mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-27 02:44:50 +01:00
docs/external-task-protocol-replacement
89
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
1cd09ed555 |
perf(heartbeat): reuse task sessions for issue-scoped timer wakes and bound control-plane write retries (#10350)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents make progress in heartbeats: the server wakes an agent session, it does a slice of work on an issue, records a disposition, and exits > - Benchmarking identical coding tasks run as Paperclip-orchestrated agent pairs vs invoking the same agent harness directly measured a 1.8–2.2× wall-clock slowdown for the Paperclip pairs, dominated by per-heartbeat orchestration overhead rather than model time > - Two contributors stood out: (1) since PF-4 (#4838) every `heartbeat_timer` wake starts a brand-new task session, so continuation work on a specific issue repays the full session-start and re-orientation cost on every heartbeat; (2) in degraded environments agents burn many tool calls retrying the same failing control-plane write before giving up > - This pull request reuses the task session for issue-scoped timer wakes (keeping the PF-4 fresh-session rule only for unscoped exploratory wakes, which were the original context-bloat case) and adds a bounded-retry rule to the wake prompt and core skill: after 2 consecutive failures of the same control-plane write, stop retrying it for the rest of the heartbeat and rely on the adapter/runtime status channel > - The benefit is materially less wall-clock and token overhead per heartbeat while preserving the context-bloat protection PF-4 was added for ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #4838 (merged PF-4 change whose reset rule this refines), Refs #5287, Refs #1907 (related timer-heartbeat session work). No public GitHub issue exists for the slowdown itself; bug-report fields: - **What happened:** Agent pairs orchestrated through Paperclip heartbeats complete identical task sets 1.8–2.2× slower (wall-clock) than the same harness invoked directly. Profiling attributed the gap to per-heartbeat orchestration overhead: every timer wake discards the task session (full session start + re-orientation), and in degraded environments agents repeatedly retry the same failing control-plane write. - **Expected behavior:** Heartbeat orchestration should add minimal wall-clock overhead on top of the underlying harness; issue-scoped continuation work should not pay a fresh-session tax each interval. - **Steps to reproduce:** Run a fixed benchmark task set once through Paperclip issue heartbeats and once via direct harness invocation with the same model/config; compare wall-clock totals. - **Version/commit:** master @ |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
71a6535792 |
docs(execution-semantics): define routable blocking and watchdog restoration (#10094)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Execution semantics define when work may stop, how child work reports upward, and how watchdog recovery proves liveness was restored. > - The existing docs did not require a routable waiting path before entering `blocked`, leaving permission-denial and review workflows vulnerable to dead ends. > - Child-to-parent reporting and low-trust review delegation also needed explicit channels and ownership boundaries. > - Watchdog recovery needed bounded restoration verification rather than treating a recovery write as proof of restored progress. > - The security-sensitive defaults were reviewed and approved before publication. > - This pull request documents those contracts and synchronizes the bundled Paperclip skills that operationalize them. > - The benefit is clearer stop conditions, safer reporting defaults, and bounded watchdog recovery without sacrificing liveness. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No public GitHub issue exists for this execution-semantics documentation phase, so the problem and solution are described here in full. - Problem: `blocked` could be entered without a routable owner/action path, review findings could be reported on the wrong issue or treated as blockers, and watchdog recovery lacked bounded verification of restored liveness. ## What Changed - Require a routable waiting path for `blocked` and clarify that permission denial alone is not a blocker. - Define canonical child-to-parent completion/report channels, review-delegation ownership, and the sanctioned courier pattern. - Specify atomic watchdog recovery batches, fingerprint validation, bounded restoration attempts, and human escalation. - Document the low-trust preset default for report comments and align both bundled Paperclip skills. ## Scope and Sequencing - This is the contract-first P1 documentation PR. Runtime enforcement is intentionally excluded and follows in the separately owned implementation phases; these docs define the acceptance contract those phases must satisfy. - The five-file patch is approved and frozen for this PR, so review findings about absent runtime support are tracked as implementation-phase requirements rather than edits to this docs-only change. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` - Confirmed the PR diff is exactly 5 approved docs/skill files with 91 insertions and 1 deletion. - Confirmed the patch preserves the approved execution-semantics contract after replay on latest `origin/master`. ## Risks - Low implementation risk: documentation and skill guidance only; no runtime code, schema, migration, dependency, lockfile, or workflow changes. - Semantic risk is limited to readers or agents applying the clarified contracts; the security-sensitive R1a default was approved before publication. > 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 (exact underlying model ID and context-window size are not exposed by this runtime), with reasoning, terminal tool use, Git/GitHub operations, 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 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 private URLs or internal issue identifiers - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [x] I have run the applicable docs-only checks locally and they pass - [x] Tests are not applicable because this is a docs/skill-guidance-only change - [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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
30ff3d7c58 |
feat(routines): expose activity gate API (#9438)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Scheduled routines provide recurring control-plane work without manual intervention > - The new activity gate can suppress scheduled runs when no external work occurred > - The core scheduler and database support landed without a public create/update contract > - Agents, operators, and managed plugins need validated fields plus discoverable semantics to opt in safely > - This pull request exposes the activity gate through routine APIs, revisions, plugin contracts, tests, and skill documentation > - The benefit is backward-compatible control over idle scheduled work without losing activity-triggered follow-up ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #8534 ## What Changed - Added shared activity-gate policy and scope enums with create/PATCH validation. - Persisted activity-gate fields through routine creation, updates, revision snapshots, pipeline snapshots, and revision restores. - Defaulted legacy revision snapshots during restore and added regression coverage for pre-field snapshots. - Extended managed-plugin routine declarations, production reconciliation, and the SDK test harness to preserve non-default gate settings. - Added end-to-end API coverage for create/PATCH/list/detail round-trips, defaults, and invalid enum rejection. - Documented schedule-only semantics, activity windows, own-run/read-action exclusions, scopes, and an hourly quiet-night watcher example. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routines.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts -t 'activity gate|preserves declared activity gate settings|resolves routine agent and project refs'` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/workspace-routines.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - GitHub CI: all final-head checks green; Storybook visual regression skipped by path rules. - Greptile: 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks - Low risk: defaults remain `always` and `company`, preserving existing routine behavior and old revision snapshots. - Managed plugin manifests can now declare the same validated gate settings as the public routine API; omitted values retain core defaults. - Revision snapshots now include the new fields so policy changes are not lost or treated as no-ops during restore. > For core feature work, checked `ROADMAP.md`: this extends the existing Scheduled Routines roadmap item and does not duplicate a separate planned capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with repository tool use and code execution; context-window size was 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> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
04e070bf45 |
docs(skill): require agents to claim only monitors they actually scheduled (#10064)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work, and the shared `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md` is the behavioral
contract every managed agent follows each heartbeat.
> - Issue continuation between heartbeats depends on real, persisted
state: an issue only auto-resumes when it has a scheduled **issue
monitor** (`monitorNextCheckAt` + an execution-policy `monitor` block)
that the server's `tickDueIssueMonitors` scheduler polls and re-wakes
via `issue_monitor_due`.
> - A run/heartbeat is an ephemeral execution window — nothing keeps
"watching" after it exits — but the skill never said this, so agents
narrated a "watcher in this run" as if a live subscription existed.
> - That gap produced a concrete user-facing failure: an agent claimed
"a watcher in this run wakes me when CI + Greptile complete," then the
run ended with no monitor scheduled and nothing ever resumed, leaving
the user unsure whether a watcher existed at all.
> - This PR closes the gap by documenting what a monitor actually is and
adding hard rules so agents only claim a watcher they have actually
scheduled, describe it in checkable terms, and never imply a live
watcher on a task they mark `done`.
> - The benefit is that agent narration stays consistent with the
disposition guard and recovery classifier that already enforce these
paths in state, so users get accurate expectations about whether and
when a task will resume.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This is a documentation-only change to a shared agent skill, so no code
issue is required. The underlying problem it addresses:
**Problem or motivation** — Agents were telling users that a "watcher in
this run" would wake them when external checks (CI, Greptile) finished,
when no persisted issue monitor had been scheduled. Because a heartbeat
is ephemeral, no such watcher exists after the run exits, so the task
silently never resumed and the user was left confused about what would
happen next.
**Proposed solution** — Document, in the shared skill, exactly what an
issue monitor is (durable `monitorNextCheckAt` + execution-policy
`monitor` block, polled by `tickDueIssueMonitors`, re-woken via
`issue_monitor_due`) and add rules that agents may only claim a
watcher/monitor after actually scheduling one, must describe it in
checkable terms (kind / next check / timeout / attempts), and must never
imply a live watcher on a task being marked `done`.
**Alternatives considered** — Enforcing purely in server state (the
disposition guard and recovery classifier already reject
`in_review`/parked issues without a real wake path). That enforcement
exists but does not stop an agent from *narrating* a non-existent
watcher in a comment; aligning the skill guidance with the existing
state enforcement is the missing piece.
## What Changed
- Added a **"Monitors and Watchers (say only what you actually
scheduled)"** subsection to `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md` explaining that
a watcher does not live inside a run, and that only a persisted issue
monitor can auto-resume an issue (with the concrete fields and the
`tickDueIssueMonitors` / `issue_monitor_due` polling path).
- Added three behavioral rules: only claim a monitor after scheduling
one (and how to schedule/confirm it via `PATCH /api/issues/{id}` and
`monitor/check-now`); describe monitors in checkable terms; never imply
a live watcher on a task marked `done`.
- Cross-referenced the rule from the **Critical Rules** list.
- Tightened the final-disposition checklist so `in_review` /
`in_progress` continuation requires a real, non-null
`monitorNextCheckAt` rather than a merely described one.
## Verification
- Docs-only change to `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md`; no code paths are
affected.
