Prepare MCP/vendor integrations through cited research, a content PR, exact-revision human approval, and one governed Paperclip connector PR per approved connection. Use for new integration research and delivery; not for ad hoc connector coding that bypasses the playbooks.
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Prepare MCP/vendor integrations through cited research, a content PR, exact-revision human approval, and one governed Paperclip connector PR per approved connection. Use for new integration research and delivery; not for ad hoc connector coding that bypasses the playbooks.
Take an input link or vendor brief through two separate phases: a reviewable
research PR in paperclip-content, then connector implementation in Paperclip
App only after a human accepts the exact research revision and connection set.
Preserve These Boundaries
Treat paperclip-content/integrations/README.md as the research contract and
paperclip-content/integrations/skills/integration-harness/SKILL.md as its
entrypoint. Reference and run them; do not copy their schemas, templates,
state machines, reconciliation rules, or internal gates into this skill.
Treat paperclip/doc/connections/CONNECTOR-PLAYBOOK.md on the implementation
target branch as the connector contract. Follow it end to end; do not
substitute remembered behavior or the examples in this skill.
Finish Phase A with a research-only PR. Do not create an App implementation
branch, task, or code change before the research gate is accepted.
Bind acceptance to one research PR head SHA and an explicit connection set.
Acceptance does not cover later commits or additional connections.
Create one Paperclip App PR per approved connection. Shared prerequisite
infrastructure or broad playbook corrections may use separate prerequisite
PRs; never combine distinct connections into one connector PR.
Keep vendor credentials in approved secret storage. Never put secrets in
briefs, catalog files, issue text, plans, fixtures, screenshots, logs, branch
names, commits, or PRs.
Preflight
Load the current Paperclip skill for checkout, comments, interactions,
durable state, and final disposition. Load the standard PR-preparation skill
(prepare-paperclip-pr for Paperclip agents) before opening any PR.
Resolve the input URL(s), vendor/platform, intended MCP endpoint or API,
target repositories and branches, and the Paperclip issue that owns the
work. Ask only when these cannot be determined safely from the brief.
Fetch both repositories and record the target commit hashes. Read the
canonical files from those target commits, not from a possibly stale working
tree. Refresh and reread them again immediately before Phase B.
Inventory existing integration catalog entities, open PRs, branches, and
current AppDefinitions/connectors before creating anything. Match by
meaning, not title or slug.
Determine whether the input describes one connection or several. A
connection has one coherent credential owner, endpoint/transport, resource
boundary, and independently reviewable action catalog. Record the proposed
split early and refine it as evidence arrives.
Prefer official vendor documentation, protocol/RFC sources, safe live
probes, and current Paperclip code. Use third-party sources only to find or
qualify primary evidence. Record every factual claim with URL and access
date; mark unresolved facts explicitly instead of guessing.
Do not mutate a vendor account, register a client, grant consent, or invoke a
write tool merely to research it. A safe unauthenticated metadata probe is
allowed when it does not change vendor state. Route credential- or
browser-dependent validation through an explicit QA task when it becomes
necessary.
Keep The Run Resumable
Maintain one concise checkpoint in the Paperclip issue or an issue document:
current phase and owning next action;
input links and target repository commits;
research PR URL and exact head SHA;
proposed and accepted connection sets;
research-gate interaction and accepted target revision;
one branch, PR URL/head, and verification summary per connection;
prerequisite/playbook PRs and remaining blockers.
On every restart, reconcile this state with files, branches, PRs, reviews, and
interactions before creating anything. Reuse semantic matches. Never duplicate
catalog entities, regress terminal pipeline phases, reuse stale acceptance, or
open a second PR for the same connection accidentally.
Phase A: Research In paperclip-content
Create an isolated worktree and branch from the refreshed content target.
Preserve unrelated local changes.
Intake the supplied links or brief through the integration harness. Let the
harness load its sibling skills for discovery, feature research, proposal
reconciliation, user stories, UI planning, implementation planning,
examples, and docs briefing. Obey every internal human gate in
integrations/README.md; the final research gate below does not replace
them.
Build the complete reviewable OKF/planning package required by the current
pipeline. For MCP work, make the evidence sufficient to decide:
official endpoint and transport;
auth mode, credential ownership, scopes, discovery and DCR behavior;
endpoint-precedence and redirect-origin constraints;
token lifetime, rotation, refresh, revocation, and re-auth behavior;
exact service involvement and system boundaries in Paperclip.
