`.github/scripts/get-bot-token.mjs`** — generates a short-lived
commitperclip installation token from `COMMITPERCLIP_KEY` secret.
- **`.github/scripts/run-quality-gates.mjs`** — orchestrates 5 quality
gates, posts/updates a single consolidated comment on the PR.
- **`.github/scripts/check-pr-template.mjs`** — validates all 5 required
template sections, Thinking Path depth (≥3 sentences), Model Used not
placeholder.
- **`.github/scripts/check-pr-linked-issue.mjs`** — requires `Fixes
#NNN` or issue URL in PR body.
- **`.github/scripts/check-pr-test-coverage.mjs`** — requires at least
one test file in the diff.
- **`.github/scripts/check-pr-lockfile.mjs`** — blocks manual
`pnpm-lock.yaml` edits (only the refresh bot may change it).
- **`.github/scripts/check-pr-dependencies.mjs`** — informational
comment when new npm packages are added.
- **`.github/scripts/check-pr-security.mjs`** — 6 silent security
checks: secret patterns, CI workflow tampering, build script changes,
supply chain (new packages in lockfile), suspicious test patterns
(outbound network/shell exec/env var reads), and changes to the 9
sensitive path prefixes from the April advisories. When any fire:
creates a draft security advisory + sets `security-review` check to
`in_progress` (blocks merge). When clean: sets `security-review` to
`success`.
- **`actions/dependency-review-action@v4`** — per-PR dependency
vulnerability check (fails if new dep has known CVE).
- **44 unit tests** across all gate modules (`node:test`, no external
deps).

## Verification

Run all unit tests locally:
```bash
node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs
```
Expected: 44 pass, 0 fail.

End-to-end: open a PR missing the template, linked issue, and test files
→ commitperclip posts a consolidated comment listing all failures. Open
a PR with all gates satisfied → `✅ All checks passing` comment posted,
all check runs green.

## Risks

**`pull_request_target` security model:** This workflow runs in base
branch context and has access to secrets. It explicitly checks out `ref:
master` (never PR code) and reads the PR diff via GitHub API only — no
PR code is ever executed. This is the correct pattern for running
secret-bearing checks on fork PRs; deviating from it (e.g. checking out
the PR branch) would be a security vulnerability.

**False positives on security gates:** The sensitive-path gate flags any
PR touching the 9 path prefixes from the April advisories. Legitimate
fixes to those paths will trigger draft advisories. This is intentional
— those paths warrant a human look regardless. The `security-review`
check can be manually resolved by a maintainer once reviewed.

**commitperclip not yet installed:** Until the app is installed on this
repo and the `COMMITPERCLIP_KEY` secret is added, the workflow will fail
on the token generation step. The quality gate comment won't post, but
Dependency Review will still run independently.

## Model Used

Claude Sonnet 4.5, 200k context window, extended thinking enabled, tool
use: read/edit files, bash execution, GitHub API calls

## 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 run tests locally and they pass (44/44)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (44 unit tests
across all gate modules)
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A — CI only)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---

## One-time setup needed from you, Dotta

1. **Install commitperclip app** on this repo:
https://github.com/apps/commitperclip/installations/new
2. **Add `COMMITPERCLIP_KEY`** as a repository secret (Actions →
Secrets) — ask @brandonburr for the key
3. **Add `security_advisories: write` and `checks: write`** to the
commitperclip app permissions (commit-capital org → Settings → Apps →
commitperclip → Permissions)
4. **Install Socket.dev** from GitHub Marketplace for supply chain
scanning
5. **Branch protection** (optional but recommended): require
`commitperclip-review` and `security-review` checks to pass before merge

## Dashboard integration note

The `commitperclip-review` check run result maps cleanly to your PR
triage dashboard. A single filter on your Worker:

```javascript
const gatesCheck = checkRuns.find(r => r.name === 'commitperclip-review');
if (gatesCheck?.conclusion === 'failure') return null; // filter from queue
```

For security flags: `GET
/repos/paperclipai/paperclip/security-advisories?state=draft` — advisory
titles include `PR #NNN` for cross-referencing. PRs with a matching
draft advisory have `security-review` in `in_progress` state (grey
spinner, can't merge via branch protection).

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@devinfoley.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
 2026-06-01 09:52:53 -07:00