- Confirmed every identifier referenced in the new text is real in the
codebase: `monitorNextCheckAt`, `monitorScheduledBy`,
`executionPolicy.monitor`, `tickDueIssueMonitors`, and the
`issue_monitor_due` wake reason.
- Rendered the Markdown to confirm the new subsection and the Critical
Rules bullet display correctly and links resolve within the document.
- `git diff` confirms the change is limited to the single skill file (14
insertions, 2 deletions).
## Risks
Low risk. This is guidance text in a shared agent skill with no runtime
or schema impact. Worst case is stylistic wording that can be refined in
a follow-up; it cannot break builds, migrations, or behavior. It
strengthens (never loosens) the existing disposition guarantees.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 (model id `claude-opus-4-8`, 1M-context variant) running
in an agent harness with extended thinking and tool use (file edit,
shell, git, GitHub CLI).
## 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
- [ ] 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
|
||
|
|
0b496c9c03 |
feat(secrets): add run-bound agent secret access (#9921)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Agents already receive selected company secrets through `env.*` bindings at run launch, but environment injection is ambient, long-lived, and not suitable for every secret consumer. > - The existing binding and secret-access-event models already provide company-scoped authorization and per-resolution audit seams. > - Agents need an explicit way to discover only the secrets granted to them and fetch a value on demand without exposing the wider company catalog. > - That capability must remain run-bound, preserve low-trust token carve-outs, and make every value read visible in both security and operator audit trails. > - This pull request adds an `access.*` delivery namespace, two run-bound agent routes, dual audit logging, documentation, and an operator grants editor. > - The benefit is least-privilege, revocable, auditable secret access while preserving existing env injection behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No pre-existing public issue. Related work: - Refs #9797 — existing in-sheet agent access UI that this PR extends to distinguish env and API delivery. - Refs #9918 — complementary searchable-agent picker improvement for the same secrets sheet. - Refs #9530 — related company-wide metadata catalog proposal; this PR intentionally exposes only the authenticated run's granted aliases and values. **Problem / motivation:** Agents can currently consume secrets only through process environment injection. This keeps values resident for the run, does not support on-demand consumers, and cannot provide a discrete operator-visible activity event for each agent-initiated read. **Proposed solution:** Treat `company_secret_bindings` as the source of truth for agent secret grants. Keep `env.KEY` as env delivery and add `access.ALIAS` for API-only delivery; an env binding also implies read access because the value is already present in the agent process. Add run-bound list/fetch endpoints that derive scope from the authenticated heartbeat run and never accept caller-selected overlays. **Alternatives considered:** A company-wide agent-readable catalog was rejected for this value path because it increases reconnaissance and does not prove a per-secret grant. Reusing the ephemeral environment-probe resolver was rejected because it lacks binding enforcement. Approval-gated reads and user-scoped secrets remain deferred beyond v1. **Roadmap alignment:** This extends the completed **Secrets Manager with per-agent access** roadmap capability from launch-time env injection to explicit run-bound API delivery without duplicating a separate planned initiative. ## What Changed - Added `access.*` agent binding validation and a dedicated run-bound resolver that combines `secrets:read` authorization with binding-context enforcement. - Added `GET /api/agents/me/secrets` for minimal granted metadata and `POST /api/agents/me/secrets/:key/value` for on-demand value fetches with `Cache-Control: no-store`. - Preserved the existing denials for low-trust review agents, task-bridge credentials, and skill-test tokens; standard long-lived agent API keys cannot call the run-bound routes. - Added dual audit behavior: value attempts write `secret_access_events` and `activity_log` (`secret.value.read`), while metadata listing writes the lighter `secret.access.listed` activity event. - Kept env compatibility: `env.*` remains injected at launch and also implies API read for the same bound agent; `access.*` never becomes an environment variable. - Added the agent-settings **Secret access** editor plus delivery-mode/alias surfacing on the Secrets page, with focused UI tests and tokenized layout styles. - Updated OpenAPI, shared types, agent-facing skill documentation, and API reference documentation. ### UI Screenshots P3 produced and reviewed three screenshots using mock data; images are intentionally not committed to the repository: - `secret-access-editor.png` — agent settings grant editor. - `secret-access-light.png` — Secrets-page delivery surfacing in light mode. - `secret-access-dark.png` — Secrets-page delivery surfacing in dark mode. The source attachments are retained with the implementation task and linked in the internal handoff; the public page publisher was unavailable in the PR-prep runtime. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/secret-delivery.test.ts ui/src/components/AgentSecretAccessEditor.test.tsx` — 5 files, 122 tests passed. - Security follow-up: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` — 2 files, 73 tests passed after active-run and version-consistency fixes. - Final-head CI: all feature, typecheck, build, e2e, security, and review gates pass; `General tests (server (1/3))` remains red after one rerun because unrelated `heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts` cleanup deletes `heartbeat_runs` before referenced `activity_log` rows. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — feature-local arbitrary-value violations fixed; command still reports five unchanged `#9627` literals outside this PR. - End-to-end QA passed all eight acceptance criteria: grant/list, fetch, dual audit, env-implies-read, denial matrix, revocation, UI rendering, and env-injection regression. Evidence: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9921#issuecomment-5027455492 - Security review returned PASS-with-required-changes; the implementation uses the required dedicated binding-enforcing resolver, run-bound JWT restriction, run-derived overlays, minimal metadata, and a resolver redaction-registration hook. Evidence: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9921#issuecomment-5027455382 ## Risks - A compromised agent can exfiltrate any secret explicitly granted to it; explicit company-scoped/run-scoped grants, revocation, and audit reduce but cannot remove that inherent capability risk. - The resolver invokes a redaction-registration hook before returning values, but the current route has no persistent cross-request per-run redaction registry. Paperclip-owned later comments/events therefore cannot yet guarantee automatic scrubbing of a deliberately copied fetched value; QA classified this as non-blocking residual hardening. - Audit-event insertion currently fails open if the security-event insert itself fails; the operator activity event provides partial redundancy, but a future hardening change should define fail-closed behavior for value delivery. - This PR overlaps `ui/src/pages/Secrets.tsx` with #9918 and may require a straightforward rebase after that PR moves. > 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-5.3-codex`, with reasoning, repository tool use, terminal execution, Paperclip API access, and GitHub CLI capabilities. Context-window size is not exposed by the runtime. - Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 with 1M context and tool use assisted with the UI implementation commit. ## 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 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
59fb27ff79 |
feat(inbox): let agents safely tidy user inboxes (#9724)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work > - The inbox is a per-user attention view, so archiving an item must not alter the underlying issue, assignment, or status > - Agents can help responsible users tidy resolved work only when the action is company-scoped, reversible, policy-controlled, and fully attributable > - The database and authorization foundations landed in #9654 and #9658, but the end-to-end archive routes, audit details, agent workflow guidance, and operator UI still need to ship together > - Separate stacked PRs #9659 and #9661 made the complete behavior harder to review and land as one coherent capability > - This pull request consolidates the remaining server, shared-contract, documentation, skill, and UI work on top of current master > - The benefit is a single reviewable change that lets agents safely archive responsible-user inbox items and lets users control or undo that behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting inbox management across shared contracts, server authorization/routes/services, shipped agent skills, and the board UI. ### Problem or motivation Agents may complete work whose issue remains in the responsible user's Mine inbox. Existing board-user archive behavior does not provide the agent-facing policy endpoints, target resolution, heartbeat-run attribution, typed denials, conservative workflow guidance, or UI needed for safe agent-managed cleanup. ### Proposed solution Allow authorized agents to archive or unarchive responsible-user inbox items under the user's open, allowlist, or disabled policy; preserve actor/agent/run attribution in issue detail and activity records; expose policy controls and agent archive attribution in the UI; and document conservative cleanup rules for agents and PR gardening. ### Alternatives considered - Reuse generic issue mutation permissions: rejected because inbox state belongs to a target user and requires user-scoped authorization. - Automatically archive every completed or closed item: rejected because completion signals can still require human review or a decision. - Keep the backend and UI as separate stacked PRs: superseded by this consolidated PR so the complete user-visible behavior can be reviewed and verified together. ### Related work - Builds on merged foundations #9654 and #9658. - Supersedes the remaining stacked changes in #9659 and #9661. - `ROADMAP.md` has no overlapping inbox archive or inbox authorization initiative. ## What Changed - Added shared inbox-agent policy types and validators plus company-scoped self-service policy routes and OpenAPI coverage. - Enabled agent archive/unarchive mutations with responsible-user targeting, policy enforcement, typed failures, attribution, idempotency, and detailed activity auditing. - Returned agent archive attribution in issue detail and documented reversible inbox cleanup semantics in the implementation spec and Paperclip skill. - Added conservative PR-gardening inbox tidy guidance that keeps GitHub access read-only and avoids archiving work that still needs human action. - Added the Profile settings policy control and Issue Properties attribution/unarchive UI with focused component coverage and narrow-pane handling. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-agent-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/InboxAgentPolicyControl.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 110 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/inbox-archive-agent-policies-migration.test.ts` — 1 passed. - `node --test .agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` — 9 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — changed files are clean; the repository-wide command currently reports nine unrelated pre-existing `#9627` literals outside this PR's diff. ## Risks - Agent inbox mutations broaden an existing endpoint path, so authorization and target resolution must remain fail-closed; focused route and authorization tests cover allowed and denied paths. - Archive state affects only the responsible user's inbox presentation and remains reversible; it does not mutate issue status, assignment, or visibility. - The UI policy defaults to the existing open behavior, while allowlist and disabled modes can reduce agent access. - This PR intentionally builds on #9654 and #9658 and contains no new migration number or modification to an already-applied migration. > 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-5.4, medium reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, code review, 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 (`feat/inbox-agent-archive-complete`) 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> |
||
|
|
89ce36d7af |
