mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-27 02:44:50 +01:00
codex/agent-chat-design
31
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
e095b84dab |
feat(connections): connect services from native task feeds (#13058)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents use connections to reach external services. > - A fresh native task can have no service tools installed. > - The agent needs a way to discover services and ask the responsible person for access. > - This pull request brings the existing connection-intent flow into native task execution. > - The person can connect from the task, and the agent can continue with updated tools. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Native runner tool authority, connection intents, task interactions, and shared connection setup. **Problem or motivation** A task that needs an unconnected service cannot finish its work. Leaving the task to configure access also loses context. A resolved request must survive a restart and resume the correct agent once. **Proposed solution** Expose connection discovery and access requests as server-owned native tools. Render a durable task card and use the shared setup dialog. Persist outcome delivery and start a fresh provider session after access is ready. **Alternatives considered** Sending the person to the Connections page adds navigation and does not solve continuation. Polling for authorization consumes runs and can create duplicate requests. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing connection-intent runtime and setup experience. It reuses the shared access model and the native runner. Related: #12345, #12347. The service-slug fix in #12906 is related but separate. Companion evaluation PR: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/21. ## What Changed - Expose `connections_search` and `connection_request` with server-bound company, task, agent, and responsible user. Preserve the legacy entry points. - Discover catalog services and authorized custom connections. Check installation, identity, health, and executable permissions before reporting ready. - Keep pending cards through ordinary messages. Reuse requests and retire stale ownership. Put Connect at the right of Not now. - Reuse the shared setup flow in a task dialog. Keep access additive and default to the requesting agent. Recover from cancelled or blocked OAuth windows with a new-tab fallback. - Persist outcome delivery with an idempotent wake key. Resume in a fresh session and recheck ownership before dispatch. - Add native browser fixtures, offline Storybook states, server contracts, and evaluation fixtures. Update guidance and documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm build`: passed after replaying the change on current master. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook`: passed. - New continuation-policy regression cases: 16 passed. - Docker-backed PostgreSQL regressions passed for requester-only OAuth access, assignment-only expiry, terminal expiry, and credential-free setup metadata. - Shared setup and task-card UI tests: 121 passed, including configured MCP reconnect URL recovery and preserving user edits across refetch. - Storybook browser checks: all 119 passed on the latest reconnect fix. - `pnpm test:run`: 4,734 tests passed in the first server group, but embedded PostgreSQL startup failures and resulting cleanup errors prevented a complete local pass. All Linux CI lanes passed on the latest reviewed commit. One external-object route test returned an unexplained 500 on the first run; it passed twice locally and the failed shard passed on retry without code changes. - Earlier feature-checkout evidence: three deterministic native browser journeys passed, including restart delivery and an actual fixture tool result. Legacy scripted coverage also passed. All 59 added stories were inspected in light and dark themes. - Live Notion testing recorded successful provider reads. The manual test used a local-trusted instance. It does not prove authenticated/cloud deployment or every provider journey. - Native browser rerun reached the embedded PostgreSQL startup limit before bootstrap, so the latest checkout’s full native browser journey remains unverified. Both OAuth page/task regression cases passed against isolated Docker-backed PostgreSQL 17. They verify no premature task access, requester-only completion, additive retries, and reconnect preservation. - Applied both new migrations twice to isolated PostgreSQL 17. Foreign keys remained intact, duplicate active delivery keys were rejected, and failed delivery records did not block retries. Reviewer path: start a fresh test drive, enable the native runner, use an agent that can perform work directly, and ask it to summarize a Notion page. Connect from the card, then verify the resumed provider call and source-linked answer. The default test-drive CEO is instructed to delegate, so it can introduce an unrelated hiring step. ## Risks - Two additive migrations create durable deliveries and a partial unique wake index. They are idempotent. The wake index can require a maintenance window on large tables because migrations run in a transaction. - OAuth and continuation cross asynchronous boundaries. Tests cover ownership changes, retries, additive access, and restart delivery; live provider behavior still varies. - The latest requester-scope fix has not yet been exercised through live OAuth. GitHub, API-key, authenticated-user, and all recovery journeys are not claimed as verified. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6-based Codex assisted with implementation, tests, and review using tools and code execution. The runtime does not expose the exact model version, context window, or reasoning setting. Live evaluation used `gpt-5.6-luna`; manual native testing used `gpt-5.6-sol`. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used and disclosed unavailable runtime details - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this extends existing connection work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the feature issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [ ] I have run all required tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented risks - [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 <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
0c1e7504c0 |
fix(runner): persist warm Daytona workspaces across turns (#12904)
## Thinking Path > - Daytona preserves a stopped sandbox filesystem, but deleting or replacing a sandbox removes its only remote copy. > - Warm reuse therefore improves latency but cannot be Paperclip's durability boundary. > - The host execution workspace must remain authoritative after every successful turn, while same-run recovery must avoid overwriting unexported remote work. > - Result proposal, workspace export/merge, and terminal completion need a durable, replayable ordering so a crash never starts a duplicate provider turn. > - A paid browser acceptance suite must exercise both legacy Codex and Runner Codex for three real turns on one continuously warm Daytona sandbox. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12901. Runner Codex did not previously export successful Daytona workspace changes back to the authoritative host workspace. That made warm reuse depend on Daytona's remote filesystem and left deleted/replacement sandboxes without a reliable reconstruction path. The existing paid fixture also lacked a focused three-turn continuity case for both Codex adapters. ## What Changed - Persist versioned, atomic native workspace-sync descriptors and durable seeds in `PAPERCLIP_HOME`, without credentials or a database migration. - Classify fresh, warm, replacement, and same-run-recovery workspace preparation explicitly; ambiguous lease/root/digest evidence fails closed. - Finalize native workspace export/merge after semantic result proposal and before run completion, with idempotent replay that never submits a second provider turn. - Surface legacy Codex workspace restoration failures instead of masking them, while preserving an earlier provider error when both fail. - Keep healthy reusable Daytona leases warm for legacy and native adapters, stamp finalized workspace generations, and retain existing cleanup behavior for per-turn or unhealthy leases. - Preserve Runner Codex's provider process/session across warm turns, including bounded post-terminal tail draining and exact authority rotation. - Add the exact paid `daytona-warm-continuity` matrix: - `legacy-codex × daytona × warm-three-turn` - `runner-codex × daytona × warm-three-turn` - Drive all three turns through the browser, verify ordered file continuity and stable lease/workspace/runtime identities, capture per-turn timings, and delete the sandbox immediately after assertions. - Document `pnpm test:e2e:runner -- --suite daytona-warm-continuity`; no package script was added. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` — passed, including migration safety (no migration added) - Focused server/runner Vitest coverage — 144 passed - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit` — 114 passed - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` — passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:codex` — 66 passed, 1 helper ignored - `native-session-executor.test.ts` — 139 passed, including safe fail-closed cleanup after remote runner identity capture failure - Paid local browser acceptance, exact post-rebase Linux/amd64 runner binary: - Runner Codex — passed in 1.7m; 3 runs; lease outcomes `created, resumed, resumed`; 10/10 matchers; cleanup passed - Legacy Codex — passed in 2.7m; 3 runs; lease outcomes `created, resumed, resumed`; 10/10 matchers; cleanup passed - [Protected paid GitHub Actions campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34026735033) against `7da42a91b95fa7fb2df126668ef7e37afb3b2b9d` — passed 2/2: - Runner Codex — 3 runs; lease outcomes `created, resumed, resumed`; evidence and cleanup passed - Legacy Codex — 3 runs; lease outcomes `created, resumed, resumed`; evidence and cleanup passed - Merge/enforcement, S3 history, and Pages publication jobs passed - Paid result artifacts were scanned for both provider credentials; neither secret was present. - Current PR checks — 31 passed, 1 expected Storybook skip; Greptile 5/5; Superagent security scan passed - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed - Confirmed no `package.json`, lockfile, migration, or SQL changes. ## Risks - Workspace synchronization now sits on the terminal-success path, so a remote export failure deliberately prevents false success. Retryable state retains its lease/seed; loss of the only unexported remote copy fails closed. - Warm provider reuse has strict identity and quiescence checks. Mismatched or ambiguous evidence blocks reuse rather than risking concurrent provider work. - The paid suite incurs Daytona and Codex cost only in the existing protected scheduled/manual workflow and explicitly destroys its sandbox after each cell. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 agentic reasoning, repository inspection, real browser E2E execution, Rust/TypeScript test execution, and GitHub Actions diagnostics. ## 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 linked an existing issue or described the issue in-PR - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have documented the dedicated suite invocation without adding a package script - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the current revision - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on the current revision - [x] I will address all reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8f9f850c20 |
fix: limit plan-to-auto transition to plan confirmation (#12695)
