mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-02 02:07:25 +08:00
DottaandPaperclip
18989a9e73
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its evaluations test both the Runner and complete product workflows. > - The guides and run histories are in separate places. > - The shared Evalbook viewer can make the test boundary unclear. > - This pull request names the two families and adds a guide, authoring skills, and a public hub. > - Contributors can choose the correct test and inspect its history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** Runner and Product E2E evaluation guides, case-authoring procedures, and public result navigation. **What's wrong?** There is no single entry point. A report format can be mistaken for an execution boundary. There are no dedicated case-authoring skills for these two families. **Suggested fix** Add a guide and three skills. Link both existing histories from a public hub. Keep existing campaign URLs and grading unchanged. ## What Changed - Add `doc/evals.md` and links from existing guides. - Add the `paperclip-evals`, `add-runner-eval`, and `add-product-e2e-eval` skills. Install copies in `~/paperclipai/.agents/skills`. - Add a static hub builder that reads the existing public history feeds. - Show a dated snapshot for each family. Label partial campaigns and preserve measurement dates across report refreshes. - Document publication and refresh commands for https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals/. ## Verification - Seven Python summary tests pass: `python3 -m unittest discover -s scripts/evals-hub -p 'test_*.py'`. Run these checks directly; this PR does not modify package scripts. - All three skills pass the skill-creator `quick_validate.py` check with `/usr/bin/python3`. - Build tested with saved history fixtures and the live public feeds. - Desktop and mobile browser checks pass. The mobile page has no horizontal overflow. - Published https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals/. Browser check: HTTP 200, no page errors, all eight links return HTTP 200, no mobile overflow. - Independent skill exercises found the existing Notion-decline case and a direct Runner permission-denial case. Roster validation with an explicit run ID passes. - Missing refresh measurement date: regression fails before the fix and passes after it. - `git diff --check` passes. - No paid evals were run for this documentation and reporting change. The preceding head passed typecheck, build, server/workspace tests, runner verification, browser E2E, and the canary dry run. Checks for the latest commit are pending. Local repository-wide typecheck, test, and build were not repeated because no product code changed. ## Risks The hub is a dated static snapshot. It can lag behind the linked histories until an operator refreshes it. A changed history schema stops the build. Existing archives and grades are not modified. The published guide link is pinned to the reviewed commit so branch deletion cannot break it. Later builds can use master. ## Model Used OpenAI gpt-6-astra for implementation and review. OpenAI gpt-5.6-luna for documentation and independent skill checks. Both used repository tools and code execution. Context window sizes are not exposed by this session. ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (latest commit pending) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (preceding head was 5/5; latest commit pending) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>