feat(skills): open-by-default company skill policy and core UX (#9564)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses company skills to make agent capabilities reusable across an organization. > - Skill operations currently mix capability availability with permission checks, which creates avoidable setup friction and inconsistent denial handling. > - The policy contract needs to remain open by default while allowing company-scoped restrictions for governed deployments. > - Core owns the canonical policy actions, persistence, evaluation, API behavior, safe import boundaries, and generic denial/read-only UI. > - Enterprise policy-editor implementation belongs in the separate `paperclip-ee` repository and is intentionally excluded from this PR. ### Problem or motivation Company skill operations can encounter permission dead ends even when no explicit restriction has been configured, and import-source classification can drift between policy evaluation and execution. ### Proposed solution Define eight canonical skill policy actions, default all actions to allowed, persist company-scoped restrictions, expose policy evaluation APIs, normalize import sources at the boundary, and update Skill Studio to present actionable restriction states without embedding Enterprise Edition implementation in the core repository. ### Alternatives considered Keeping capability checks distributed across routes and UI surfaces was rejected because it duplicates policy logic and makes denial behavior inconsistent. Shipping the Enterprise policy editor in this repository was rejected because `paperclip-ee` is a separate repository and must receive its own PR. ### Roadmap alignment Extends the completed **Skills Manager** roadmap area by adding coherent governance and removing workflow dead ends. ### Additional context The core API contract remains suitable for a separate Enterprise Edition editor, but this PR contains no `paperclip-ee` package or EE-specific UI integration code. ## What Changed - Added the company skill policy contract to product and implementation documentation, including the open-by-default rule, eight canonical actions, decision shape, and core/EE ownership boundary. - Added the company-scoped policy schema, migration `0170`, shared validators, policy service, REST routes, OpenAPI coverage, and focused server tests. - Hardened import policy enforcement by normalizing import sources and keeping source classification consistent between policy evaluation and execution. - Updated core Skill Studio behavior to remove generic permission dead ends and show actionable policy/platform denial states only when an operation is actually denied. - Removed the `plugin-paperclip-ee` package, Docker wiring, EE discovery/deep-link helpers, and EE-specific UI tests/stories from this PR so that implementation can be submitted separately to the EE repository. - Preserved open-by-default behavior when no explicit company restriction exists. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/skill-studio/SkillPolicySurfaces.test.tsx src/lib/skill-policy-denial.test.ts` — 20/20 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec tsc --noEmit` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` — 12/12 passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean. - `git diff --check` — passed. - `git diff --name-only origin/master | rg 'paperclip-ee|ee-skill-policy'` — no matches. ## Risks - Migration `0170` introduces company policy persistence; rollout depends on the migration applying before policy routes are exercised. - Open-by-default is an intentional behavioral policy: deployments expecting implicit denials must configure explicit restrictions. - Import normalization is security-sensitive and should retain focused review. - The separate EE editor must stay contract-compatible with the core policy API as policy actions evolve. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI, runtime model identifier and context-window size not exposed by this execution environment; reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, and code review capabilities 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 available to this runtime) - [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 or described the result 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 focused 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 on the latest head - [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> Co-authored-by: Evyatar Bluzer <bluzername@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3db2e6bdd2 |
feat(mcp) [split 8/8]: add e2e coverage and operator docs (#9563)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 8/8 and focuses on end-to-end coverage, operator docs, evals, and release notes > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: The complete stack needs discoverable browser scenarios, operator guidance, threat modeling, eval coverage, and a parity proof before merge. - Proposed solution: Adds MCP user-story and Smoke Lab e2e suites, docs/evals/release notes, the skill update, and the root e2e driver script registration. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/07-ui-apps-activation`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: QA for flag audit and e2e/browser acceptance; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds MCP user-story and Smoke Lab e2e suites, docs/evals/release notes, the skill update, and the root e2e driver script registration. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - `node --check scripts/e2e-mcp-user-stories.mjs` - `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts --list` — 43 tests discovered - `git diff pap10341-split/08-e2e-docs 6b40e3876d9297105d4ec306e47e46d351c86172` — empty (0 bytes) ## Risks - Browser suites depend on runtime services and environment setup; this PR validates discovery locally while QA owns full flag-on/flag-off execution. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools 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 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] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [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 - [ ] 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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
953b315dfb |
Shorten skill frontmatter descriptions (#9353)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip agents can load repository and catalog skills, and Codex renders skill names and frontmatter descriptions into startup context. > - Long descriptions consume the fixed skill metadata budget before Codex can use the progressively disclosed skill bodies. > - The repo `.agents/skills` descriptions and a few shipped catalog descriptions had grown into operational documentation instead of short trigger metadata. > - This pull request keeps the strongest trigger language in frontmatter while leaving detailed procedures in each skill body. > - The benefit is lower prompt overhead, more reliable skill triggering, and a regression guard that prevents description drift from returning. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue found for this maintenance item. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am working against `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the issue originates in Paperclip's shipped skill metadata, not in a local agent adapter or provider. ### What happened? Codex startup renders discovered skill names and frontmatter descriptions into a fixed skill metadata budget. Several repository skill descriptions and one shipped catalog description had grown into long-form operational guidance, which can force Codex to truncate descriptions before the model has enough trigger signal to select the right skill. ### Expected behavior Skill frontmatter descriptions should stay short trigger summaries: one capability sentence plus a “use when” clause. Detailed procedures should stay in the skill body and load only after the skill triggers. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Inspect `.agents/skills/*/SKILL.md` and `packages/skills-catalog/catalog/**/SKILL.md` frontmatter descriptions. 2. Measure folded YAML `description` values. 3. Observe descriptions above the intended short-trigger range, including descriptions above 300 characters. 4. Run the new shipped catalog test to verify future descriptions stay capped. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on `master` at `cc81eefb6047d8eaf57faf785f421c03dc97073c`. ### Deployment mode Local dev / source checkout metadata inspection. This is not database-related. ### Installation method Built from source. ### Agent adapter(s) involved Codex, because Codex startup uses the skill metadata prompt budget. The metadata source itself is core repository/catalog content. ### Database mode Not database-related. ### Access context Not applicable; this is static repository metadata. ### Node.js version `v22.22.2` in the verification environment. ### Operating system Linux container environment. ### Relevant logs or output Final measurement after this PR: 29 source `SKILL.md` files, max description length 215 chars, 5,449 total description chars, estimated 1,363 description tokens at 4 chars/token. ### Relevant config None. ### Additional context The shipped catalog manifest was regenerated so the generated package metadata matches the edited catalog `SKILL.md` sources. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Shortened long `.agents/skills/*/SKILL.md` frontmatter descriptions to concise capability plus use-when trigger clauses. - Shortened the over-budget shipped skills catalog descriptions for wireframe, Paperclip capsules, and reflection coach. - Regenerated `packages/skills-catalog/generated/catalog.json` so shipped metadata matches source skill frontmatter. - Added a Vitest regression guard that caps repo skill source descriptions and generated catalog descriptions at 300 characters. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog build:manifest` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` — 5 files passed, 19 tests passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog typecheck` - Final measurement: 29 source `SKILL.md` files, max description length 215 chars, 5,449 total description chars, estimated 1,363 description tokens at 4 chars/token. Note: the clean PR worktree was created from `origin/master` and contains only this commit, but it does not have `node_modules`; running `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` there failed at tool/package resolution (`vitest`, `tsc`, `@paperclipai/shared`). The dependency-equipped workspace passed the commands above before the commit was cherry-picked onto the clean branch. ## Risks Low risk. This changes skill metadata and tests only. The main risk is over-trimming a useful trigger phrase, mitigated by keeping explicit “use when” clauses and leaving detailed guidance in the skill bodies. > 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 GPT-5 Codex coding agent via Paperclip/Codex, with shell and file-edit tool use. Exact API model ID and context window were not exposed in 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 - [ ] 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> |
||
|
|
5c85ae64a0 |
Cases: experimental first-class case object (#9198)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board currently uses issues for execution, but longer-lived content work needs a separate object that can survive beyond a single task thread. > - The Cases subsystem adds an experimental, company-scoped record for content artifacts and their supporting metadata. > - The backend needs durable storage, API routes, revision history, issue linkage, and company-boundary enforcement before the UI can depend on Cases. > - The UI needs an opt-in navigation surface, list/detail views, reference chips, and issue-page context so operators can inspect Cases without making them the default workflow. > - The agent-facing skills need a contract for creating and updating Cases so automated content workflows can dogfood the feature. > - This pull request ships that experimental end-to-end path behind the `enableCases` flag. > - The benefit is a first-class place to collect content work, references, attachments, revisions, and related execution threads without polluting the core issue model. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this experimental feature. Feature request fields: ### Problem Content-oriented work such as release notes, announcements, docs, and campaigns can span many execution issues, which makes the final artifact hard to find and reason about after the execution thread moves on. ### Proposed solution Add an experimental Cases object that is company-scoped, linked to issues, queryable through the API, inspectable in the board UI, and writable by agent workflows through documented conventions. ### Alternatives considered Continue encoding content artifacts directly in issues or documents only. That keeps the data model smaller, but it does not give operators a stable artifact-centric view or a clean way to link related execution history. ### Roadmap alignment Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned core roadmap item. ## What Changed - Added the `cases` data model, migration, schema exports, and experimental `enableCases` instance setting. - Added company-scoped Cases API routes for list/detail/update, issue links, revisions, children, activity events, annotations, attachments, and idempotent agent-oriented upserts. - Scoped case and issue lookup helpers before access checks so inaccessible cross-company identifiers resolve as not found rather than leaking existence. - Fixed case PATCH timestamp handling so non-status updates cannot overwrite `completedAt` from a stale pre-transaction row snapshot. - Moved Cases list type/status/project filters into the server request before the server-side limit is applied, including multi-select filters and no-project filtering. - Added backend route coverage for creation, updates, idempotency, issue linking, attribution, company-boundary enforcement, OpenAPI registration, list filtering, timestamp patch behavior, and inaccessible lookup regressions. - Added the experimental Cases UI surface: sidebar entry, gated routes, list filters/grouping, detail overview, activity, revisions, children, attachments, and issue-page case rail. - Added case reference rendering and company-prefixed case href generation so case links resolve directly inside the active company route. - Added Paperclip skill documentation for agent workflows that create or update Cases. - Wired release-content skills to emit Cases for dogfooding. - Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the Cases migrations to `0143`/`0144` after the latest upstream migration sequence. ## Verification - Current PR head: `ecc13be0d`. - Rebased on current `master` (`606aa4f266`) and pushed to the existing PR branch. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed before the first update push; subsequent committed diffs were also checked with `git diff --check` before commit. - Guardrails checked: no `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes, no `.github/workflows` changes, and changed-file count is below the Greptile 100-file limit. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed, 3 files / 26 tests before review-fix commits. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts` — passed after each server-side Greptile fix, latest 1 file / 15 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed after the timestamp and lookup fixes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Cases.test.tsx src/pages/CaseDetail.test.tsx src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx src/App.cases-routing.test.tsx` — passed, 4 files / 30 tests before review-fix commits. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Cases.test.tsx` — passed after the list-filter fix, 1 file / 12 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after the list-filter fix. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed after UI changes. - Remote PR checks on head `ecc13be0d` are green: Paperclip CI, build, typecheck, test matrix, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, commit review, Superagent Security Scan, Socket, Snyk, and Greptile passed; Storybook visual regression is skipped and security-review is neutral. - Greptile Review: 5/5 confidence, zero unresolved Greptile threads. ## Risks - Medium feature risk because this introduces a new experimental domain object across database, server, shared contracts, skills, and UI. - The feature is gated behind `enableCases`, which limits default operator exposure while the model is exercised. - Case links now prefer company-prefixed hrefs; the unprefixed redirect remains for externally entered URLs. - Cases list filtering now sends multi-select filters to the server before limiting; the UI still applies the same local filters as a second pass for ancestor/context rows. - Migrations were renumbered on top of current master; the SQL uses guarded `IF NOT EXISTS` / `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` patterns where relevant for safer replay. > 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 GPT-5 Codex in the Paperclip local coding environment was used for this PR curation, rebase verification, review-fix implementation, push, and PR description update. The runtime exposes tool use and shell execution; context-window size is not exposed by this Paperclip adapter. Several implementation commits also include AI co-author trailers recorded in git history. ## 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 searched the GitHub PR list for similar PRs and confirmed this is not a duplicate - [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 (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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
9d5b0e3c57 |
Add read-only issue subtree diagnostics endpoint (#9135)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The issue/task orchestration subsystem tracks parent–child and blocker–dependent relationships, forming a directed acyclic (in intention) subtree below each root issue > - Agents and operators have no lightweight way to inspect the dependency and wake state across an entire issue subtree — they must walk the tree issue-by-issue, making multiple round-trips with full object fetches > - A bounded, read-only subtree diagnostic endpoint lets callers understand the health of an entire work tree (which nodes are blocked, which are cycling, which have pending wakes) from a single authenticated request > - This pull request adds `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/subtree`, a depth/node/per-node capped traversal that reuses the blocker and wake projection helpers from the companion blocker and wake diagnostics endpoints (see Refs #9114, #9133) > - The benefit is that platform operators, monitoring, and coaching tooling can surface \"why is this subtree stalled?\" across all nodes without database access or unbounded graph walks, using only data the caller already has read permission for ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9114 (companion blocker diagnostics endpoint — blocker projection helpers reused here) Refs #9133 (companion wake diagnostics endpoint — wake projection helpers reused here) ## What Changed - **New route** `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/subtree` in `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: returns a bounded subtree traversal rooted at `:id`, with depth/node/per-node caps and explicit truncation flags - **Cycle-safe traversal**: visited-node set prevents infinite loops on any accidental cycle in the ancestry graph - **Per-node authorization**: each subtree node is individually filtered through `assertIssueReadAllowed`; unauthorized nodes are omitted from the response and do not influence aggregate counts - **Blocker and wake reuse**: per-node blocker rows and wake events are projected through the same helpers as #9114 and #9133 — raw wake payloads, raw errors, activity details, and trigger detail fields are stripped - **Low-trust filtering**: the `mention-scoped` low-trust path redacts node/blocker identifiers for unauthorized actors, consistent with #9133 - **Truncation reporting**: response includes `depthTruncated`, `nodeTruncated`, and per-node `blockersTruncated`/`wakesTruncated` flags when caps are hit - **Shared types** in `@paperclipai/shared`: `IssueSubtreeDiagnosticsResponse` and supporting node/blocker/wake types exported from the shared package - **OpenAPI tag registration** for the new route - **API reference docs** in `skills/paperclip/references/api-reference.md` - **Test coverage** (`server/src/__tests__/issue-subtree-diagnostics-routes.test.ts`, embedded Postgres): happy path, quiet singleton (no children/blockers), node cap truncation, mention-scoped low-trust filtering, cross-company denial ## Verification ```bash # Subtree diagnostics tests only pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-subtree-diagnostics-routes.test.ts # Full diagnostics suite (blocker + wake + subtree) pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-diagnostics-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-wake-diagnostics-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-subtree-diagnostics-routes.test.ts # Type-check shared and server packages pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck # Whitespace / diff check git diff --check ``` All commands passed locally (5 subtree tests, 17 total across the three diagnostics test files). ## Risks - **No schema or migration changes** — read-only projection over existing relations; no DDL risk - **Bounded traversal** — depth, node count, and per-node blocker/wake caps prevent unbounded graph walks; truncation is reported explicitly in the response - **Auth boundary** — root issue read is company-scoped and checked before the subtree is built; each subtree node is individually authorized; cross-company access is denied at `assertCompanyAccess` - **No raw payloads** — raw wake payload, raw error, activity details, and trigger detail fields are stripped from all nodes, consistent with the companion endpoints - Low overall risk; the endpoint is additive and read-only ## Model Used - **Provider:** Anthropic - **Model:** Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`) - **Tool use:** yes (file reads, edits, bash execution, Paperclip API calls) - **Reasoning mode:** standard (no extended thinking) ## 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
31a0080e61 |
Fix wake diagnostics low-trust identifier redaction (#9133)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open-source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The task/issue lifecycle subsystem tracks when agents wake up, are
suppressed, or are deferred, recording each wake request in
`agent_wakeup_requests` and each defer/suppression event in
`activity_log`
> - When an agent appears stuck or doesn't resume after a dependency
resolves, there is currently no read-only API surface to inspect its
wake history — operators must query the database directly
> - Making wake history queryable via a first-class endpoint lets
operators, support, and monitoring tools diagnose "why didn't this agent
wake up?" without database access
> - This pull request adds `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/wakes`,
returning a bounded 14-day/50-row projection of wake requests and
defer/suppression activity events, with a deterministic `diagnosis`
field and a `likelyReason` inference — including a Case-B inference ("no
wake enqueued because a visible blocker is not done") that reuses the
blocker readiness data from the companion blocker diagnostics endpoint
(see Refs #9114)
> - The benefit is that platform operators can answer "why is this agent
not waking up?" from a safe, read-only HTTP endpoint rather than needing
direct database access, and CI/monitoring can assert expected wake
behavior
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9114 (companion blocker diagnostics endpoint, already merged —
this PR extends the same diagnostic surface to wake/activity history)
## What Changed
- **New route** `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/wakes` in
`server/src/routes/issues.ts`: returns a bounded (14-day window, 50-row
cap) projection of `agent_wakeup_requests` rows and wake-relevant
`activity_log` rows (defer/suppression events)
- **Sanitized projection**: raw `payload`, `details`, `error`, and
`triggerDetail` fields are stripped; unknown free-form `source`,
`reason`, and `status` values are projected to `"other"` to prevent
schema bleed
- **Deterministic `diagnosis` and `likelyReason` fields**: includes
Case-B inference ("no wake enqueued — visible blocker not done") that
calls the existing blocker-readiness helper from Slice 1 (#9114) so the
wake surface can explain missing wakes caused by outstanding blockers
- **Auth**: `assertCompanyAccess` + `assertIssueReadAllowed`;
cross-company requests are denied; Case-B blocker inference filters by
caller trust level so hidden (low-trust) blockers are mentioned but not
identified
- **Types in `@paperclipai/shared`**: `IssueWakeDiagnosticsResponse`,
`WakeEvent`, `ActivityEvent` exported from the shared package
- **OpenAPI tag registration** for the new route
- **Skill reference docs** in
`skills/paperclip/references/api-reference.md` documenting the endpoint
contract
- **Test coverage**
(`server/src/__tests__/issue-wake-diagnostics-routes.test.ts`, embedded
Postgres): happy path, empty/null diagnosis, Case-B inference, low-trust
hidden blocker, cross-company denial, raw blob minimization, cap
behaviour, combined blocker+wake test run
## Verification
```bash
# Wake diagnostics tests only
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-wake-diagnostics-routes.test.ts
# Wake + blocker diagnostics together (integration)
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-diagnostics-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-wake-diagnostics-routes.test.ts
# Type-check shared and server packages
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
# Whitespace / diff check
git diff --check
```
All commands passed locally.
## Risks
- **No schema or migration changes** — this is a read-only projection
over existing tables; no DDL risk.
- **Bounded queries** — 14-day window + 50-row cap limit per call; no
unbounded scans.
- **Auth boundary** — cross-company access is denied at
`assertCompanyAccess`; Case-B inference uses the same per-node trust
filtering as the blocker endpoint so low-trust blockers are acknowledged
but not identified.
- Low overall risk; the endpoint is additive and read-only.