<!-- This pull request uses ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue thread controls plan review and agent work modes. > - A user can accept a full plan or confirm a smaller checkbox action. > - Only full plan acceptance must start automatic agent work. > - The current transition did not check the interaction kind. > - This pull request limits the transition to an accepted plan confirmation. > - The benefit is a safe and clear start of agent work after plan approval. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An accepted confirmation that targeted a plan could change an issue from planning mode to standard mode. This included a checkbox confirmation. A checkbox action is not approval of the full plan. **Expected behavior** Only acceptance of a current full-plan confirmation starts automatic agent work. Other interaction kinds and rejected confirmations keep the current work mode. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Put an issue in planning mode. 2. Create a checkbox confirmation that targets the current plan revision. 3. Accept the checkbox confirmation. 4. Observe that the issue enters standard mode before this fix. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem was present on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** The problem is in the core server logic and is not deployment-specific. ## What Changed - Require a full `request_confirmation` interaction before plan acceptance starts automatic work. - Add service tests for acceptance, rejection, stale interaction kinds, and unchanged standard-mode behavior. - Check the route activity log for the planning-to-standard mode change. - Document the plan acceptance transition in the V1 contract. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts` passes 140 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - `pnpm test:run` was also started. Unrelated workspace-runtime tests failed because fixed local runtime ports were occupied or offset on the shared host. The same failures reproduce alone. The changed test files pass alone. ## Risks - Risk is low. The change adds one interaction-kind guard to the existing transition. - A full accepted plan confirmation still changes planning mode to standard mode and an eligible review issue to todo in one transaction. - Checkbox confirmations, questions, rejection, and standard-mode issues keep their previous behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose the exact model suffix or context window. ## 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 <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandDev Agent
|
25cf079ec5 |
feat(runner): add Codex-native application integration (#12591)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner package is useful only when the application can start, observe, and recover a native Codex run safely. > - Existing direct adapters must keep their current execution and finalization paths. > - The application boundary therefore needs additive persistence, authorization, coordination, and recovery behind an explicit experimental adapter. > - This pull request adds that Codex-only boundary without activating generalized providers, remote environments, or the later task/SDK surfaces. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Shared contracts, database persistence, adapter utilities, server native-runtime services, and the experimental Paperclip Runner adapter. **Problem or motivation** The already-landed runner package has a qualified Codex path, but the application needs durable native-run state, guarded runtime selection, authenticated coordination, tool security, finalization, and recovery before the experimental adapter can be exercised safely. **Proposed solution** Add a Codex-only `paperclip_runner` application path behind the existing default-off native-runner setting. Bind native state and coordination to company/run identity, preserve persisted-run recovery, and leave every direct adapter on its existing legacy execution path. **Alternatives considered** The earlier stack boundary introduced a generalized executor and remote-environment lifecycle here. That made this PR depend on implementations in higher PRs and changed reusable sandbox behavior globally. Those pieces are now deferred together to #12592. **Roadmap alignment** ROADMAP.md does not list a conflicting native-runner integration project. This change adds the application boundary for the existing Runner architecture. ## What Changed - Added native run/result/finalization/provider-trace persistence, shared validators, and idempotent migration/replay coverage. - Added guarded Codex-only runtime selection, authenticated PRP coordination, recovery, finalization, and interaction services. - Added run/company-bound tool-gateway authorization, credential redaction, SSRF protections, and replay-safe behavior. - Added the explicit `paperclip_runner` adapter behind the default-off rollout setting. - Preserved legacy answered-question wake projection and direct-adapter execution/finalization paths. - Hardened cancellation so only owned in-memory child processes are signaled; persisted recycled PIDs/process groups are never trusted. - Retained the narrow Claude ACPX isolated-context security follow-up discovered after #12590. - Deferred the generalized executor, provider ingress, remote lifecycle, SDK/lab/eval work, release-process changes, and lockfile. ## Verification - Changed-file delta against `master`: 133 files. - GitHub Actions is the authoritative verification environment for this PR. - Full CI, security, and Greptile review will run on this lowest unmerged stack PR. - Local tests/build/typecheck were not run because this checkout is resource constrained. - Static diff/reference checks pass, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged. ## Risks - This touches central heartbeat and agent-route code, so legacy compatibility is the primary risk. - Runtime selection remains Codex-only and explicit; direct Codex, Claude, OpenCode, process, HTTP, and plugin adapters remain on their existing paths. - Fresh native starts fail closed while the rollout flag is off; persisted native records remain readable and recoverable. - Cancellation, company/run binding, tool calls, status decisions, and completion writes are guarded or replay-safe. > For core feature work, check [ROADMAP.md](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in #dev before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with repository tools, code execution, and parallel agent review. ## 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 linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — GitHub Actions is authoritative for this resource-constrained checkout - [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 risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI and security gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open actionable findings - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge ## Stack - Position: 3 of 5 overall; lowest of 3 currently unmerged - Base: `master` - Previous: [#12590](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12590), qualified Claude ACPX runtime — merged - Next: [#12592](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12592), generalized Codex executor, task experience, and developer SDKs --------- Co-authored-by: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b3343dbd64 |
feat(connections): add self-serve intent runtime (#12345)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents need a governed way to request app connections during issue work. > - The catalog now describes the available providers and setup methods. > - A request must become a durable, company-scoped intent before an operator acts on it. > - This pull request adds that intent runtime across server, agent, CLI, and shared contracts. > - The benefit is a safe bridge from agent need to operator-approved setup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 7 of 11. It depends on stack 6 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add connection intent types, validation, service logic, and routes. - Add agent runtime tools and CLI support for connection requests. - Add issue-thread interaction support for connection intents. - Add runtime, route, adapter, and contract tests. - Hold the final resolved-continuation row lock through asynchronous adapter preparation until an actual process spawn, so parking or reassignment cannot cross that boundary. - Report Hermes Gateway's first remote run request through the shared dispatch hook so the resolved-intent lock is released at the true dispatch boundary. - Revalidate the addressed user's live non-viewer membership and connection-management authority for every intent mutation, including OAuth completion. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` - Result: 176 tests passed. - `pnpm build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts` (32 passed; includes non-process dispatch lock-release coverage) - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/connection-intents-service.test.ts -t "addressed-user mutation"` (1 passed) - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t "binds OAuth callback completion to the initiating board session"` (1 passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter test -- src/gateway/server/execute.test.ts` (23 passed; includes dispatch-hook ordering and exactly-once coverage) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter typecheck` ## Risks - A malformed intent could create an unusable operator request. - Validators and company checks reject invalid or cross-company requests. - The final continuation gate holds the issue row lock through adapter preparation until process or remote dispatch; later operator changes use the normal active-run interruption path. - The change does not add a database migration. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## 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 linked the public source pull request with `Refs #` - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change 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 <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
10d0555189 |
fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. **What happened?** Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. **Expected behavior** Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and test execution. ## 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 linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandCodex
|
edb8083538 |
fix(server): serialize interaction review verdicts
Lock the issue before accepting or rejecting review confirmations, reauthorize against the current policy, and cover concurrent policy tightening. Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com> |
||
|
|
b847e8b6f6 |
perf(server): reduce issue detail request overhead (#10414)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent work > - Opening an issue fans out into several authenticated issue-detail reads, so repeated work on that path directly affects perceived latency > - Those reads repeated issue and authorization lookups, returned full private JSON even when unchanged, and performed non-critical bookkeeping writes on the request path > - Interaction reads also performed lifecycle writes even though `GET` must be read-only > - This pull request adds request-scoped reuse, private conditional responses, read-only interaction access, and bounded write debouncing without crossing actor, request, or company boundaries > - The result is less database, serialization, logging, and response-body work while preserving authorization and interaction lifecycle invariants ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This is the server-only latency phase. Related work is tracked separately in #10415 (aggregate view), #10416 (warm navigation, merged into the base), and #10463 (bundle split). This pull request intentionally excludes those scopes. **What happened?** Opening an issue detail view caused avoidable server costs: repeated issue and authorization reads within one request, full private JSON responses when a representation was unchanged, writes during interaction-list reads, production debug transport setup, and immediate bookkeeping writes for cloud tenant activity and board-key usage. **Expected behavior** All successful JSON `GET /api/issues/:id/*` responses should support strong private ETags and `304 Not Modified`. Repeated work may be reused only within the current request. `GET /interactions` must not modify stored interactions. Non-critical activity timestamps may be debounced without weakening authentication or stale instance-admin cleanup. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start Paperclip in local development or self-hosted server mode. 2. Open one issue and request its detail subresources with the same authenticated actor. 