Ground every Paperclip-surface claim in the maintained surface map and
current App code. Reconcile before creating, update required indexes/logs,
and preserve lineage, timestamps, immutable slugs, and absorbing phases as
required by the research contract.
Open one research-only PR to paperclip-content. Include the full planning
package and any tightly coupled content-playbook correction, but no
Paperclip App implementation.
Run focused validation and the required PR workflow. Do not present the gate
until checks are green, Greptile is 5/5, all actionable review comments are
resolved, and the recorded PR head still matches the reviewed head.
Gate Research Before Building
Create or update a dedicated issue document that names:
the research PR URL and exact head SHA;
the content and App source commits used for research;
the proposed connection set and why each item is independent;
known limitations, prerequisites, and deferred questions.
Create a Paperclip request_confirmation interaction targeted at that issue
document's latest revision. Use a revision-specific idempotency key and a
wake_assignee continuation policy so either acceptance or rejection wakes
the assignee. Ask the reviewer to include revision notes when rejecting.
Put the issue in in_review and stop. Do not prepare App worktrees or code
while the interaction is pending.
On rejection, use the interaction response and any revision notes to revise
Phase A only and present a new revision. If the research PR head, gate
document, or connection set changes, withdraw/supersede the old confirmation
and request a fresh one.
On acceptance, verify that the response still targets the latest gate
revision and recorded PR head. Implement only the accepted connections.
Phase B: Implement In Paperclip App
Refresh the App target branch, reread the current Connector Playbook, and record
its commit before writing code. For each accepted connection:
Create one isolated worktree, branch, and PR. Reconcile against current
AppDefinitions and connector code first.
Follow the Connector Playbook's current decisions for catalog entry versus
plugin, reuse path, AppDefinition, transport, credential refs, resource
filters, action catalog, governance, wizard behavior, health/catalog,
availability, revocation, audit, and validation.
Derive OAuth behavior from evidence. In particular, do not ship a complete
authorization/token endpoint pair for a discovery-capable MCP vendor unless
it is intentionally authoritative: current broker precedence can make that
pair bypass stored endpoints, challenge hints, and RFC discovery. Probe DCR
and redirect constraints safely, reuse registered clients, and cover token
rotation/terminal refresh failures when the vendor requires them.
Add the connection documentation mandated by the current playbook,
including the service-involvement statement, a sequence diagram with exact
auth/discovery/registration/callback endpoints, and step-by-step
administrator setup.
Add focused automated tests and the production-like validation hook for
connect, catalog discovery, an allowed read, an ask-first write, a
denied/quarantined action, revoke, and audit. Include negative company,
actor, resource, and changed-schema cases where applicable.
Use a first-class QA child issue only when real credentials, vendor consent,
or browser evidence cannot be completed safely by the implementing agent.
Link it as a blocker and give QA exact, secret-safe steps and expected
evidence.
Run the standard PR-preparation workflow for this connector PR. Do not hand
it back for merge until focused verification passes, all required checks are
green, Greptile is 5/5, and every actionable comment is resolved.
Complete and report each connection independently. Failure or review delay on
one connection must not cause another connection to be bundled into its PR.
Feed New Rules Upstream
At both phases, compare new evidence with the two canonical playbooks.
Record vendor-specific facts in that vendor's catalog artifacts, manifest,
docs, and tests.
When evidence changes a reusable schema, gate, template, auth rule, risk
policy, documentation standard, or validation rule, update the owning
upstream playbook/skill/template and add regression coverage where possible.
Include a narrow, tightly coupled correction in the relevant research or
connector PR. Use a separate prerequisite PR when the correction affects
several connectors, changes shared infrastructure, or would obscure the
one-connection review.
Rebase/reconcile dependent work and rerun affected planning and verification
after the correction. If the accepted research PR or connection set changes,
repeat the research gate.
Never knowingly leave implementation, tests, and the owning playbook
inconsistent.
Finish
Before marking the issue done, report the exact research PR and head, accepted
gate revision, every connector/prerequisite PR and head, focused verification,
CI/review state, and any upstream playbook changes. Leave the issue in_review
only for a real pending interaction/reviewer/monitor path, blocked only for a
named owner and concrete unblock action, and done only when every approved
connection has a merge-ready PR and no required follow-up remains on the issue.