## Model Used
- **Provider:** Anthropic
- **Model:** Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`)
- **Tool use:** yes (file reads, edits, bash execution, Paperclip API
calls)
- **Reasoning mode:** standard (no extended thinking)
## 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
295294d7ce |
Add read-only issue blocker diagnostics endpoint (#9114)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents block each other with `blockedByIssueIds` relationships to express dependencies > - Users and tooling have no lightweight way to inspect *why* an issue is blocked or whether its blockers are themselves ready to resolve > - A read-only diagnostic endpoint over the existing blocker graph lets callers understand dependency chains without requiring a full issue-tree traversal > - This pull request adds `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/blockers` — a bounded, read-only projection over each blocker's readiness state > - The benefit is that callers can surface blocking-chain diagnosis (e.g. "waiting on N blockers, M of which are themselves blocked") from a single authenticated request, using only data they already have read permission for ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Feature description: **Subsystem affected:** `server/` — REST API & orchestration services; `packages/shared` — types, constants, validators, API paths **Problem or motivation** There is no API endpoint to inspect *why* an issue is blocked or to get a per-blocker readiness summary. Clients must walk the issue graph manually or fetch full issue objects, which requires multiple round-trips and is expensive. **Proposed solution** A single `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/blockers` endpoint returns a bounded projection: root issue summary, an ordered blocker list with per-blocker `readiness` state, and a top-level `diagnosis` field summarizing overall blocking status. Authorization mediation omits blockers the caller cannot read, so `diagnosis` only reflects visible data. **Alternatives considered** A general graph-walk query (too broad/expensive for a targeted diagnostic call); enriching the existing `GET /api/issues/:id` response (too coupled to the main response shape and adds weight for callers that do not need blocker detail). **Roadmap alignment** Read-only observability surface over existing data; no database schema changes. This aligns with tooling that helps users understand dependency state without mutating anything. ## What Changed - Added `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/blockers` route to the server - Returns per-blocker `readiness` state and a top-level `diagnosis` field summarizing overall blocking status - Enforces `issue:read` authorization per-blocker: unauthorized blockers are omitted and do not influence `diagnosis` or `readiness` values - Added shared TypeScript response types in `@paperclipai/shared` - Added route-level tests using embedded Postgres - Added API documentation in the `paperclip` skill ## Verification ```sh ./node_modules/.bin/vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-diagnostics-routes.test.ts pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck ``` All three commands pass locally. ## Risks - Read-only endpoint over existing relations — no writes, no schema or migration changes — low risk - Authorization mediation intentionally omits unauthorized blockers from both the list and from `diagnosis`/`readiness`; callers with partial access will see a narrower picture than the full blocker graph ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic - Model: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`) - Context window: 200k tokens - Mode: Tool use, code generation, extended reasoning ## 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
|
dfc256a543 |
[codex] Add heartbeat policy eval coverage (#9087)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The relevant subsystem is the agent heartbeat policy surface: the Paperclip skill, default onboarding AGENTS.md, new-agent runtime defaults, and promptfoo eval coverage for agent behavior. > - A broad recovery PR collected several unrelated local-mainline changes, which made review too large and mixed policy/eval updates with server execution and UI work. > - This PR extracts only the heartbeat policy and prompt-eval slice so reviewers can assess the behavior contract independently. > - The eval additions cover scoped wake handling, idle no-op behavior, dependency-blocked comment triage, final disposition, budget hard stops, and Phase 5 memory/control-surface policy expectations. > - The benefit is a narrower review surface plus deterministic follow-up guidance for server/shared tests that should back these prompt-level checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #8866 No public issue was filed for this split. This is a focused extraction from the closed broad recovery PR so heartbeat policy and eval coverage can be reviewed separately from execution behavior, work-product feature work, plugin hardening, pipeline health, and unrelated UI polish. ## What Changed - Added promptfoo release-gate cases for scoped wake payload handling, idle exits, dependency-blocked comment triage, final disposition, and budget hard-stop behavior. - Added Phase 5 memory/control-surface prompt eval cases for provider binding precedence, provenance/audit fields, hook cost/trust handling, and auditable board command surfaces. - Documented how these prompt evals map to deterministic server/shared follow-up coverage. - Updated agent policy guidance so operator-facing engineering outputs such as PRs, branches, commits, previews, and runtime services get matching work products. - Defaulted new agent runtime config to skip timer heartbeats when there is no actionable work, with focused test coverage. ## Verification - `cd evals/promptfoo && npx promptfoo@latest validate -c promptfooconfig.yaml` passes. - `/srv/paperclip/home/paperclipai/paperclip/node_modules/.bin/vitest run ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts` passes in an isolated worktree after `pnpm install --ignore-scripts --frozen-lockfile` created workspace links. - A live promptfoo eval was not run because `OPENROUTER_API_KEY`, `OPENAI_API_KEY`, and `ANTHROPIC_API_KEY` were unset in the workspace. ## Risks Low-to-medium risk. The runtime default reduces timer-driven empty heartbeats for newly created agents, so the main behavioral risk is missing an edge case where timer wakes were expected despite no actionable work. The promptfoo additions are deterministic assertion coverage and documentation-only until a live eval is run with provider credentials. > 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 GPT-5-based Codex coding agent in the Paperclip local Codex adapter environment; exact hosted model ID and context window were not exposed to the agent runtime. Tool use included shell, git, promptfoo validation, Vitest, and the GitHub connector/CLI. ## 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
2eba718bef |
Fix sandbox bridge credentials and stalled review recovery (#8844)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The local adapter and heartbeat recovery systems decide whether an agent has a real control-plane mutation path. > - Sandboxed local adapters split execution between the trusted host process and the sandbox shell/tool surface. > - A host-side adapter can still reach Paperclip while the sandbox shell surface cannot, which leaves agents thinking no endpoint or credentials are configured even though the host can still post comments. > - Execution-policy review stages can also remain pending after a reviewer run finishes without recording a decision. > - This pull request makes the sandbox bridge available to the actual shell mutation surface and adds bounded recovery for terminal-but-still-pending review participants. > - The benefit is that agents get a real reachable Paperclip API path where they need it, and stalled review stages become visible recovery work instead of silently drifting. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No exact public GitHub issue matched this combined failure. I searched for exact and related terms including `cannot reach the Paperclip control plane`, `execution_review_participant_recovery`, `sandbox callback bridge`, `review participant in_review`, and `control plane sandbox`. Related public issues: - Refs #8482 for `in_review` liveness invariant recovery. - Refs #863 for prior agent API-key reachability confusion. - Refs #248 for the broader sandboxed agent execution model. Bug summary: - What happened: a sandboxed local-adapter run could have host-side Paperclip access while the sandbox Bash/tool surface lacked a reachable API endpoint or usable run credentials. Separately, a reviewer run could finish while its execution-review stage remained pending, leaving the source issue in `in_review` with no decision and no live participant run. - Expected behavior: the mutation surface that agents actually use should receive a run-scoped Paperclip bridge, and pending review participants should get one bounded normal-model recovery wake before moving to explicit blocked/source-scoped recovery. - Steps to reproduce: run a sandbox-backed local adapter that needs Bash/curl/tooling to call Paperclip from inside the sandbox, or finish an execution-policy reviewer run without submitting the pending review decision. - Deployment mode: local/authenticated private development instance with sandbox-backed local adapters. ## What Changed - Changed sandbox callback bridge startup so bridge credentials are passed through the sandbox runner environment instead of embedded in the visible `nohup env ...` command string. - Added adapter-utils coverage proving the sandbox shell can call Paperclip through the bridge, forwards the host run JWT with `X-Paperclip-Run-Id`, and does not leak host or bridge tokens into stdout/stderr, runner command text, or runtime files. - Added one bounded execution-review participant recovery path for terminal reviewer runs whose `executionState` remains pending. - Escalated exhausted or non-invokable review participant recovery to blocked/source-scoped recovery with dedicated evidence, activity, and next-action text. - Documented the mutation-surface reachability contract in `doc/execution-semantics.md` and updated the Paperclip skill authentication guidance for sandbox bridge env vars. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/execution-target-sandbox.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check` - `curl -fsS $PAPERCLIP_API_URL/api/health` returned `status: ok` on the local instance. ## Risks - Medium behavioral risk: more `in_review` issues with terminal-but-pending reviewer runs will now be retried once and then blocked explicitly instead of remaining quiet. - Low sandbox bridge risk: credential delivery moved from command text to the runner environment, which is less leaky but depends on sandbox providers honoring the env payload for startup commands. - No database migration is included. - Full repo build and CI were not run locally before opening the PR; targeted server/adapter tests and typechecks passed. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 via the Codex local agent, with repository tool use and shell-based code execution. The runtime did not expose a precise context-window value to the agent. ## 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ed65d08d57 |
[codex] Gate skill mutations with skills:create permission (#8616)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents and board users operate inside a company-scoped control plane where permissions decide which mutating actions they can perform > - Company skills are part of the reusable agent-company setup surface, but skill mutation had been coupled to broader agent-creation authority > - That coupling meant importing or managing skills required a permission that also implies hiring power, which is broader than the operation needs > - Paperclip already has a grant-based permission vocabulary, so skill mutation should be authorized through a dedicated `skills:create` capability while preserving existing default behavior for trusted agents > - This pull request adds the skill creation permission contract, enforces it on company skill mutations, exposes it in agent permission management, and documents the changed CLI/API expectations > - The benefit is a narrower, auditable permission path for skill import/create/update/delete flows without forcing agents to receive broader agent-creation authority ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue is linked. Problem: company skill mutation APIs were effectively tied to broader agent creation authority. This PR splits skill mutation authorization onto the public `skills:create` permission while keeping existing default skill creation behavior for agents unless explicitly disabled. Related public PR found during duplicate search: #5330. That PR uses an older `canManageSkills` shape; this PR implements the `skills:create` grant path instead. ## What Changed - Added `skills:create` to shared permission constants and agent permission types/validators as `canCreateSkills`. - Backfilled default human/member role grants for `skills:create`. - Updated company skill mutation routes to require board/user or agent access to `skills:create`, while preserving legacy/default agent behavior through `canCreateSkills` unless explicitly disabled. - Updated agent permission update handling, UI permission controls, duplicate-agent payloads, plugin SDK fixtures, and agent detail API surfaces for `canCreateSkills`. - Added regression coverage for skill route authorization, permission schema/default behavior, invite grants, omitted permission updates, and duplicate-agent payloads. - Updated CLI and Paperclip skill documentation for the new skill creation permission. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/invite-join-grants.test.ts ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts` — 5 files, 90 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm test:run ...changed files...` was attempted first, but the stable wrapper rejects explicit file arguments; direct Vitest was used for the same targeted files. ## Risks - Moderate authorization risk: this changes the gate for company skill mutations, so the tests cover board grant checks, agent explicit grant checks, legacy default allowance, and explicit denial. - Migration/backfill risk is low: the migration only grants `skills:create` to existing human roles that already need broad management capability. - UI/API compatibility risk is low: `canCreateSkills` remains default-on for full agent permissions, and the update validator preserves omitted values so unrelated permission edits do not re-enable disabled skill creation. > 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 with terminal/tool use 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 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
