7 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
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>	2026-08-31 14:38:38 -05:00
scotttongandPaperclip	eabecc6f77	feat(annotations): include issue document annotations in agent review context (#11332) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Reviewers annotate plans and issue documents with inline comments, and assigned agents act on that feedback > - The server already builds a bounded review context from open plan annotations and includes it in agent wake payloads > - Non-plan issue documents did not get the same treatment: their open annotation threads never reached the agent, and the properties pane did not surface their annotations > - This pull request extends the review-context path and the properties-pane UI to issue documents, at parity with plans > - The benefit is that agent feedback on any issue document reaches the assigned agent, not only feedback on the plan ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The review-context pipeline that delivers inline annotation feedback to assigned agents, and the properties pane that surfaces those annotations to reviewers. **Subsystem affected** The server review-context path (`server/src/services/plan-review-context.ts`, wake payload assembly in `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`, `server/src/routes/issues.ts`), shared wake-payload types (`packages/shared`, `packages/adapter-utils`), and the issue properties pane (`ui/src/components/issue-properties/`). **Current behavior** A reviewer can annotate any issue document, not only the plan. The agent wake payload includes open annotation threads for the plan document only. Feedback left on other issue documents is invisible to the assigned agent. In the properties pane, the Artifacts tab also gives no way to see or open a document's annotations. **Proposed behavior** Add `buildDocumentReviewContext` beside the existing plan builder. It collects open annotation threads for all non-plan issue documents, applies the same thread, comment, and character budgets across documents, and reports truncation. Include the result as a new `documentReviewContext` field in agent wake payloads and in the issue wake-context route. Keep the plan context on its legacy builder and field so plan-only wakes stay byte-for-byte compatible. Render the new context in the adapter wake-payload text, and surface annotation counts and the annotation panel for documents in the properties pane's Plans and Artifacts tabs. **Reason and benefit** The floating annotation popover and persistent highlight UI landed earlier; this change completes the loop so agent feedback on any issue document reaches the assigned agent, not only feedback on the plan. **Breaking changes** None. The wake payload gains a new optional `documentReviewContext` field; the existing plan context field and its legacy builder are unchanged, so plan-only wakes stay byte-for-byte compatible. ## What Changed - Add `buildDocumentReviewContext` in `server/src/services/plan-review-context.ts`: bounded review context (shared thread/comment/character budgets, per-document legacy limits) over all non-plan issue documents - Include `documentReviewContext` in agent wake payloads (`server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`) and in the issue wake-context response (`server/src/routes/issues.ts`) - Add shared `DocumentReviewContext` / `DocumentReviewContextDocument` types in `packages/shared` - Normalize and render the new context in adapter wake-payload text (`packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts`), with tests - Show a `DocumentAnnotationsCountChip` and the annotation panel for documents in the properties pane Plans and Artifacts tabs, with tests - Extend server document-annotations service tests to cover the new context builder ## Verification - Run `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/document-annotations-service.test.ts` from the repo root — 104 tests pass - Run `TZ=UTC npx vitest run ui/src/components/issue-properties/IssuePropertiesDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotationPopover.test.tsx` from the repo root — 75 tests pass (one pre-existing monitor-row case asserts UTC timestamps, so use `TZ=UTC` locally; CI runs in UTC) - `pnpm run typecheck` in `server/` passes - Manual: annotate a non-plan issue document, then wake the assigned agent with a comment — the wake payload lists the open document annotation threads; the Artifacts tab shows the annotation count chip and opens the panel ## Risks - The wake payload gains a new optional `documentReviewContext` field; consumers that ignore unknown fields are unaffected, and the plan context field is unchanged - The context is new input to agent wakes; shared budgets (same limits as the plan context) bound token cost across all documents - Low UI risk: the properties-pane changes reuse the existing annotation components > 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 - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5), with extended thinking and agentic tool use (Claude Code harness) ## 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>	2026-08-13 14:23:09 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	5e3d6e3627	[codex] Preserve plan review context in agent wakes (#8649) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Planning work relies on issue documents, request-confirmation interactions, and inline plan annotations > - Agents can be woken after a plan comment, annotation, or confirmation decision > - The wake payload needs enough plan-review context for the agent to act on the specific feedback instead of losing the thread and falling back to broad refetches > - This pull request adds bounded plan-review context to wake payloads and heartbeat context > - It also teaches the adapter wake prompt renderer to surface those open plan annotations and interaction results directly > - The benefit is that agents can continue plan review and plan acceptance flows with the relevant comments in hand while keeping wake payloads bounded and company-scoped ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue was found. