mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-07 06:16:06 -10:00
Devin FoleyandClaude Opus 5.5
4ef3fa4271
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Each stable release publishes curated release notes as its GitHub Release body. > - The stable release workflow reads `releases/beta/v2026.1023.0-beta.0.md` from master when it starts. It publishes that exact revision. > - The notes on master show v2026.1103.0 and the date 2026-11-03. That version did not ship. > - The promotion of `2026.1023.0-beta.0` now starts on 2026-11-06, so the version is `2026.1106.0`. > - This pull request sets the header to the correct version and date before the stable release starts. > - The benefit is that the release page shows the version and date that actually ship. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18842 (the previous pre-publish fix of these notes, for v2026.1103.0). Refs #17388 (the curated notes for the `2026.1023.0-beta.0` soak). **Problem** The stable notes for the promotion of `2026.1023.0-beta.0` show `# Paperclip v2026.1103.0` and `> Released: 2026-11-03`. The release for that version did not publish. `scripts/release.sh stable --print-version --date 2026-11-06` on master gives `2026.1106.0`. **Expected result** The notes show `# Paperclip v2026.1106.0` and `> Released: 2026-11-06`. The intro paragraph names v2026.1106.0. **Impact** The stable workflow publishes these notes as the GitHub Release body. If this pull request does not merge before the release starts, the release page shows the incorrect version and date. ## What Changed - Set the H1 to `# Paperclip v2026.1106.0`. - Set the release line to `> Released: 2026-11-06`. - Set the version in the first sentence of the intro paragraph to v2026.1106.0. - No other text changes. The diff is 3 lines in one file. ## Verification - `scripts/release.sh stable --print-version --date 2026-11-06` on master `d728be8fbffc95a903ffd58bc527c7e8f1a1c704` gives `2026.1106.0`. - The file has no other `1103` or `2026-11-03` strings after the change. - The audit of the content against `v2026.1023.0..d69631b01b9c658f80bf8bed389863dce82643e1` did not change since #18842. I ran it again: - `git rev-list --count` = 515. This matches the notes. - All 255 cited PR numbers are in the range. Five cited PRs (#14180, #16356, #16401, #16403, #16976) are squash commits without a `(#N)` suffix. - `git shortlog -sn` without `github-actions[bot]` gives 27 contributors. This matches the notes. The 21 credited handles do not change. - The migrations and the defaults in the Upgrade Guide were checked in #18842. The range did not change. - The file on this branch has blob `16f05f22d4d71de3a568b493de2ddcb8eadb7859`. This is identical to the locally checked edit. ## Risks - Low risk. This is a change to documentation only, in one file. - If the UTC date changes before the release starts, the release workflow keeps `stable_date=2026-11-06` to match this header. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, with tool use (shell, git, GitHub API). Used to check the version, run the audit again, and write the change. ## 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass (documentation only; no tests apply) - [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable (not 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 - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <[email protected]>