3. Repeat a successful JSON request with its `ETag` in `If-None-Match`. 4. Observe `304 Not Modified`, no interaction writes from `GET /interactions`, and unchanged authorization boundaries. **Deployment mode / installation** - Local development or self-hosted server - Built from source - Core server behavior; not adapter-specific ## What Changed - Added strong ETags and `Cache-Control: private, must-revalidate` to successful JSON reads under `/api/issues/:id/*`, including standards-compliant `If-None-Match` handling. - Added request-scoped promise memoization for issue and authorization lookups; no authorization result survives the request. - Made `GET /interactions` read-only, moved supersession and terminal-state handling to mutation paths, and prevented plugin callers from accepting or rejecting interactions after an issue closes. - Removed the production debug-file logger transport while preserving development formatting. - Debounced cloud-tenant activity and board-key `lastUsedAt` persistence, while keeping stale instance-admin deletion unconditional and authentication checks per request. - Added focused tests for ETags, request isolation, authorization lifecycle behavior, interaction invariants, logger configuration, and retry-safe debounce behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/private-json-etag.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts` — 2 files, 23 tests passed. - Focused Vitest run covering request memoization, authorization, interactions, plugin orchestration, logger, cloud tenant, board auth, and issue services — 9 files, 264 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. - Scope guardrails: 21 changed files under `server/src`; no lockfile, workflow, migration, UI, aggregate-view, or bundle-split changes. ## Risks - Strong ETags hash each successful serialized JSON response. This adds a small CPU cost but avoids transferring unchanged bodies. - Debounced bookkeeping timestamps can lag by the bounded debounce interval. They are non-critical usage metadata; authentication still runs per request, and stale instance-admin deletion remains unconditional. - Legacy pending interactions on terminal issues are projected as expired by reads and are finalized only by mutation paths. The stored record remains unchanged on `GET` by design. - No database schema or migration changes are included. > This is a focused performance correction and does not duplicate a planned core feature in `ROADMAP.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.3-codex` for the initial implementation and `gpt-5.6-sol` for isolation, verification, and PR preparation, with reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, and GitHub CLI access. The runtimes did not expose authoritative context-window sizes. ## 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 <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
scotttong
|
815e49bb7c | feat: make chat-style tasks the default experience (#11101) | ||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
814cb33676 |
feat(server): allow agents to resolve review confirmations (#10939)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue reviews use thread confirmations to record explicit verdicts > - The server allowed users to resolve review confirmations but rejected all agent actors > - This one-way rule prevented an eligible agent reviewer from completing a review > - The existing review policy already defines which actor can submit a verdict > - This pull request applies that policy to agent confirmation verdicts on writable issues > - The benefit is a consistent review gate for users and agents with preserved audit attribution ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Builds on: #10931 (merged into master before this PR) - Refs #8617 ## What Changed - Allow eligible agents to accept or reject pending review confirmations on issues they can write. - Allow a creator agent to withdraw its own pending review confirmation when the review policy permits it. - Reuse the review verdict policy check for users and agents. - Require an explicit, same-run review-confirmation binding so unrelated board-only confirmations stay protected. - Preserve board-only tool action confirmations and existing user attribution. - Add route and service tests for agent accept, reject, withdrawal, human-only denial, and user attribution. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts` (256 passed after rebasing onto master and the atomic binding fix) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - The change expands who can resolve pending review confirmations. The existing issue write checks and review policy limit this access. - Tool action confirmations remain board-only. - The pull request depends on the review policy helper from #10931, which is now merged into master. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. The roadmap marks Agent Reviews and Approvals as shipped. This pull request fixes a narrow server behavior gap in that shipped capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-5.6-sol`, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose the context window size. ## 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 <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Opus 4.8
|
f950952de7 |
fix: reliably show plans in the Plan pane and restore sticky plan confirmation CTAs (#10930)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Chat-style tasks show an agent's plan in a dedicated "Plan" pane, and a plan confirmation lets the user accept or request changes to that plan > - When an agent asked for confirmation but never actually published the plan document (it only wrote the plan in a comment or a question), the Plan pane rendered empty, and the confirmation call-to-action that used to sit pinned at the bottom of the pane had disappeared > - A user asked to confirm a plan they cannot see, with no visible CTA, is stuck — the feature silently fails > - This pull request closes the gap on both sides: it prevents plan confirmations that don't point at a real, latest plan revision, it teaches agents to publish the plan document before confirming, and it restores the sticky confirmation action bar and an explanatory empty state so the pane never goes silently blank > - The benefit is that when a plan is expected, it reliably shows up in the right pane with reachable accept/revise actions ## Linked Issues or Issue Description <!-- No public GitHub issue exists; describing in-PR per the bug template. --> **Bug report** - **What happened:** A task in planning mode could present a plan confirmation while the Plan pane stayed empty (no plan document rendered), and the plan-card confirmation CTAs that were previously pinned to the bottom of the Plan pane no longer appeared. - **Expected behavior:** When a plan is expected, the plan document appears in the Plan pane; when a plan is genuinely missing, the pane explains why rather than showing nothing; and the accept/request-changes CTAs stay visible and reachable while the plan scrolls. - **Steps to reproduce:** Put a task in planning mode with the chat-style task view enabled, have an agent create a plan confirmation without first publishing the `plan` document, and open the Plan tab — the pane is blank and the confirmation actions are missing. - **Deployment mode:** Local dev and self-hosted; UI + server. Related PR (not a duplicate): #9609 "Pin pending confirmations by composer" pins confirmations in a different surface (the composer); this PR restores the Plans-pane action bar and the server/agent guarantees behind it. ## What Changed - **Server:** Reject a `request_confirmation` whose target is a plan document unless a plan document exists and the target points at its *latest* revision, so a confirmation can never reference a plan the pane cannot render (`readPlanTarget` is now exported for reuse). - **Agent instructions:** The CEO and default agent instruction bundles now spell out a plan-publish contract — publish the `plan` document, re-`GET` it and capture `latestRevisionId`, then create the confirmation targeting that revision; never present a plan only in a thread comment or via `ask_user_questions`. - **UI — sticky CTAs:** Restore the plan confirmation action bar pinned to the bottom of the Plans tab so accept/revise stay reachable while the plan scrolls. - **UI — diagnostics:** Keep the Plan tab visible whenever an issue is in planning mode (even before a plan document exists) and show an empty state explaining why the pane is empty instead of rendering nothing. - **UI — annotations:** Add a `panelPlacement="inline"` mode so the plan-document annotation panel renders in document flow instead of as a floating side panel when hosted in the narrow task properties pane. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 CLEAN - `pnpm typecheck` → clean (all packages) - UI: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/issue-properties/IssuePlanConfirmationActionBar.test.tsx src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx` → 69 passed - Server: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts` → 60 passed - Manual: with a planning-mode task, the Plan tab stays visible, shows the plan document (or a diagnostic empty state), and the confirmation CTAs stay pinned at the bottom. Visual note: snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated — per `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". The `storybook-visual` label is intentionally not added. ## Risks Low-to-moderate. The server change adds a validation gate on plan-document confirmations: an interaction that targets a stale or nonexistent plan revision is now rejected with a 422 instead of being created. This is the intended guarantee, but any caller that relied on creating such confirmations will now need to publish the plan document first (which the updated agent instructions cover). UI changes are additive to the Plans tab and gated by the existing chat-style-task experimental flag. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, with tool use (file editing, shell, test execution). ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5888cbf72a |
fix(issues): restore checkout after accepted confirmations (#10909)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue thread confirmations can pause an issue until a board user makes a decision > - Atomic checkout is the only supported transition into `in_progress` > - An accepted confirmation left a creator-owned issue in `in_review` while it started a continuation worker > - The worker could run without the normal checkout state transition > - This pull request returns that narrow review state to `todo` before it queues the continuation wake > - The benefit is that the worker can check out the issue and move it to `in_progress` through the normal atomic path ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue exists. The following pull requests are related but do not fix this case: - Refs #10376. It handles refusal paths for user-owned issues. - Refs #8516. It handles rejected confirmations for user-owned issues. - Refs #10274. It gives ownerless waking interactions an agent owner. **What happened?** An agent created a confirmation on an issue that was assigned to that same agent and had status `in_review`. A board user accepted the confirmation. Paperclip started a continuation worker, but the issue stayed `in_review`. The normal checkout fields stayed empty. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must return the issue to an actionable state before it wakes the continuation worker. The worker must then use atomic checkout to move the issue to `in_progress`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign an issue to an agent and set the issue status to `in_review`. 2. Let that agent create a `request_confirmation` with `wake_assignee_on_accept`. 3. Accept the confirmation as a board user. 4. Observe that the continuation worker starts while the issue remains `in_review`. **Paperclip version or commit** The bug reproduced on master before this pull request. This branch is based on `ffd62a4cbb`. **Deployment mode** Local development. The server logic is deployment-independent. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Codex exposed the bug, but the issue-thread continuation logic is adapter-independent. **Database mode** The regression test uses embedded PostgreSQL. The logic is database-mode independent. **Access context** An agent creates the confirmation. A board user accepts it. ## What Changed - Allow an accepted agent-authored confirmation to return an agent-owned issue only when the issue is `in_review` and the owner is the creating agent. - Keep active `in_progress` work unchanged so an accepted confirmation cannot reset a running worker to `todo`. - Add embedded-PostgreSQL regression coverage for user-owned review, creator-owned review, and creator-owned active work. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts` — 48 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all workspace projects. - `pnpm build` — passed for all workspace projects. - `pnpm test:run` — 3,411 passed. Three timing-sensitive assertions failed in the unchanged `heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` suite. - Isolated rerun of `heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` — 15 passed. ## Risks Low risk. The behavior change is limited to accepted confirmations on non-terminal `in_review` issues that the creating agent already owns. It does not change active work, blocked work, terminal issues, other agent owners, schemas, or public API contracts. > This is a focused bug fix. It does not add roadmap scope. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code editing, Git, and local test execution. ## 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 <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