364f0f5a8d |
fix(server): enforce issue read for issue thread lists (#8331)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents coordinate through issue threads, so issue comments and interactions are part of the task authorization surface. > - Low-trust and boundary-limited agents can receive narrow mention-scoped access, but that must not turn into broad same-company issue-thread reads. > - The comment creation path was narrowed to allow explicit mention replies without granting mutation access. > - The surrounding list/read routes still needed to enforce the same `issue:read` boundary before returning thread data. > - This pull request applies the issue read check to issue comment and interaction listing routes, and locks that behavior with server regressions. > - The benefit is that narrow cross-agent collaboration remains possible without exposing unrelated issue-thread history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Bug fix: - What happened: same-company agents outside an issue read boundary could still hit issue-thread listing routes and receive thread data. - Expected behavior: issue comments and issue-thread interactions should only be listed after the actor is allowed to read the issue. - Steps to reproduce: configure a peer agent denied by the issue read boundary, then request `GET /api/issues/:id/comments` or the issue interaction listing route. - Paperclip version/commit: current `master` before this branch. - Deployment mode: applies to server authorization in all modes. Related public context: #7389, #7863, #8024. ## What Changed - Added issue read enforcement before listing issue comments. - Added issue read enforcement before listing issue-thread interactions. - Added server regressions for denied peer-agent issue-thread access while preserving mention-scoped collaboration behavior. - Removed an avoidable per-mentioned-comment issue reload in mention-grant authorization by passing the already-loaded issue assignee through the helper. - Documented cross-agent issue read/comment authorization behavior in the Paperclip API reference. - Added a resilient fallback for pinned external skills when GitHub tree fetches are temporarily unavailable during catalog builds. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts` - 2 test files passed - 84 tests passed - Existing mocked recovery revalidation warnings were emitted by the route suite and the command exited 0 - Greptile: 5/5 on commit `b73fc323f192dc44f88374c16865008d4348923b`; no unresolved review threads. - `pnpm vitest run packages/skills-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts` - 1 test file passed - 6 tests passed - CI: all visible PR checks are terminal green on commit `b73fc323f192dc44f88374c16865008d4348923b`. ## Risks Low risk. This tightens read authorization on issue-thread listing routes; any caller that depended on same-company access without `issue:read` will now receive 403 and must use an explicit grant or valid issue read path. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex, Codex coding agent environment, tool use and local command execution enabled, reasoning mode active. Context window 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] 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] 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> |
||
|
|
468edd8b22 |
Add workspace file viewer and artifact links (#7681)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is issue-centered, and reviewers often need to inspect files, artifacts, and path references produced during that work. > - Before this branch, workspace-relative paths and artifact file references were not first-class inspectable objects in the board UI. > - Safe file viewing needs shared resource contracts, server-side workspace boundary checks, and UI that opens files without exposing arbitrary host paths. > - The workspace file viewer branch needed to stay as one active PR and be rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` for review. > - This pull request adds the workspace file resource API, issue-page file viewer and browser, markdown file-reference links, and artifact file chips. > - The benefit is that board users can inspect relevant files from issue context while preserving workspace boundaries and auditability. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. Internal Paperclip issues: `PAP-1953`, `PAP-10539`, `PAP-10733`. Problem / motivation: - Board users need to open workspace-relative files mentioned by agents or attached as work-product metadata without switching to a terminal. - The UI needs to support both direct file-path opening and workspace browsing/searching from an issue page. - The server must enforce company access, workspace boundaries, size limits, rate limits, and safe audit logging. Related PR: - Prior closed attempt: #4442 - Single active PR for this branch: #7681 ## What Changed - Added shared workspace file resource types, validators, and workspace-file `resourceRef` metadata validation for work products. - Added server routes/services for resolving, listing, and previewing workspace-relative files with access checks, scan caps, list-specific limits, and audit logging. - Added the issue file viewer provider, sheet, workspace browser, command-palette action, markdown workspace-file autolinks, and artifact file chips. - Updated issue workspace UI and stories/tests for file browsing and workspace file opening. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and updated the existing single PR branch. - Addressed current-head Greptile follow-ups by applying `offset` consistently across search/recent/changed file listings, restoring stopped-service port ownership checks before auto-port reuse, and stabilizing the workspace browser pagination test. ## Verification Current local verification after rebase to `public/master`: - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/work-product.test.ts server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.test.tsx ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.copy.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/context/FileViewerContext.test.ts ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts ui/src/lib/workspace-file-parser.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueWorkspaceCard.test.tsx` - 13 files passed, 197 tests passed. - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx` - 1 file passed, 25 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` - 2 files passed, 90 tests passed. - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed. - Confirmed branch is `0` behind and `46` ahead of current `public/master` after rebase and follow-up commits. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `.github/workflows` changes. - Searched GitHub for duplicate or related workspace file viewer PRs/issues; #4442 is the prior closed attempt and this PR is the single active PR for the branch. - No screenshots were committed; the task explicitly asked not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work. Current remote verification on head `a698a7bc10137baf7d25bd5722e1d6e0343387c1`: - Greptile Review - success, 64 files reviewed, 0 comments added, no unresolved Greptile review threads. - PR workflow `verify` - success. - Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, workspace test shards, serialized server suites, Build, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Socket, and Snyk - success. - `security-review` - neutral, with output saying a draft advisory was filed for maintainer review and is not a merge block. - `commitperclip PR Review / review` - cancelled after the security gate detected flags and timed out while creating/reviewing the advisory. I reran it once and it cancelled the same way; no actionable code/test failure was exposed in the job logs. ## Risks - This is a broad UI/server feature PR, so review needs to pay attention to route authorization, workspace boundary handling, and markdown autolink false positives. - Workspace browsing intentionally caps list results and scan depth; very large workspaces may require users to refine search terms. - Remote workspace preview remains unavailable until remote file-access support is implemented. - The neutral commitperclip security-review advisory needs maintainer review, but the check output says it is not a merge block. > 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 Paperclip/Codex local tool-use environment, medium reasoning, with shell/GitHub CLI tool use for branch inspection, verification, rebase, PR update, Greptile review, and CI inspection. ## 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 - [ ] 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 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
2e74d32871 |
PAP-10430: split Issue-to-Task copy migration (#7651)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI is the operator surface where users create, assign, monitor, and review work items. > - The product language is moving toward "tasks" for user-facing work items while the internal API and database still use "issues". > - PR #7543 bundled this copy migration with broader information-architecture work, which made the branch too large for Greptile review. > - This pull request peels the Issue-to-Task copy migration into a smaller, independently reviewable change. > - The benefit is clearer user-facing terminology, less agent confusion via the Paperclip skill note, and a smaller PR that Greptile can review. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #7645 Refs #7543 Refs PAP-10430 This PR was split out of #7543 so the Issue-to-Task copy migration can be reviewed separately and the remaining IA PR can fall under Greptile's file limit. ## What Changed - Preserves Scott Tong's original `PAP-57` copy-only commit, with author and co-author credit intact, to rename user-facing "Issues" copy to "Tasks" across the UI while keeping routes/API/internal symbols as `issue`. - Updates onboarding and release-smoke browser selectors from `Create & Open Issue` to `Create & Open Task`. - Adds a terminology note to `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md` clarifying that task and issue refer to the same Paperclip work item. - Resolves the only cherry-pick conflict by keeping current search artifacts support and changing visible search copy to "tasks". ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` passed: 4 files, 66 tests. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - Diff is 80 files, below Greptile's 100-file limit. - Before/after UI copy examples: "Issues" -> "Tasks", "New Issue" -> "New Task", "Create & Open Issue" -> "Create & Open Task". ## Risks - Medium copy-risk: this intentionally changes user-facing terminology broadly while keeping internal issue identifiers and routes unchanged. - Some docs and APIs still say `issue`; the skill note clarifies this so agents do not treat task and issue as separate entities. - Browser-level visual validation is expected from CI because this local container is missing usable browser dependencies. > 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 Scott Tong authored the original `PAP-57` copy migration, assisted by Claude Opus 4.8 and Paperclip agents per the preserved commit metadata. Codex / GPT-5-class coding agent with shell, GitHub CLI, and repository access performed the PR split, conflict resolution, skill note, and verification. ## 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 - [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] 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: scotttong <scott.tong@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e080e4686a |
Move artifact upload details to skill reference
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c4bb68c14b |
Bundle artifact upload helper with Paperclip skill
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e7cdd0f8c5 |
Move artifact upload guidance into Paperclip skill
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9eac727cf1 |
