You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
OpenMontage is a video production system built around staged execution, approval gates, provider selection, and final rendering. In other words: it already behaves less like a single agent and more like a small production company.
What makes it interesting in a Paperclip context is that the workflow is concrete and high-stakes enough to stress the orchestration layer:
multi-stage pipeline: brief -> script -> scene plan -> assets -> compose
explicit human checkpoints between creative stages
provider/model locking once a generation path is approved
sample-before-batch generation to avoid burning budget
artifact handoffs between stages instead of loose chat context
long-running video generation jobs with real cost pressure
final Remotion-based render as a shippable deliverable
A concrete company template could look like this:
Executive Producer
Creative Director
Script Director
Scene Planner
Asset Director
Compose Director
Reviewer / QA
Example task:
Produce a 30-second sci-fi trailer with real motion clips, approval gates, provider consistency, and a final rendered export.
Why this feels like a natural Paperclip showcase:
Paperclip handles the org chart, governance, budgets, and heartbeats
OpenMontage supplies the specialized production workflow and media tooling
the result is something much more tangible than ?agent completed task?: an actual finished video
The part that feels especially aligned with Paperclip?s roadmap is the portable-company-template angle. A ?video production company? template seems like the kind of thing people could import, assign a campaign goal to, and immediately understand.
Questions I?d love feedback on:
Does this feel like the right level for Paperclip, or too workflow-specific?
What is the right Paperclip primitive for stage artifacts like brief/script/scene plan/render report?
For long-running generation work, would you treat those as normal tickets with heartbeats or as a separate job/artifact concept?
Would this be better framed as a company template / Clipmart package than a one-off integration?
If helpful, I can turn this into a concrete template proposal with the org structure, stage handoffs, budget rules, and artifact model spelled out.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
I think OpenMontage is a strong fit for Paperclip?s ?company, not just agent? framing.
Repo: https://github.com/calesthio/OpenMontage
OpenMontage is a video production system built around staged execution, approval gates, provider selection, and final rendering. In other words: it already behaves less like a single agent and more like a small production company.
What makes it interesting in a Paperclip context is that the workflow is concrete and high-stakes enough to stress the orchestration layer:
A concrete company template could look like this:
Example task:
Produce a 30-second sci-fi trailer with real motion clips, approval gates, provider consistency, and a final rendered export.
Why this feels like a natural Paperclip showcase:
The part that feels especially aligned with Paperclip?s roadmap is the portable-company-template angle. A ?video production company? template seems like the kind of thing people could import, assign a campaign goal to, and immediately understand.
Questions I?d love feedback on:
If helpful, I can turn this into a concrete template proposal with the org structure, stage handoffs, budget rules, and artifact model spelled out.
All reactions