ded813ad6f |
feat(interactions): add governed agent addressees (#10252)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane that lets humans govern companies of AI agents. > - Issue-thread interactions are the structured handoff point for confirmations, questions, suggested tasks, and other governed decisions. > - Those interactions previously assumed that only board users could resolve them, preventing one agent from explicitly addressing another agent for a response. > - Agent resolution needs company-level governance, auditable resolver identity, safe terminal-state handling, and attention routing so authorization is enforced server-side rather than inferred from UI behavior. > - This pull request adds governed agent resolution, withdrawal and terminal expiry semantics, explicit agent addressees, lifecycle reconciliation, and attention-feed filtering. > - The benefit is that agents can participate in structured decisions without weakening board control, company isolation, wake behavior, or audit invariants. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Issue-thread interactions across database, shared contracts, server authorization/services, adapter callbacks, agent skill guidance, API docs, and UI governance surfaces. ### Problem or motivation Structured interactions were board-only, had no explicit agent addressee, and lacked durable withdrawal/terminal-expiry semantics. That made peer-agent decisions impossible to authorize and audit safely. ### Proposed solution Persist requested/effective resolver policy and addressee identity, enforce company governance and eligible agent resolution, reconcile addressee lifecycle changes, expose withdrawal and terminal expiry, and route attention to the intended active agent with board fallback. ### Alternatives considered Implicitly authorizing the issue assignee or mentioned agents was rejected as ambiguous and difficult to audit. Using comments alone was rejected because it loses structured outcomes and continuation behavior. ### Roadmap alignment Supports the ROADMAP direction for lightweight leadership-agent communication that still resolves into governed decisions and work objects. ### Additional context Public GitHub issue/PR search found no duplicate implementation; open PR search for interaction resolver governance and agent addressees only returned this PR. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped interaction resolver governance contracts and persistence. - Add requested/effective resolver policy, resolver identity, withdrawal, and terminal-expiry behavior. - Add explicit `addresseeAgentId` validation, authorization, persistence, lifecycle reconciliation, API documentation, and skill guidance. - Route pending addressed interactions to the intended invokable agent and fall back to board attention when that agent becomes ineligible or is deleted. - Preserve sandbox callback identity fields required by governed resolution paths. - Add migrations `0193` and `0194` plus route, service, attention, adapter, CLI, and UI coverage. - Add governance state and company settings UI, including responsive mobile behavior and distinct withdrawn/expired audit presentation. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm test:run` — feature/server and UI workspace suites passed; one unrelated CLI AWS doctor test observed injected static AWS credentials and warned instead of passing. - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts --project paperclipai` — 8 tests passed, confirming the failure was environment-sensitive. - `pnpm build` — passed. - Latest rebased head `e24cece6be9f1877bdbac7691bcb44fd583c0161` completed all GitHub CI jobs successfully. ## Risks - Migrations add interaction and company-governance fields; numbering is conflict-free on current `master`, additive statements are idempotent, and migration safety checks pass. - Agent authorization behavior expands beyond board-only resolution, but defaults remain board-only and coverage exercises company boundaries, resolver eligibility, lifecycle invalidation, wake behavior, withdrawal, expiry, and attention fallback. - Attention routing depends on current agent invokability; reconciliation and read-time filtering prevent stale addressees from retaining visibility or resolution authority. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.6-sol` with reasoning, terminal tool use, code execution, Git/GitHub integration, and Paperclip control-plane tools. Context-window metadata was not reported by the runtime. ## 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 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 <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8e7f1c03eb |
feat(decisions): improve desk triage and queue parity (#10785)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The decisions desk and queue help operators find work that needs a human decision. > - The current views use different grouping, sorting, and labels. > - Repeated confirmation requests can also leave stale pending actions in the queue. > - Blocked-work attention can point at an intermediate issue instead of the terminal blocker. > - This pull request aligns the server contract and both user interfaces. > - The benefit is a smaller, clearer queue that ranks the decisions with the largest impact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related PR: #10774 **What existing behavior does this improve?** The decisions desk and queue currently use different triage rules. They can show stale repeated confirmations and can rank blocked work by an intermediate issue. **Subsystem affected** This change affects attention aggregation, issue thread interactions, shared attention contracts, and the decisions user interface. **Current behavior** The desk uses a can-wait group that has no clear arrival meaning. The queue has fewer controls than the desk. Repeated pending confirmations remain actionable. Blocked-work rows do not always identify the terminal actionable blocker. **Proposed behavior** Group desk items by arrival date, and reserve Decide now for explicit due dates. Use one toolbar and shelf model on both pages. Supersede older repeated pending confirmations. Aggregate blocked work under the terminal actionable blocker and rank it by impact. **Reason and benefit** Operators get one consistent triage model. The badge reflects new and overdue work. High-impact blockers move to the top. Duplicate confirmation work no longer consumes attention. **Breaking changes** The attention summary field `decideNowCount` changes to `deskBadgeCount`. Consumers must use the new field. Older repeated confirmation interactions can now finish with the `superseded_by_newer_request` outcome. ## What Changed - Supersede older pending confirmation requests for the same issue and record the mutation in activity history. - Resolve blocked-work attention to actionable terminal blockers, suppress live blocker trees, and rank rows by blocked-work impact. - Group the decisions desk into New today and Earlier, and count new plus overdue work in the desk badge. - Share the decision toolbar and shelf components across the desk and queue. - Add queue grouping, sorting, filtering, aging, visible training controls, and clearer recommendation copy. - Add server, shared-contract, and user-interface tests for the new behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` (all server, UI, CLI, shared, and catalog tests passed; one fixed five-second DB timeout flaked under full-suite load) - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/status-card-migrations.test.ts` (passed in isolation) - `pnpm build` ## Risks - The attention summary field rename requires synchronized consumers. - Terminal-blocker traversal uses cycle and depth guards. A malformed dependency graph can stop at the last safe node. - The new arrival grouping changes which items contribute to the decisions badge. - Superseding repeated confirmations changes the terminal state of older pending interactions. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a dated model snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## 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 <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f6ab82d490 |
feat(interactions): add interaction withdrawal and terminal-issue expiry (#10251)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents and boards coordinate through issue-thread interactions (request_confirmation, ask_user_questions, suggest_tasks, …) that wait as `pending` cards until someone resolves them > - Two lifecycle gaps existed: an interaction's creator could not take back a card it no longer stands behind, and interactions left `pending` on issues that reached a terminal status lingered forever as live-looking approval requests > - Stale pending cards mislead humans (they look actionable), distort attention/liveness signals, and in the worst case invite acting on a proposal whose issue is already closed or cancelled > - This pull request adds an explicit withdraw route for pending interactions and automatically expires pending interactions when their issue reaches a terminal status (including a catch-up sweep for issues closed before this change) > - The benefit is that interaction cards now faithfully reflect reality: only genuinely actionable requests stay pending, and creators can retract requests that events have overtaken ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #5787 Refs #7403 Related prior PRs found while searching for duplicates (all overlap partially; none combine both lifecycle paths or the route-level authorization used here): #6709 and #7312 (creator-withdraw attempts), #8169 (terminal expiry), #8081 and #5137 (generalized cancel/expire endpoints), #6094 (stale confirmation auto-resolve). Related merged context: #9568 (agent cancel for ask_user_questions), #10119 (tolerating legacy `withdrawn_by_creator` result outcomes — the reader side of the outcome this PR writes). ## What Changed - New route `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/withdraw` that resolves a `pending` interaction to status `withdrawn` with a structured result (`outcome: "withdrawn"`, optional trimmed `reason`), stamps `resolvedBy*`/`resolvedAt`, touches the issue, logs activity, and emits resolved-interaction telemetry - Withdrawal authorization: board users, the interaction's creator agent, or the issue's current assignee agent (assignees additionally pass the standard issue-mutation gate); task-watchdog runs are explicitly rejected, and authorization-boundary plus low-trust control-plane checks apply - Withdrawing an already-resolved interaction returns `409`; unknown/cross-issue/cross-company interaction ids return `404` - New service method `expirePendingInteractionsForTerminalIssue`: when an issue transitions to a terminal status, all of its `pending` interactions are resolved to `expired` with `outcome: "issue_closed"`, guarded by a `status = 'pending'` predicate so concurrent resolutions are not overwritten - The same expiry runs as a catch-up when interactions are listed on an already-terminal issue, so cards stranded by issues closed before this change also get cleaned up; expired request_confirmations are logged with a distinguishing source - Shared package: new `withdrawIssueThreadInteractionSchema` validator, `WithdrawIssueThreadInteraction` type, and `withdrawn` / `issue_closed` result-outcome support for all interaction kinds (kind-aware result shapes for `ask_user_questions` and `request_item_verdicts`) - UI helper `ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.ts` recognizes the new outcomes for card rendering - Docs: bundled skill API reference updated with the withdraw endpoint - Review follow-up: terminal expiry moved from the HTTP route hooks into `issueService.update`'s status-transition block, so direct service callers (tree control, recovery, pipelines, status cards) expire pending cards too; the list-endpoint catch-up remains for issues closed before this change - Review follow-up: withdrawing or issue-close-expiring a `request_confirmation` also settles its linked `tool_action_requests` row (withdraw -> `cancelled`, issue closed -> `expired`), so a parked tool call cannot stay approvable after its card is gone - Review follow-up: interaction cards render dedicated copy for the new outcomes ("Withdrawn" with the reason, "Expired when issue closed") instead of falling through to superseded-by-comment / stale-target variants; withdrawn plan reviews badge as "Withdrawn" rather than "Changes requested" ## Screenshots Card states rendered from a local ux-lab harness with mocked data ([full gallery](https://pages.paperclip.ing/pr-10251-interaction-withdrawal-cards/)): | Light | Dark | | --- | --- | |  |  | ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` — clean tsc - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts` — 22 tests pass, including new coverage for: creator-agent withdraw success, non-creator/non-assignee agent 403, watchdog-run 403, double-withdraw 409, and board-user withdraw - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` — 4 tests pass, including terminal-issue expiry writing `issue_closed` results and leaving already-resolved interactions untouched - `cd ui && pnpm typecheck` — clean - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — includes a new embedded-Postgres test proving a direct `issueService.update` terminal transition expires pending interactions and writes the activity-log entry - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx` — 32 tests, including new coverage for withdrawn / issue-closed confirmation and question cards - `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit` — matches the pre-existing repo error baseline exactly (no new errors) - Manual: `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/withdraw` with `{"reason":"superseded"}` as the creator agent resolves the card to `withdrawn`; closing an issue with a pending confirmation flips it to `expired` with `outcome: "issue_closed"` ## Risks - Interactions on terminal issues now auto-expire (including retroactively via the list-time catch-up), so consumers that expected to resolve a pending interaction on a closed issue will get `409`; this is the intended semantics and matches how the attention feed already wants to treat dead cards - New result outcomes (`withdrawn`, `issue_closed`) are written to stored results; readers were already made tolerant of these outcome strings in #10119, so mixed-version reads are safe - No schema/migration changes; per-row conditional updates (`status = 'pending'`) avoid clobbering concurrent resolutions - Withdrawal is a new mutation surface, but it is strictly narrower than existing resolve paths (board, creator, or assignee only; watchdog runs blocked) ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic Mythos-class tier) with extended thinking and agentic tool use (Claude Code harness); commit authored in a Paperclip-managed engineering session. ## 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 <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Michael NguyenandPaperclip
|
e2068319e7 |
fix(interactions): tolerate legacy stored result outcomes so listInteractions can't fail the whole list (#10119)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents and humans coordinate on issues through interaction requests
(confirmations, decisions, task suggestions and more) that are stored
per issue and listed by both the web UI and plugin workers such as chat
gateways
> - `listForIssue` hydrates every stored interaction row by hard-parsing
its persisted `result` blob against the current Zod schema
> - Stored rows outlive code: one live row written by an older build
carried `result.outcome: "withdrawn_by_creator"`, a value no longer in
the enum, and that single row made hydration throw
> - Because the throw happened inside the list mapping, it failed the
entire issue's interaction list — the web thread errored, and every
plugin consumer of `issues.listInteractions` (notification drain, digest
confirmation sweep, pending-ledger reads) failed continuously, so
interaction cards never reached chat surfaces
> - This pull request parses stored `result` blobs tolerantly — a
`parseStoredInteractionResult` helper wrapping `safeParse`, applied to
all five interaction kinds — so an unparseable result degrades to `null`
with a warning instead of failing the whole list
> - The benefit is durable robustness at the storage→hydrate boundary:
legacy or future schema drift in a single row can no longer take down an
issue's entire interaction surface
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No pre-existing public issue; the underlying problem is described here
following the bug-report template. Related (not a duplicate): Refs #6709
— the creator-withdraw flow it explores matches the legacy outcome value
observed in the wild; whether or not that lineage wrote the row, this PR
is defensive against any such stored-schema drift.
**What happened**
Listing interactions for an issue (`GET /api/issues/:id/interactions` on
the web, or the `issues.listInteractions` plugin RPC) fails for the
entire issue when any single stored interaction row carries a
`result.outcome` written by an older build (observed live:
`"withdrawn_by_creator"`). Downstream plugin consumers that poll this
RPC fail continuously — notification drain, digest confirmation sweep,
and pending-ledger reads.
**Expected behavior**
One legacy/unreadable stored `result` should degrade gracefully — the
interaction still lists with its result treated as absent — rather than
failing the whole issue's interaction list.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Persist a resolved `request_confirmation` interaction whose
`result.outcome` is not in the current enum (e.g.
`"withdrawn_by_creator"`, as written by an older build).
2. Call `issues.listInteractions` (or `GET
/api/issues/:id/interactions`) for that issue.
3. The call throws `invalid_enum_value` and returns nothing, instead of
returning the remaining rows.
**Version or commit**
master @
|
||
|
Devin Foley
|
429792f1f3 |
fix(interactions): stop wedging confirmation accept on a terminal workspace_finalize (#10099)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - When an agent finishes work in an execution workspace, the board can confirm the result through an issue-thread interaction (e.g. the "Merged" / mark-done confirmation button on a `request_confirmation`). > - That accept action is gated: it must not race a worktree sync-back (`workspace_finalize`) that is still copying the agent's commits out of the sandbox, or the board could act on a base that hasn't received them yet. > - The gate (`runWorkspaceIsFinalized`) treated the sync-back as "settled" only when the latest `workspace_finalize` op was `succeeded` — so a run whose finalize reached a terminal `failed` state, or died leaving a stale `running` op, was treated as "still syncing" forever. > - Users hit a permanent, misleading `... has not finished syncing its workspace` error and could never click "Merged", even though nothing was syncing and the run had long since ended. > - This PR fixes the settle semantics so the gate blocks only while a sync-back is genuinely pending or in flight, and treats any terminal (or stale-orphaned) finalize as done. > - The benefit is that a failed or abandoned sync-back no longer wedges the human confirmation, while a genuinely in-flight sync-back on a live run still blocks correctly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this. Describing the bug in-PR (bug report): **What happened** Clicking the "Merged" / mark-done confirmation at the bottom of an issue thread returns an error that the workspace "has not finished syncing its workspace" — but nothing is actually syncing, and the run that created the interaction has already ended. The confirmation is permanently stuck; the only workaround is to merge and mark the task done manually. **Expected behavior** Once the source run's worktree sync-back has finished — whether it succeeded, failed, or was skipped — the confirmation should be acceptable. The gate should block only while a sync-back is genuinely still running on a live run. **Steps to reproduce** Have an agent run reach `workspace_finalize` and end without a `succeeded` finalize (e.g. the sync-back fails, or the run process dies mid-finalize leaving a `running` op). Then attempt to accept the `request_confirmation` interaction it created → 409 "... has not finished syncing its workspace" with no way to proceed. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on the current `master` line (server service); root cause is in `runWorkspaceIsFinalized` in `server/src/services/issues.ts`. **Deployment mode** Local / self-hosted instance (server service). **Root cause** `runWorkspaceIsFinalized` returned `true` only when the latest `workspace_finalize` operation was `succeeded`. A terminal `failed` finalize (the sync-back ran and failed; it will not retry within that run) and a `running` finalize left behind by a dead run both left the gate closed forever. ## What Changed - `runWorkspaceIsFinalized` (server/src/services/issues.ts) now treats a sync-back as **settled** when the latest `workspace_finalize` op reached any terminal status (`succeeded`, `failed`, or `skipped`), instead of only `succeeded`. - A `workspace_finalize` still marked `running` blocks only while its owning run is alive; a `running` record left behind by a terminal/missing run is treated as stale (settled), so a dead run can no longer wedge the gate. - Preserved existing behavior for the other cases: no operations recorded at all → settled; earlier phases recorded but no `workspace_finalize` yet → still blocks (the sync-back hasn't been attempted). - Extracted the run-liveness check into a shared exported helper `heartbeatRunIsTerminalOrMissing` and reused it from the existing `isTerminalOrMissingHeartbeatRun` closure (no behavior change there). - Added a short comment at the confirmation-accept gate (server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.ts) documenting the relaxed settle semantics. - The dependency-readiness / blocker barrier (`listPendingFinalizeBlockerIssueIds`) is deliberately left unchanged: an automated dependent must not proceed onto a base that never received a blocker's synced-back commits, so a failed finalize keeps that gate closed. Only the human-driven confirmation accept is relaxed. - Added regression tests for: failed finalize, stale `running` finalize on a dead run, and a genuinely `running` finalize on a live run (must still block). ## Verification - `cd server && node_modules/.bin/vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts -t "accept"` → 17 passed (includes the 3 new regression tests), 21 unrelated tests skipped by the name filter. - Manual reasoning walkthrough of `runWorkspaceIsFinalized` for each op-history shape (no ops / earlier-phase-only / terminal finalize / running-on-dead-run / running-on-live-run) confirms the intended block-vs-settle outcome. ## Risks - Low risk and narrowly scoped to the human confirmation-accept gate. The only behavioral change is that a terminal (`failed`/`skipped`) or stale-orphaned `running` finalize now settles the gate instead of blocking forever. - A genuinely in-flight sync-back on a live run still blocks (covered by a regression test), so the accept cannot race commits that are actively being synced back. - The blocker/dependency barrier for automated dependents is unchanged, so no dependent will be advanced onto a base missing a failed blocker's commits. ## Model Used - Provider/model: Claude (Anthropic), **Opus 4.8**, model ID `claude-opus-4-8`, 1M context window. - Capabilities used: extended thinking, tool use (repo inspection, local test execution). ## 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 - [ ] 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 |