[codex] Add skills CLI and catalog management (#6782)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies through company-scoped control-plane workflows. > - Agents need reusable, inspectable skills that can be installed, reset, audited, exported, and assigned without bespoke local setup. > - The existing skill truth model needed cleanup so bundled skills, optional catalog skills, runtime skills, and adapter-provided skills have clear provenance. > - Operators also need a practical CLI and board UI for discovering and managing company skills. > - This pull request adds the skills CLI, packaged skills catalog, company skills APIs, and catalog-aware board UI. > - The benefit is a more reusable Paperclip company setup where skills are portable, auditable, and easier for operators and agents to manage. ## What Changed - Added `paperclipai skills` CLI commands and coverage for catalog listing, installing, resetting, and inspecting company skills. - Added a packaged `@paperclipai/skills-catalog` workspace with bundled and optional skill content plus validation/build tests. - Added shared company-skill types and validators used across CLI, server, and UI contracts. - Added server catalog APIs/services for company skill catalog operations, reset semantics, audit behavior, and portability provenance. - Updated adapter skill handling so runtime/catalog provenance remains explicit across local adapters. - Added board UI support for browsing and managing catalog-backed company skills. - Updated docs for the skills CLI/catalog flow and the company skills Paperclip skill reference. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master`; no `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows`, or migration files are included in the final PR diff. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/skills.test.ts packages/skills-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts packages/skills-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/company-skill.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/plugins/create-paperclip-plugin/src/entrypoints.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-catalog-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts`. - Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "default branch|origin/master|symbolic-ref"`. - Attempted: full `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts`. Four provisioning tests failed while seeding an isolated worktree database from the local Paperclip instance because the local plugin schema dump contains a duplicate-column foreign key (`plugin_content_machine_18a7bc327b.content_case_signals`). The default-branch tests touched by the rebase conflict passed in the focused run above. - Checked final diff: no `pnpm-lock.yaml`, no `.github/workflows`, and no migration-file changes relative to `master`. ## Risks - Medium: this is a broad skills/catalog change touching CLI, server APIs, shared contracts, adapter skill sync, and UI. - Catalog validation and reset semantics need careful reviewer attention because they affect reusable company setup and portability. - No database migrations are included in this PR, so there is no migration ordering/idempotency risk in the final diff. - No lockfile is included by design; dependency resolution will be handled by the repository lockfile workflow. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, running in Paperclip via the `codex_local` adapter with shell, git, GitHub CLI, and code-editing tool access. Exact hosted model build/context-window metadata 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 targeted tests locally and documented the local workspace-runtime seed failure above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, screenshots were intentionally omitted per PAP-10124 instructions; UI behavior is covered by tests and reviewer inspection - [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
|
68f69975a4 |
Harden control-plane safety and issue identifiers (#5292)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip relies on issue identifiers, execution policies, and agent heartbeat rules to keep autonomous work auditable. > - Safety checks need to reject ambiguous agent handoffs, and identifier parsing needs to support Cloud tenant prefixes. > - Agent instructions also need to make final-disposition rules explicit so work does not stall in vague states. > - This pull request isolates backend correctness and governance hardening from the UI and recovery-system-notice branches. > - The benefit is safer in-review transitions, better identifier compatibility, and clearer agent operating contracts. ## What Changed - Fixed run-aware confirmation ordering and interrupted-run state cleanup. - Added Cloud tenant identity bootstrap and alphanumeric issue identifier support across shared parsing and server routes. - Guarded agent-authored `in_review` updates unless a real review path exists. - Tightened heartbeat disposition instructions in adapter utilities/default AGENTS/Paperclip skill. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-references.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-identifier-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` initially had the first execution-policy test hit Vitest's 5s timeout under the parallel bundle while the rest passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts --testTimeout=20000` passed with 10/10 tests. - Follow-up: `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed. - Follow-up: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - Follow-up: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts` passed. - Follow-up: `pnpm vitest run ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-reference.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-timeline-events.test.ts` passed. ## Risks - Medium control-plane risk: in-review update validation changes agent behavior. The error message is explicit and tests cover allowed review paths. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use. ## 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
|
685ee84e4a |
[codex] Document terminal bench dispatch config (#4961)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip agents rely on skills for repeatable operating procedures > - The Terminal-Bench loop skill needs to preserve enough dispatch configuration to reproduce real heartbeat behavior > - A bare benchmark command can create unassigned work with no heartbeat-enabled agent, which is a harness setup failure rather than product evidence > - The Paperclip heartbeat skill also needs to keep escalation biased toward agent-owned follow-through > - This pull request documents dispatch runner config requirements and strengthens the agent follow-through rule > - The benefit is fewer misleading benchmark loops and clearer agent operating guidance ## What Changed - Documented `PAPERCLIP_HARBOR_RUNNER_CONFIG` / runner dispatch config as required Terminal-Bench loop input. - Updated the Terminal-Bench loop smoke check to require the dispatch config mention. - Added stronger Paperclip skill guidance to avoid asking humans for work an agent can perform. ## Verification - `pnpm smoke:terminal-bench-loop-skill` ## Risks - Low risk: documentation and smoke expectation changes only. The stricter smoke assertion is intentional so future edits do not drop the dispatch config requirement. > 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 use and local command execution. Exact context window was not exposed in 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 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
|
1fe1067361 |
Polish board settings and skills workflow (#4863)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip's board UI and bundled skills are the operator layer for configuring agents, routines, issue workflows, and local troubleshooting loops. > - The prior rollup mixed this operator polish with database backups, backend reliability, thread scale, and cost/workflow primitives. > - This pull request isolates the remaining board QoL, settings, issue-detail integration, adapter config cleanup, and skills smoke tooling. > - It includes some integration-level overlap with the thread and workflow slices so this branch can run from `origin/master` while still preserving the full original work. > - Preferred merge order is the narrower primitives first, then this integration PR last. > - The benefit is that reviewers can inspect the user-facing board/settings/skills layer separately from backend infrastructure changes. ## What Changed - Added board/settings polish for agents, routines, company settings, project workspace detail, and issue detail controls. - Added agent/routine UI regression tests and New Issue dialog coverage. - Integrated issue-detail activity/cost/interaction surfaces and leaf work pause/resume controls. - Cleaned bundled adapter UI config defaults and onboarding copy. - Added terminal-bench loop and work-stoppage diagnosis skills plus a smoke test script. - Updated attachment type handling and Paperclip skill/API guidance. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx 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` - Result: 7 test files passed, 54 tests passed. - `pnpm run smoke:terminal-bench-loop-skill` - Result: JSON output included `"ok": true` and `"cleanup": true`. - UI screenshots not included because verification is focused component/page coverage for the changed board surfaces. ## Risks - This is the integration-heavy PR in the split and intentionally overlaps some component/API primitives with the issue-thread and workflow PRs so it can run from `origin/master`. - Preferred merge order: #4859, #4860, #4861, #4862, then this PR last. If earlier branches merge first, this PR may need a straightforward conflict refresh in shared UI files. - The terminal-bench smoke script creates temporary mock issues and relies on cleanup; the verified run returned `cleanup: true`. > 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
|
d9f540c331 |
[codex] Refresh docs and agent skills (#4693)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through a company-scoped control plane > - Contributors and agents need docs and skills that match the current V1 behavior > - The source branch included documentation updates alongside implementation work > - Keeping docs and skill guidance separate makes the implementation PR easier to review > - This pull request refreshes the V1 docs and agent-operating guidance without changing runtime behavior > - The benefit is current contributor guidance that can merge independently from code changes ## What Changed - Refreshed V1 product, goal, implementation, database, and development documentation. - Updated the Paperclip heartbeat skill guidance and create-agent skill references. - Added the Paperclip plan-to-task conversion skill. - Updated release changelog skill guidance. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` passed in the PR worktree after the Greptile fix. - Greptile Review passed on head `673317ed` with zero unresolved review threads. - GitHub PR checks passed on head `673317ed`: `policy`, `verify`, `e2e`, and `security/snyk (cryppadotta)`. ## Risks - Low runtime risk because this branch only changes docs and skill guidance. - Documentation may need follow-up wording adjustments if reviewers want a different framing for V1 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, tool-enabled terminal/GitHub workflow. Exact runtime context window was not exposed by the 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 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
09d0678840 |
[codex] Harden heartbeat scheduling and runtime controls (#4223)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through issue checkout, heartbeat runs, routines, and auditable control-plane state > - The runtime path has to recover from lost local processes, transient adapter failures, blocked dependencies, and routine coalescing without stranding work > - The existing branch carried several reliability fixes across heartbeat scheduling, issue runtime controls, routine dispatch, and operator-facing run state > - These changes belong together because they share backend contracts, migrations, and runtime status semantics > - This pull request groups the control-plane/runtime slice so it can merge independently from board UI polish and adapter sandbox work > - The benefit is safer heartbeat recovery, clearer runtime controls, and more predictable recurring execution behavior ## What Changed - Adds bounded heartbeat retry scheduling, scheduled retry state, and Codex transient failure recovery handling. - Tightens heartbeat process recovery, blocker wake behavior, issue comment wake handling, routine dispatch coalescing, and activity/dashboard bounds. - Adds runtime-control MCP tools and Paperclip skill docs for issue workspace runtime management. - Adds migrations `0061_lively_thor_girl.sql` and `0062_routine_run_dispatch_fingerprint.sql`. - Surfaces retry state in run ledger/agent UI and keeps related shared types synchronized. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run src/tools.test.ts` from `packages/mcp-server` ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches heartbeat recovery and routine dispatch, which are central execution paths. - Migration order matters if split branches land out of order: merge this PR before branches that assume the new runtime/routine fields. - Runtime retry behavior should be watched in CI and in local operator smoke tests because it changes how transient failures are resumed. > 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 runtime, shell/git tool use enabled. Exact hosted model build and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip heartbeat 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 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 |
||
|
Aron Prins
|
73eb23734f |
docs: use structured agent mentions in paperclip skill (#4103)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Agents coordinate work through tasks and comments, and @-mentions
are part of the wakeup path for cross-agent handoffs and review requests
> - The current repo skill still instructs machine-authored comments to
use raw `@AgentName` text as the default mention format
> - But the current backend mention parsing is still unreliable for
multi-word display names, so agents following that guidance can silently
fail to wake the intended target
> - This pull request updates the Paperclip skill and API reference to
prefer structured `agent://` markdown mentions for machine-authored
comments
> - The benefit is a low-risk documentation workaround that steers
agents onto the mention format the server already resolves reliably
while broader runtime fixes are reviewed upstream
## What Changed
- Updated `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md` to stop recommending raw
`@AgentName` mentions for machine-authored comments
- Updated `skills/paperclip/references/api-reference.md` with a concrete
workflow: resolve the target via `GET
/api/companies/{companyId}/agents`, then emit `[@Display
Name](agent://<agent-id>)`
- Added explicit guidance that raw `@AgentName` text is fallback-only
and unreliable for names containing spaces
- Cross-referenced the current upstream mention-bug context so reviewers
can connect this docs workaround to the open parser/runtime fixes
Related issue/PR refs: #448, #459, #558, #669, #722, #1412, #2249
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm test:run` currently fails on upstream `master` in existing tests
unrelated to this docs-only change:
- `src/__tests__/worktree.test.ts` — `seeds authenticated users into
minimally cloned worktree instances` timed out after 20000ms
- `src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts` — `keeps tailnet quickstart on
loopback until tailscale is available` expected `127.0.0.1` but got
`100.125.202.3`
- Confirmed the git diff is limited to:
- `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md`
- `skills/paperclip/references/api-reference.md`
## Risks
- Low risk. This is a docs/skill-only change and does not alter runtime
behavior.
