## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip coordinates agents that make and verify repository
changes.
> - Local verification currently defaults to the complete Vitest suite.
> - Contributor instructions also require broad local checks at each PR
handoff.
> - CI already owns conservative affected-test selection and broad
final-revision checks.
> - This pull request adds local selection and pass reuse from those
existing contracts.
> - Agents can get focused feedback and use CI to close the remaining
coverage gaps.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Developer verification scripts and contributor guidance. Related
selection work: #18398 and #18464.
**Problem or motivation**
An agent that repeats an unchanged local verification step starts the
complete suite again. The handoff guidance also duplicates broad CI
coverage locally.
**Proposed solution**
Add `pnpm verify` for the actual working tree. Select affected Vitest
specifications with the CI task policy and dependency graph. Reuse
successful checks whose inputs are modeled. Run opaque checks fresh.
Report exit 2 when broader verification is required. Update the
contributor contract to accept applicable final-revision CI coverage.
**Alternatives considered**
Plain `vitest related` omits filesystem and opaque dependencies.
Commit-only cache keys miss dirty files. Running full local suites at
every handoff repeats CI work.
**Roadmap alignment**
This is repository development tooling. It does not change the product
roadmap.
## What Changed
- Add `pnpm verify`, `--explain`, `--base`, `--full`, and `--no-cache`.
- Reuse CI selection and exact runner ownership for dirty, staged,
committed, deleted, renamed, and untracked inputs.
- Keep native server suites and serialized suites in their local owners.
Keep six sequential chat shards.
- Cache selected passes within one worktree. Hash source, fixtures,
installed package contents, dependency bindings and installation
metadata, dotenv files, child environment, toolchains, platform, and
selection.
- Run opaque consumers fresh. Preserve failed, interrupted,
mutated-input, and partial-coverage outcomes.
- Update AGENTS.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, and DEVELOPING.md guidance. Record
the shared `verify` command as the sole exception to the package-script
rule. Register the new tests in the existing CI contract-test command.
- Add optional root/environment inputs to shared graph helpers. Existing
CI defaults stay the same.
## Verification
- Fourteen new integration tests pass locally across focused runs with
real Vitest selection and execution; CI colors are covered.
- 51 existing targeted selector/input, project-isolation, and
stable-runner checks passed. Four relevant runner contracts also pass
after the workspace change.
- Repeated unchanged execution skips reusable tests. Source,
environment, installed code, dependency bindings, and new untracked
tests invalidate results.
- Installed-code mutation with a restored modification time still
invalidates a cached pass. Internal skill-directory links preserve
reuse.
- Workspace B/C tests prove discovery, reusable/fresh partition
execution, pass reuse, and external-input failure. Chat selection
produces exactly six single-worker partitions.
- A deliberate unrelated failing test is omitted by narrow selection and
caught by `--full`.
- Red/green regressions prove fingerprints preserve file boundaries and
reject edits made between diff discovery and snapshotting.
- Opaque external-file changes still fail on a subsequent run. Source
mutation and process interruption cannot publish reusable passes.
- `pnpm verify --explain` works in the checkout and requests broad CI
coverage for this tooling change. No duplicate full local suite was
started.
- [Final-revision
CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42117291789)
passed on `ed85d96ddff82c05c325948680b593b0f48c473d` (attempt 2). The
scoped Canary retry preserved all passing test/build results.
- [Greptile
review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/19345#issuecomment-6670050175)
is 5/5; all four review threads are resolved.
- The additional Paperclip review concluded neutral because its
execution stopped; it produced no assessment.
## Risks
- Pass reuse depends on conservative dependency classification. Opaque
consumers, external database/live settings, and non-isolated projects
retain fresh or broad coverage.
- Local passes cover selected Vitest checks. Required CI,
build/typecheck, release, browser, and platform acceptance remain
separate obligations.
- Cross-worktree caching and cross-agent scheduling are outside this
change.
- The initial installation scan reads dependency contents;
stat-validated, worktree-local digest memoization avoids rereading
unchanged contents. Subsequent scans still inspect file identity and
nanosecond change/modification times.
- No dependency lockfile or workflow changes.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, max reasoning, with local shell and file
tools. Context window size is not exposed by this host.
## 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 <[email protected]>