||
|
|
df0e5bd021 |
fix(interactions): don't supersede decision cards on machine-authored comments (#9015)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents and humans coordinate on issue threads, where `request_confirmation` cards capture pending decisions; a genuine human comment on the thread is meant to supersede (cancel) a card. > - Supersession is keyed on `!comment.authorUserId` — the guard assumes only real human comments carry a user id. > - But local-CLI agent heartbeats post comments under user auth, so a machine comment's `authorUserId` is populated **nondeterministically per run** (the same agent resolves as `agent` on one run and `user` on another). > - As a result an agent's own on-thread comment — or a teammate's, from a different run — can carry `authorUserId` and silently expire a pending decision card. A card was observed expiring 7ms after its own automated comment landed, stranding the decision with no live approval path. > - This PR switches the discriminator to a durable, deterministic signal already persisted on every comment — `created_by_run_id` — so only comments with **no run context** (genuine board-UI comments) supersede. > - The benefit: machine-authored comments can never again expire decision cards, while real human supersession is preserved exactly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue — describing the bug in-PR. - **What happened:** A pending `request_confirmation` decision card was expired by an automated, machine-authored comment on the same thread. Supersession is keyed on `!comment.authorUserId`, but local-CLI agent heartbeats post under user auth, so a machine comment's `authorUserId` is set nondeterministically per run. An agent's own comment (or a teammate's, from a different run) can therefore carry a user id and expire a pending card — one was observed expiring 7ms after its own automated comment landed. - **Expected behavior:** Only genuine interactive human (board-UI) comments should supersede pending decision cards. Machine-authored comments must never expire them, regardless of how the adapter's auth resolves. - **Steps to reproduce:** With a pending `request_confirmation` card (`supersedeOnUserComment: true`), post a comment via a local-CLI agent run whose actor resolves to `user`; the card expires with outcome `superseded_by_comment`. - **Deployment mode:** server (self-hosted), reproduced against `master`. Related PRs (same lifecycle area, not duplicates): #6094 (auto-resolve stale `request_confirmation` interactions) and #8799 (expire ask-user questions superseded by comments, merged). ## What Changed - Supersession now fires **only on comments with no run context** (`created_by_run_id` is null), in both paths: - `expireRequestConfirmationsSupersededByComment` (live post path) — early-return when `comment.createdByRunId` is set. - `expireRequestConfirmationsSupersededByHistoricalComments` (repair sweep) — query filters `isNull(created_by_run_id)`. - Mirrors the existing `shouldImplicitlyMoveCommentedIssueToTodo` reopen guard, which already uses run context to solve the same nondeterministic-identity problem. - Adds live + historical regression tests asserting a run-originated comment under user auth does not supersede a pending card. ## Verification - Interactions service suite: **27 tests pass (1 file)**, including the two new regression tests. - CI: all substantive gates green (Build, General tests, serialized server suites, Typecheck, e2e, verify, security-review, policy). - Manual: with a pending card, a comment carrying `created_by_run_id` leaves it `pending`; a comment with null run context still supersedes it. ## Risks - Low risk, narrowly scoped to the supersession discriminator. Human supersession is preserved (comments with no run context still cancel cards); only the machine-authored case is closed. - No schema migration — `created_by_run_id` is already persisted by `addComment`. - Alternatives considered: (a) ignore only the assignee's own run — misses cross-run machine comments; (b) default `supersedeOnUserComment: false` for agent-created cards — would drop the legitimate "human comment redirects → cancel the card" behavior. The run-context guard covers all machine comments while preserving human supersession. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended reasoning + tool use, via Claude Code. ## 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) - [ ] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id — **not yet met**; renaming an open PR's branch risks closing this PR, so it's flagged for a maintainer to rename safely (or via the GitHub rename-branch API). - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — N/A (internal behavior fix, no user-facing docs) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green (the only red check is the automated PR-review template gate this revision addresses) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s — re-review requested after this revision - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com> |
||
|
|
36ec79c196 |
feat: add attention queue and Decisions surface (#9380)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, where operators need a reliable way to find and act on work awaiting their input. > - The attention and issue-thread interaction subsystems expose those decision points across server APIs and the board UI. > - The previous navigation and interaction presentation left these actions fragmented and did not offer a controlled rollout for the Decisions surface. > - This branch adds the attention feed, richer interaction cards, grouping, dismiss/snooze behavior, and a gated Decisions sidebar entry. > - It also keeps experimental settings and API contracts synchronized, with an idempotent migration for the new dismissal state. > - This pull request delivers the complete, tested attention/Decisions experience as one reviewable unit. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Adds an operator-focused attention queue and Decisions experience: grouped decision cards, semantic interaction actions, dismiss/snooze handling, resilient interaction states, and an experimental flag to control the Decisions navigation entry. ## Feature Context ### Problem or Motivation Operators currently have to hunt across approvals, interactions, failed runs, and budget alerts to find decisions that need their action. ### Proposed Solution Provide a gated Decisions attention queue that groups actionable items, supports direct resolution, and preserves operator control through dismiss and snooze actions. ### Alternatives Considered Keep separate, source-specific views only; this leaves cross-cutting operator decisions fragmented and harder to prioritize. ### Roadmap Alignment This improves the V1 control-plane operator workflow by making pending governed actions discoverable in one company-scoped surface. ## What Changed - Added server attention-feed services, routes, interaction handling, dismiss/snooze support, and an idempotent `0145` inbox-dismissal migration. - Added shared attention, inbox-dismissal, and experimental-settings contracts. - Added Decisions/attention UI, interaction-card states, sidebar badge/navigation integration, grouping, keyboard support, and Storybook coverage. - Added tests for attention behavior, thread interactions, settings normalization, dismissals, and API behavior. - Removed generated screenshots from the final PR diff and rebased the branch onto current `master`. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-dismissals.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — passed: 158 tests across 9 focused files. - GitHub Actions for `ad636f560`: build and typecheck/release-registry have passed; remaining general-server and Greptile checks are in progress. ## Risks - Moderate: this is a cross-layer attention/interaction feature with a new migration and navigation behavior. - The `enableDecisions` experimental setting defaults to off, limiting rollout impact. - Existing dismissal data is backfilled to `dismiss`; the migration is idempotent and uses guarded constraint creation. > ROADMAP.md was checked; no duplicate planned core feature was identified. Related open pull requests were searched before opening this PR. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with tool use and local code execution. Context-window size unavailable in this environment. ## 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 public PR branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally; focused tests pass and the remaining unrelated AWS test failure is documented above - [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 - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
ad961227f5 |
feat(secrets): add user-specific runtime secrets (#8825)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other environment-bound secrets. > - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not model values that should differ by human operator. > - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value. > - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped runtime checks deterministic and auditable. > - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime resolution gates. > - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required user secrets or active definitions are unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #224 Refs #6057 This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time. Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as #1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here. ## What Changed - Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values, keeping stored values out of access metadata. - Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to pick them alongside existing secret refs. - Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve against the human responsible for the run. - Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are inactive. - Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access. - Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be resolved. - Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures. - Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes. - Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127` migrations. - Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR contains code/docs/tests only. ## Verification - PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on `paperclipai/paperclip:master`. - PASS: `git diff --check` - PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg '^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true` produced no files. - PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130` with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`, `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`, `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`. - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests) - PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final Greptile cleanup fixes) - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests after the final rebase CI fix) - PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery, project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors, watchdog, and stale queue paths. - PASS: GitHub checks are green on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review. - PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5, and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated threads. ## Risks - Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs before adapter dispatch. - `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind explicitly. - External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side access for non-local vaults. - The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge. - The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream migrations; the branch migrations use guarded column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## 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 <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ac9a883f8b |