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and `packages/adapter-utils`. ### Problem or motivation Plan-review continuations can wake an agent after a plan comment, inline annotation, or request-confirmation decision without enough inline context about the open plan annotations or accepted/rejected confirmation target. That makes scoped wakes less reliable because the agent may need to refetch broad issue history before it can tell what feedback should be incorporated. ### Proposed solution Include bounded, company-scoped plan review context in wake payloads and heartbeat context. The context includes open `plan` annotation threads, recent annotation comments, truncation metadata, and plan-confirmation interaction target/result details. Render that information in the adapter wake prompt so agents see the relevant plan-review feedback immediately. ### Alternatives considered Relying on agents to fetch the full issue thread after every plan-review wake was rejected because it is slower, harder to audit, and easier to mishandle when the wake is meant to be scoped to a specific comment, annotation, or interaction result. ### Roadmap alignment This supports the roadmap areas for Agent Reviews and Approvals, Deep Planning, and Enforced Outcomes by making plan approval continuations explicit and actionable. ### Additional context The implementation keeps payload size bounded with per-thread, per-comment, and total-body limits. Resolved annotation threads are intentionally omitted so the wake focuses on feedback still needing action. ## What Changed - Added shared `PlanReviewContext` types for plan annotation threads, comments, interaction targets, and continuation results. - Added server-side plan review context assembly for open `plan` annotation threads with bounded thread/comment/body limits. - Included plan review context in heartbeat context and scoped wake payloads for planning, annotation, comment, and plan-confirmation interaction wakes. - Rendered plan annotation deltas, open plan comments, interaction results, and accepted target revisions in adapter wake prompts. - Added focused regression coverage for scoped plan review context, wake prompt rendering, annotation filtering, and safe standard-mode annotation wakes. - Addressed Greptile feedback by bounding the plan-comment DB fetch and removing unused plan review context input fields. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1 server/src/__tests__/document-annotations-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` - GitHub PR checks are green on `36d0ac6a5dce27b9d62e201bf6d9829170c5974e`n- Rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and confirmed GitHub reports the PR as mergeable - Greptile Review completed successfully after 2 comments were addressed and resolved; 0 unresolved review threads remain ## Risks - Medium: wake payloads now include additional plan-review data, so limits and truncation behavior need to stay conservative as annotation volume grows. - Low migration risk: no database schema or migration changes. - Low repository hygiene risk: this PR does not touch `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows`, or media assets. > 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` as a coding agent with shell/tool execution. Reasoning mode and exact context window were 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>	2026-06-29 13:26:26 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9aa065a38c	Make deleted-comment cleanup atomic ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-05 03:56:39 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	1afa337841	Address Greptile deleted-comment feedback ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-05 03:43:12 +00:00
Dotta	17fa6fe0fe	Add deleted comment regression coverage	2026-06-05 03:20:46 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	b7545823be	[codex] Add document annotations and comments (#6733) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through issues, documents, runs, and durable company-scoped state. > - Issue documents are where agents and operators capture plans, handoffs, and work products. > - Before this change, document collaboration could only happen through whole-document edits and detached issue comments. > - Inline document annotations need stable anchors, revision-aware persistence, and UI affordances that do not break existing document editing. > - This pull request adds company-scoped document annotation threads, comments, anchor snapshots, API routes, and board UI. > - The benefit is that operators and agents can discuss specific document passages without losing context as documents evolve. ## What Changed - Added document annotation tables, schema exports, shared types, validators, anchor hashing, and text-anchor helpers. - Added server-side document annotation services and issue routes for listing, creating, commenting, resolving, and reopening annotation threads. - Included annotation summaries in relevant issue document reads and backup/recovery document workspace behavior. - Added React UI for inline document highlights, comment panels, mobile sheet behavior, deep-link focus, and resolved/open filtering. - Added annotation design artifacts, Storybook coverage, screenshots, and a screenshot helper script. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` and renumbered the annotation migration from `0085_old_swarm` to `0091_old_swarm`; the SQL uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards so environments that previously applied the old migration number can safely apply the new one. - Adjusted the new annotation UI tests to use a local async flush helper because this workspace's React 19.2.4 export does not expose `React.act`. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/document-anchors.test.ts server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/document-annotations-service.test.ts ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotationLayer.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx ui/src/lib/document-annotation-hash.test.ts ui/src/lib/document-annotation-selection.test.ts` - Confirmed `git diff --check` passes. - Confirmed no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` files are included in the PR diff. ## Risks - Medium risk: this adds new persisted annotation tables and routes across db/shared/server/ui. - Migration risk is reduced by moving the branch migration to `0091_old_swarm` after upstream `0090_resource_memberships` and keeping the SQL idempotent for old `0085_old_swarm` adopters. - UI risk is mostly around text range anchoring and panel positioning across long documents, folded content, and mobile layouts; the PR includes focused unit coverage and design 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 coding agent, tool-using software engineering mode. Context window size is not exposed in this Paperclip 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>	2026-05-26 06:41:23 -07:00