Prepare MCP Integration

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Inventory existing integration catalog entities, open PRs, branches, and current AppDefinitions/connectors before creating anything. Match by meaning, not title or slug.
5. 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.
6. 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

1. Create an isolated worktree and branch from the refreshed content target. Preserve unrelated local changes.
2. 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.
3. 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;
   • tool inventory, action risk, resource filters, account/tier/pricing constraints, administrator setup, and validation needs;
   • exact service involvement and system boundaries in Paperclip.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Put the issue in in_review and stop. Do not prepare App worktrees or code while the interaction is pending.
4. 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.
5. 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:

1. Create one isolated worktree, branch, and PR. Reconcile against current AppDefinitions and connector code first.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.