Expire ask-user questions superseded by comments (#8799)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue-thread interactions are how agents ask board users for typed decisions and structured answers inside an issue thread > - Confirmation interactions already become stale when a later board/user comment supersedes the pending decision > - Question interactions had the same workflow risk, because a board/user could answer in a comment while the old question card stayed pending > - This pull request extends the supersede-by-comment lifecycle to ask-user-question interactions and makes that status visible in the UI > - The benefit is agents get a clear continuation signal and users do not see stale question forms after the discussion has moved on ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No exact public GitHub issue was found. Bug report: **Pre-submission checklist** - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip, or can reproduce on `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in an agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. **What happened?** Pending `ask_user_questions` interactions could remain open after a later board/user comment changed or answered the request in-thread. That left a stale form visible and kept the interaction in a pending state even though the discussion had moved on. **Expected behavior** Question interactions should follow the same default supersede-on-comment behavior as confirmation interactions, with an explicit expired result that points to the superseding comment. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an `ask_user_questions` interaction on an issue. 2. Add a board/user comment created at or after that interaction. 3. Observe that before this change, the question interaction stayed pending instead of expiring as superseded by the comment. **Paperclip version or commit** Current `master` before this PR. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server or local dev. The bug is in shared issue-thread interaction lifecycle handling. **Installation method** Built from source. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. This is a core issue-thread interaction bug. **Database mode** Applies to the normal Paperclip database-backed interaction lifecycle. **Access context** Board user comments supersede agent-created questions. **Relevant logs or output** No crash output. The stale pending interaction was visible in the issue thread state. **Relevant config (if applicable)** None. **Additional context** Confirmation-style interactions already supported this stale-by-comment behavior. This PR brings question interactions into the same lifecycle model. **Privacy checklist** - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII and included no private instance links, local ticket ids, secrets, logs, or screenshots. ## What Changed - Added `supersedeOnUserComment` support to `ask_user_questions` payloads, defaulting it to `true` during interaction creation. - Expire pending question interactions when a later board/user comment supersedes them, including a result with `expirationReason: "superseded_by_comment"` and the superseding `commentId`. - Updated interaction summaries and cards so expired question requests show a clear amber state with a jump link to the comment and correct singular/plural copy. - Updated agent onboarding guidance to describe the new default and how to opt out. - Added shared, server, and UI test coverage for the new lifecycle behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 5 files, 73 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts --reporter=dot && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the final type-safety cleanup. - Confirmed the branch is rebased on current `origin/master`. - Confirmed the diff does not touch `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows`, or database migrations. ## Risks - Low-to-medium risk: `ask_user_questions` now defaults to expiring after later board/user comments. Existing callers that need questions to stay open through discussion can set `supersedeOnUserComment: false`. - Expired question interactions store an empty `answers` array, so downstream consumers should treat the explicit `expirationReason` as the meaningful outcome. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in Paperclip CodexCoder runtime, with terminal and repository tool use. Exact context window is not exposed in this runtime. ## 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 <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e68188c438 |
fix: upstream deployed document-comment, routine-annotation, workspace & board-polling fixes (#8536)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - This change touches several already-shipped subsystems — document-comment annotations, the selected-agent Conference Room chat surface, routine description annotations, workspace-operation tracking, and the board polling/inbox UI > - A batch of incremental fixes and two small backend additions had accumulated on a local mainline and were deployed to a live instance, but never landed upstream — so each `origin/master` sync kept re-diverging > - Leaving them un-upstreamed means the same delta has to be re-merged on every sync and risks being lost or silently reverted > - This pull request rebases that delta cleanly on top of current `origin/master` (preserving recent upstream work such as reusable sandbox leases and the relation-list collapse controls) and brings it up for review > - The benefit is that mainline and the deployed instance converge, and these fixes/additions get normal review + CI + Greptile coverage ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No single GitHub issue tracks this; it is a bundle of bug fixes and two small feature additions. Following the issue-template fields: **Bug fixes (what was wrong → what this does):** - Document comments rendered out of document order, didn't live-update across clients, swallowed save failures, and lost the markdown text selection on re-render. Now: doc-order sort, live updates, surfaced save-failure state, stable selection across re-renders. - The board polling hot path returned oversized payloads on every poll. Now: an opt-in `summary` projection trims the heartbeat-run list payload. - Assorted UI fixes: sidebar nav peek/streamlining edge cases, markdown file-viewer re-mount/line-height issues on iOS Safari, inbox badge/skill deep-link tab selection, and `⌘.` work-mode cycling on iOS. **Feature additions:** - `workspace_operations.issue_id` — associate a workspace operation with the issue that triggered it (new migration `0106`, schema, service, shared type). - Routine **description annotations** — comment threads on a routine's description document, mirroring issue document annotations (new migration `0107`, `routine_documents` schema, routes/service, editable-sections UI). - Selected-agent **Conference Room chat** surface wiring and live issue-thread updates. **Related PR:** #8229 (`feat(control-plane): add annotation and workspace controls`, draft) covers overlapping annotation/workspace-control territory — flagging it so a reviewer can reconcile the two rather than double-merging. ## What Changed - `feat(workspace)`: `workspace_operations.issue_id` migration + schema/service/type; issue workspace property controls reconciled with upstream's evolved "Service" row. - `feat(routines)`: routine description annotations — `routine_documents` schema, migration `0107`, routes/service, `editable-sections` UI. - `fix(document-comments)`: doc-order sort, live updates, save-failure surfacing, stable markdown selection (+ storybook story, rerender test). - `feat(chat)`: selected-agent Conference Room chat surface and live issue-thread updates (`LiveUpdatesProvider`, `issue-chat-messages`, interactions service). - `perf(board)`: opt-in `summary` projection for the board polling/heartbeat-run list payload, plus assorted sidebar / file-viewer / inbox / IssueProperties UI fixes. Organized into 5 logical commits. Migrations are numbered incrementally after upstream's latest (`0105`) — `0106` then `0107`, no journal collision. ## Verification - Built by 3-way merging the deployed delta onto current `origin/master`; the only merge conflict (`IssueProperties.test.tsx`, two adjacent test blocks) was resolved in favor of upstream's evolved "green service link above the workspace row" layout, which matches the merged component's rendered output. - Confirmed recent upstream work is preserved post-merge: reusable sandbox lease teardown (`#8513`), the IssueProperties relation-list collapse controls, and the sidebar streamlined-nav default. - Confirmed the net diff vs `origin/master` is exactly the intended feature delta (65 files) and that overlapping server files (`issues.ts`, `agents.ts`, `heartbeat.ts`) only add feature code without disturbing upstream logic. - This delta is already running on a live deployed instance. - Full typecheck/test suite + Greptile to run in CI (see checklist). ## Risks - Two new migrations (`0106`, `0107`). Both are additive (new table / new nullable column) and ordered after upstream's `0105`; no data backfill, low risk. If another migration-bearing PR merges first, renumber before merge. - Largest blast radius is in the merged overlapping UI/service files; covered by the existing test suites for those files plus CI. - Overlaps thematically with draft PR #8229 — reviewers should reconcile rather than merge both blindly. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, with tool use (git, shell). Agentic coding workflow. ## 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) - [ ] 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4d5322c821 |
[codex] Add checkbox confirmation issue interactions (#7649)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is coordinated through issues, comments, interactions, and approval-style handoffs. > - Existing issue-thread interactions could ask questions, suggest tasks, and request confirmation, but they did not support a structured checkbox confirmation payload for choosing one or more options. > - That gap made board/user confirmations harder to validate consistently across API callers, plugin helpers, CLI tooling, and the UI. > - This pull request adds the shared checkbox confirmation contract, server handling, client helpers, and issue-thread UI needed to render and submit structured selections. > - The benefit is that agents can request bounded multi-select confirmations in the same audited issue-thread flow as other Paperclip interactions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No public GitHub issue found for this exact branch. Internal Paperclip issue: PAP-10415 / PAP-10441 requested creating this PR for the checkbox confirmation issue-thread UI component work. - GitHub duplicate search performed for checkbox confirmation / issue-thread interaction PRs; no matching open PR was found. - Related issue search result `#7497` was unrelated company file cleanup work, so it is not linked as a related issue. ## What Changed - Added shared types, validators, constants, and tests for `request_checkbox_confirmation` interactions. - Extended server issue-thread interaction service and routes for checkbox confirmation creation, validation, expiration, and response handling. - Added CLI, MCP, and plugin SDK helper coverage so external callers can create the new interaction shape consistently. - Updated the issue-thread interaction UI to render checkbox confirmations with min/max bounds, selection summaries, stale-target states, and accept/decline flows. - Documented the checkbox confirmation interaction contract in the Paperclip skill/API reference. ## Verification - Rebased cleanly on `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` fetched into `public-gh/master` at `a4fa0eaf5`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Ran focused tests with `NODE_ENV=test`: ```sh NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/issue-subresources.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/project-goal.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts ``` Result: 8 test files passed, 78 tests passed. - CI on latest head `63b9e55` is green. - Greptile Review passed on latest head; GraphQL review-thread check shows all Greptile threads resolved. ## Risks - Medium surface area because the interaction contract touches shared validators, server routes/services, UI rendering, CLI, MCP, plugin SDK helpers, and docs. - No database migrations are included. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repository lockfile policy. - UI screenshots are not attached because the task explicitly requested not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work; component tests cover the new rendering and interaction states. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository file access, shell command execution, git/GitHub CLI tooling, and Paperclip control-plane API access. Exact hosted model ID/context-window metadata is not exposed inside this runtime. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [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 <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