- It is a mitigation, not a full fix: it helps agent-authored comments
that follow the Paperclip skill, but it does not fix manually typed raw
mentions or other code paths that still emit plain `@Name` text.
- If upstream chooses a different long-term mention format, this
guidance may need to be revised once the runtime-side fix lands.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex desktop agent on a GPT-5-class model. Exact deployed
model ID and context window are not exposed by the local harness. Tool
use enabled, including shell execution, git, and GitHub CLI.
## 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 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
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
16b2b84d84 |
[codex] Improve agent runtime recovery and governance (#4086)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - The heartbeat runtime, agent import path, and agent configuration defaults determine whether work is dispatched safely and predictably. > - Several accumulated fixes all touched agent execution recovery, wake routing, import behavior, and runtime concurrency defaults. > - Those changes need to land together so the heartbeat service and agent creation defaults stay internally consistent. > - This pull request groups the runtime/governance changes from the split branch into one standalone branch. > - The benefit is safer recovery for stranded runs, bounded high-volume reads, imported-agent approval correctness, skill-template support, and a clearer default concurrency policy. ## What Changed - Fixed stranded continuation recovery so successful automatic retries are requeued instead of incorrectly blocking the issue. - Bounded high-volume issue/log reads across issue, heartbeat, agent, project, and workspace paths. - Fixed imported-agent approval and instruction-path permission handling. - Quarantined seeded worktree execution state during worktree provisioning. - Queued approval follow-up wakes and hardened SQL_ASCII heartbeat output handling. - Added reusable agent instruction templates for hiring flows. - Set the default max concurrent agent runs to five and updated related UI/tests/docs. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-list.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts` - Split integration check: merged this branch first, followed by the other [PAP-1614](/PAP/issues/PAP-1614) branches, with no merge conflicts. - Confirmed this branch does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`. ## Risks - Medium risk: touches heartbeat recovery, queueing, and issue list bounds in central runtime paths. - Imported-agent and concurrency default behavior changes may affect existing automation that assumes one-at-a-time default runs. - No database migrations are included. > 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-5.4 tool-enabled coding model, agentic code-editing/runtime with local shell and GitHub CLI access; exact context window and reasoning mode are not exposed by the Paperclip 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 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
|
236d11d36f |
[codex] Add run liveness continuations (#4083)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Heartbeat runs are the control-plane record of each agent execution window. > - Long-running local agents can exhaust context or stop while still holding useful next-step state. > - Operators need that stop reason, next action, and continuation path to be durable and visible. > - This pull request adds run liveness metadata, continuation summaries, and UI surfaces for issue run ledgers. > - The benefit is that interrupted or long-running work can resume with clearer context instead of losing the agent's last useful handoff. ## What Changed - Added heartbeat-run liveness fields, continuation attempt tracking, and an idempotent `0058` migration. - Added server services and tests for run liveness, continuation summaries, stop metadata, and activity backfill. - Wired local and HTTP adapters to surface continuation/liveness context through shared adapter utilities. - Added shared constants, validators, and heartbeat types for liveness continuation state. - Added issue-detail UI surfaces for continuation handoffs and the run ledger, with component tests. - Updated agent runtime docs, heartbeat protocol docs, prompt guidance, onboarding assets, and skills instructions to explain continuation behavior. - Addressed Greptile feedback by scoping document evidence by run, excluding system continuation-summary documents from liveness evidence, importing shared liveness types, surfacing hidden ledger run counts, documenting bounded retry behavior, and moving run-ledger liveness backfill off the request path. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-liveness.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-continuation-summary.test.ts server/src/services/heartbeat-stop-metadata.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueContinuationHandoff.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db build` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "treats a plan document update"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "activity service|treats a plan document update"` - Remote PR checks on head `e53b1a1d`: `verify`, `e2e`, `policy`, and Snyk all passed. - Confirmed `public-gh/master` is an ancestor of this branch after fetching `public-gh master`. - Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the branch diff. - Confirmed migration `0058_wealthy_starbolt.sql` is ordered after `0057` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards for repeat application. - Greptile inline review threads are resolved. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches heartbeat execution, liveness recovery, activity rendering, issue routes, shared contracts, docs, and UI. - Migration risk is mitigated by additive columns/indexes and idempotent guards. - Run-ledger liveness backfill is now asynchronous, so the first ledger response can briefly show historical missing liveness until the background backfill completes. - UI screenshot coverage is not included in this packaging pass; validation is currently through focused component tests. > 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-5.4, local tool-use coding agent with terminal, git, GitHub connector, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API access. ## 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 Screenshot note: no before/after screenshots were captured in this PR packaging pass; the UI changes are covered by focused component tests listed above. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7f893ac4ec |
[codex] Harden execution reliability and heartbeat tooling (#3679)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep regressions visible > - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area > - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch overlapping issue APIs > - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat, telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch > - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting ## What Changed - Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and blocked-to-todo wake resumption - Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads, compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces - Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material - Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation from local state, and repo verification follow-ups - Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were dropped during branch reconstruction ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts` - `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`, `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they are noted as environment-limited ## Risks - Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow rather than isolated UI polish - Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure modes and not just reshaping harness behavior ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning enabled, tool use and local code execution 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) - [ ] 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
8bdf4081ee | chore: improve worktree tooling and security docs | ||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
4e20279305 |
fix(skill): add scoped-wake fast path to skip full heartbeat on comment wakes
When an agent is woken by a comment (Resume Delta or Wake Payload), the skill now explicitly instructs it to skip Steps 1-4 (identity, approvals, inbox, pick work) and go directly to checkout. This prevents agents from wastefully fetching their full assignment list and announcing "checking my paperclip tasks" when they already know exactly which issue to work on. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
0a5ac9affd |
Clarify execution-policy reviewer guidance
Add explicit Paperclip skill guidance for reviewer/approver heartbeats and document that execution-policy decisions use PATCH /api/issues/:issueId rather than a separate endpoint. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
365b6d9bd8 |
Add generic issue-linked board approvals
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
08fea10ce1 |
Merge pull request #2772 from paperclipai/PAPA-46-why-did-this-issue-succeed-without-following-my-instructions
fix: enable agent re-checkout of in_review tasks on comment feedback |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
4c01a45d2a |
fix: address greptile feedback for blocker dependencies
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
9499d0df97 |
Add blocker/dependency documentation to Paperclip skill
Document blockedByIssueIds field, issue_blockers_resolved and issue_children_completed wake reasons, and blockedBy/blocks response arrays in both SKILL.md and api-reference.md so agents know how to set and use first-class issue dependencies. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dotta
|
b825a121cb | Prioritize comment wake prompts | ||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
91e040a696 |
Batch inline comment wake payloads
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d12650e5ac |
fix: update stale single-status checkout examples in worked docs
Greptile flagged that worked examples in task-workflow.md and api-reference.md still used ["todo"] instead of the full expectedStatuses array. Aligned them with the rest of the PR. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
cd2be692e9 |
Fix in-review task recheckout guidance
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
258c7ccd21 |
fix: ensure agents respond to comments on in_review tasks
Root cause: when someone commented on an in_review task, the heartbeat wakeup was triggered but the agent couldn't re-checkout the task because expectedStatuses only included todo/backlog/blocked. The in_review status was never handled in the checkout flow or the heartbeat procedure. Changes: - Add wakeCommentId to issue_commented and issue_reopened_via_comment context snapshots (consistent with issue_comment_mentioned) - Add in_review to checkout expectedStatuses in heartbeat skill - Update Step 3 fallback query to include in_review status - Update Step 4 to prioritize in_review tasks when woken by comment - Add explicit issue_commented wake reason handling in Step 4 Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
bd6d07d0b4 |
fix(ui): polish issue detail timelines and attachments
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
6524dbe08f |
fix(skills): move routines docs into paperclip references
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