af0c43b205 | Address operator QoL review feedback | ||
|
Dotta
|
4afe5ab7cb | Add other answers to issue questions | ||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f360fcbbb3 |
Expire confirmations after user comments
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
1f70fd9a22 |
PAPA-430: workspace finalize gates + no-remote-git enforcement (#6969)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents across isolated execution workspaces; the local cwd is the only persistence boundary between runs. > - Workspace lifecycle (worktree_prepare → execute → workspace_finalize) and the wake/accept flow are what guarantee that dependent issues see a consistent worktree. > - PAPA-380 / PAPA-431 / PAPA-432 / PAPA-440 surfaced three holes in that contract: silent env reuse across assignees, dependent wakes firing before finalize, and `issue.interaction.accept` advancing before finalize landed. > - PAPA-441 / PAPA-442 then needed to document the "no remote git" contract and prevent future adapter/runtime code from quietly reintroducing `git push` as a backdoor sync. > - This pull request lands those server fixes, the static `check-no-git-push` enforcement, the AUTHORING.md cross-link, and the Cody-review follow-ups on the PAPA-430 thread. > - The benefit is that finalize is a real barrier — board accepts, dependent wakes, and operator-set env all respect it — and adapter code can't bypass it via raw `git push`. ## What Changed - **server (PAPA-380, PAPA-431):** `execution-workspace-policy` refuses silent env reuse when the assignee's resolved env disagrees with the workspace it would inherit. The inheritance protection is now scoped to the actual inheritance signal — explicit issue-level `environmentId` is honored even when the agent's default env is `null`. - **server (PAPA-432):** `heartbeat.ts` gates dependent wakes on `listUnfinalizedExecutionWorkspaceIds`, and writes a `workspace_finalize` row on the succeeded path. Write failures now surface instead of being swallowed so dependents aren't silently stranded behind a missing row. - **server (PAPA-440):** `issue-thread-interactions.acceptInteraction` adds a workspace_finalize precondition for `request_confirmation` (not `suggest_tasks`). Accept returns 409 if finalize hasn't succeeded for the latest workspace operation. - **ci (PAPA-442):** new `scripts/check-no-git-push.mjs` static check scans `packages/adapters/`, `packages/adapter-utils/`, `server/src/`, and `cli/src/` for any `git push` invocation (string or args-array). Wired into the `policy` PR job and `test:release-registry`. Operators can opt in per-call with `// paperclip:allow-git-push: <reason>`. Release scripts are out of scope by design. - **docs (PAPA-441):** `AUTHORING.md` documents the no-remote-git contract and cross-links the static check so adapter authors learn the rule and the enforcement together. - **review follow-up (PAPA-430, Cody):** three fixes — env resolver bug, accept-gate scope (request_confirmation only), and finalize record write on the succeeded path. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts` → 33/33 pass - `node scripts/check-no-git-push.test.mjs` → check covers string form, args-array form, comment exclusions, and per-line allow-comment. - Manual: server compiles; the policy job runs the check in <1s before heavier jobs. ## Risks - **Behavioral shift in accept:** boards accepting `request_confirmation` while finalize is in-flight now get 409s. This is intentional — they can retry — but it changes timing on a hot path. `suggest_tasks` is unaffected. - **Workspace policy:** the env-reuse refusal is a new error path. Issues that previously silently reused an env from a different-assignee workspace will now fail-loud; the resolver still honors explicit issue-level `executionWorkspaceSettings.environmentId`. - **CI rule:** any future legitimate `git push` in scoped dirs must be marked with the allow-comment, which is the intended ergonomic. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`, extended thinking), via Claude Code in the Paperclip executor adapter. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A — server/CI/docs only) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Closes related issues: PAPA-430, PAPA-380, PAPA-431, PAPA-432, PAPA-440, PAPA-441, PAPA-442 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c91a062326 |
[codex] Runtime control-plane fixes (#6380)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through a server-side control plane > - That control plane depends on reliable issue state transitions, plugin lifecycle behavior, import limits, and startup/shutdown handling > - Several small runtime fixes had accumulated on the working branch and were mixed with larger feature work > - Keeping them separate makes the correctness fixes reviewable and mergeable without waiting for cloud-sync UI work > - This pull request groups the server/runtime control-plane fixes into one standalone branch > - The benefit is a tighter, safer runtime baseline for retries, imports, plugin migrations, feedback flushing, and trusted cloud import handling ## What Changed - Fixed updated issue list pagination sorting and scheduled retry comment handling. - Re-applied pending plugin migrations during hot reload and fixed plugin-schema worktree seed restore. - Hardened public tenant DB startup, portable import body limits, trusted cloud import errors, and trusted cloud tenant import mutation access. - Expired stale request confirmations after user comments. - Added feedback export shutdown hardening so database-unavailable flush loops stop cleanly. - Guarded plugin worker `error` event emission when no listener is registered. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` - `npm run install --prefix node_modules/.pnpm/sqlite3@5.1.7/node_modules/sqlite3` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-lifecycle-restart.test.ts server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/body-limits.test.ts server/src/__tests__/feedback-flush-controller.test.ts server/src/__tests__/error-handler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/board-mutation-guard.test.ts packages/db/src/backup-lib.test.ts` initially exposed local setup issues and two 5s test timeouts. - Rerun after local prereq build: `pnpm exec vitest run --testTimeout 15000 server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/feedback-flush-controller.test.ts server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` passed. - Some embedded Postgres-backed tests skipped on this host because local Postgres init was unavailable. ## Risks - Runtime-touching branch: startup/shutdown and issue interaction behavior should be reviewed carefully. - The feedback export change disables repeated flush attempts only for database connection-refused failures; other upload failures still log normally. - The plugin worker error guard avoids process crashes from unhandled EventEmitter errors but may hide errors from code paths that expected an emitted listener. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with local shell/git/tool use. Exact hosted model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the local Paperclip adapter runtime. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a1b30c9f35 |
Add planning mode for issue work (#5353)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board users and agents coordinate execution. > - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead of immediate implementation work. > - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution comments from planning-oriented issue work. > - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI affordances for standard vs planning mode. > - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed, discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing the normal issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB, shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and adapter heartbeat payloads. - Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for `issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations. - Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested follow-up issues. - Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles. - Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual verification spec for planning-mode surfaces. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts` ## Screenshots Desktop planning detail:  Desktop planning row:  Desktop staged standard toggle:  Mobile planning detail:  Mobile planning row:  ## Risks - Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final numbered migration safely. - Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by defaulting missing values to `standard`. - UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning display and toggle behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with shell/tool use. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c4269bab59 |
Add workflow interaction cancellation and issue cost summaries (#4862)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates work through issue-thread interactions, run history, and cost telemetry. > - Operators need workflow prompts to be cancellable and costs to be visible at the issue level. > - The earlier rollup mixed this workflow/cost work with database backups, reliability recovery, thread scaling, and settings polish. > - This pull request isolates the interaction and cost surfaces into a reviewable slice. > - The backend now supports cancelling pending question interactions and summarizing issue-tree costs. > - The UI component layer can render cancelled questions and interleave activity with run ledger rows. ## What Changed - Added `cancelled` as an issue-thread interaction status and result shape for question interactions. - Added the board-only `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/cancel` route and service implementation. - Added issue-tree cost summary support in the cost service and `/issues/:id/cost-summary` API route. - Extended shared cost exports and UI API/query keys for issue cost summaries. - Updated `IssueThreadInteractionCard` and `IssueRunLedger` components for cancelled questions, issue cost surfaces, and activity/run interleaving. - Added focused server and component regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - Result: 4 test files passed, 45 tests passed. - UI screenshots not included because this PR updates reusable components and API surfaces without wiring a new page-level layout. ## Risks - Adds a new interaction terminal status; clients that switch exhaustively on interaction status may need to handle `cancelled`. - Issue-tree cost summaries use recursive issue traversal and should be watched on unusually large issue trees. - Page-level issue detail wiring is intentionally left to the board QoL/issue-detail branch to keep this PR narrow. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium reasoning effort. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a957394420 |
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code execution were enabled. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
