PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-29 04:25:52 +01:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
fengqing	05218571c3	fix(watchdogs): reject incomplete subtree scans (#15063 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task watchdogs verify stopped issue subtrees and restore valid work paths. > - A watchdog must read the full subtree before it can prove that all paths stopped. > - The current query stops after 100 levels and does not report omitted children. > - A running child beyond this limit can be absent from both review dispatch and mutation checks. > - This pull request reports an incomplete scan and blocks both decisions. > - Complete subtrees keep their current behavior and stop fingerprints. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #15061 Related PRs: #11327 changes subtree loading but keeps the same depth limit without a completeness result. #10331 changes mutation freshness after watchdog writes. Neither patch covers this boundary. This patch does not take code from those proposals. ## What Changed - Keep the existing 100-level traversal limit. - Check for an eligible child beyond the boundary in the same SQL statement as the subtree read. - Apply the same company, visibility, harness, and watchdog-origin filters to this check. - Return `incomplete` without a stop fingerprint when the scan omits eligible children. - Skip review dispatch and reject watchdog mutation revalidation for an incomplete scan. - Report incomplete scans through their own count and watched issue IDs. Log each newly incomplete issue at startup or during periodic reconciliation. Suppress unchanged results. Allow a new warning after the issue recovers and becomes incomplete again. - Add real PostgreSQL regressions for dispatch, a previously valid mutation scope, the complete boundary leaf, and excluded children. - Document the incomplete-scan behavior. ## Verification - Base: `569c7203aa24b95440682983ce7940ba1d4247bd`. Head: `06f68199656f979ef5eb4897851f0fbcbca592d3`. - Before the fix, two real PostgreSQL regressions fail. The service dispatches a review for a partial subtree. It also accepts a prior scope after a running depth-100 child appears. The other 19 scheduler checks pass. - On the exact final head, `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass on isolated Ubuntu with Node 24.19.0, pnpm 9.15.4, and runner Rust 1.97.1. - All 75 related tests pass. Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-watchdogs-routes.test.ts --maxWorkers=1`. - Full `test:run` coverage passes across 29 logical groups: all official stable-runner lanes plus supplemental service and script tests. The selection covers all 900 server source test files without duplicate or omitted selections. It also includes UI, CLI, and other workspace projects. - A separate validation tree applies both this PR and #15067 to upstream `994d6edcdd4e15d5f9cc5cf8c135ac599104b86a` without conflicts. Type checks, the build, and all 98 related tests across five files pass. Both public PR heads remain unchanged. - Four full server lanes required test-process environment corrections. The host DNS search suffix resolved a `.invalid` fixture to an address. Ancestor project authentication settings affected hire fixtures. The old path-isolation tool also failed test imports with `EFAULT`. The exact base has the same failures: 8 failed and 128 passed assertions without isolation, then three failed imports with the old tool. All 136 checks pass on both the base and this head with the corrected isolation. All four original full lanes pass with the corrected tool, a resolver without a search suffix, empty ancestor project settings, and the standard Node path. No assertion or wait limit changed. The host configuration remains unchanged. - Earlier interrupted Ubuntu and Docker runs are retained and are not counted as passes. This exact-head Ubuntu run passes the original chat, port-conflict, and serialized lanes. The causes of the earlier host-loss and timing failures are not fully established. - The startup import regression in an earlier revision is fixed by a diagnostics module with no database dependencies. All 21 startup checks pass. - Exact-head CI, including the added scans after marking the PR ready: 54 successful checks and 2 skipped checks. Greptile: 5/5, no outstanding findings or follow-ups. Both review threads are resolved. - The final audit rechecked issue authors, assignees, comments, 206 open watchdog search results, root functions and fields, source history, and related diffs. The latest upstream is `994d6edcdd4e15d5f9cc5cf8c135ac599104b86a`. Its new patches do not cover this root. No competing root repair was found within the audited scope. The issue has no assignee or new comment. - No model provider, production database, or user instance was used. This verifies service behavior, not a full HTTP authorization bypass. ## Risks - A subtree with eligible children beyond 100 levels now waits instead of running a review. This is a deliberate safety boundary. It remains blocked until the scan can include the full subtree. - The boundary check adds a child-existence lookup to the existing recursive query. - No schema migration is required. Complete subtrees retain their fingerprint format. - This does not add unlimited traversal or close the separate race between a subtree snapshot and later source mutations. - The configuration lifecycle defect in #15060 is handled by separate PR #15067. This branch does not include its schema or configuration changes. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, assisted with source analysis, implementation, and test execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. The agent used reasoning, shell tools, GitHub CLI, and real PostgreSQL tests. ## 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	2026-10-26 20:53:47 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	10d0555189	fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. What happened? Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. Expected behavior Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. Steps to reproduce 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. Paperclip version or commit The problem exists on `master` before this change. Deployment mode Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-16 13:46:50 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	a71c4b6782	[codex] feat(watchdog): add task watchdog control plane (#8339 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task lifecycle and recovery subsystems decide when agent work is still productive, stalled, or ready for review. > - Existing recovery paths can observe stopped or incomplete work, but there was no first-class per-task watchdog model with scoped review permissions. > - Watchdog follow-ups also need strict boundaries so recovery/status-only runs cannot mutate approvals or perform deliverable work. > - This pull request adds the task watchdog data model, API/service layer, scheduler/review flow, adapter wake context, UI configuration surfaces, and docs. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master`; the watchdog migration is now ordered after master's latest migrations as `0104_issue_watchdogs`. > - The benefit is a more explicit task-review loop that preserves Paperclip's single-assignee and governance invariants while making stalled work easier to route. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No linked GitHub issue. Paperclip task: [PAP-11275](/PAP/issues/PAP-11275). ## Problem or motivation Task recovery needs a first-class watchdog path that can inspect stopped work and create scoped follow-ups without bypassing normal task ownership. Board/UI users need a way to configure watchdogs on tasks and see watchdog-related live work. Recovery/status-only runs must remain limited to status reporting and must not create approvals, link approvals, or submit approval comments. ## Proposed solution Add a task-watchdog data model, scheduler/classifier, scoped mutation guard, adapter wake context, API/UI configuration surfaces, and documentation so watchdog agents can review stopped task subtrees under explicit boundaries. ## Alternatives considered Reuse the existing recovery-action flow only. That would keep stopped-work detection implicit, make per-task watchdog assignment harder to expose in the UI, and would not provide a durable scoped-review issue for stalled task trees. ## Roadmap alignment This is Paperclip control-plane lifecycle infrastructure for task execution and recovery. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned core item. ## What Changed - Added issue watchdog schema, migration, shared contracts, validators, CRUD API, and service support. - Added task watchdog scheduler/classifier behavior, scoped mutation enforcement, adapter wake context, and default watchdog mandate guidance. - Added UI surfaces for configuring watchdogs on new/existing tasks, viewing watchdog activity, and exposing the experimental setting. - Added docs for the user-facing task watchdog workflow and implementation semantics. - Gated new-task watchdog setup behind `enableTaskWatchdogs` and blocked cheap status-only recovery runs from approval mutations. - Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the idempotent watchdog migration from the branch-local `0102_issue_watchdogs` slot to `0104_issue_watchdogs`. - Addressed Greptile feedback by loading watchdog classifier input with a recursive subtree query and centralizing the watchdog origin-kind constant. - Added and updated focused server/UI tests for watchdog routes, scheduler/classifier behavior, scope boundaries, live task visibility, settings, and new issue dialog behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check` - Verified the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows`. ## Risks - Medium risk: this introduces a new task lifecycle surface touching DB schema, server routes/services, adapter wake context, and UI task configuration. - Watchdog scheduling behavior depends on the new experimental setting and runtime context checks behaving consistently across local and production agents. - The watchdog migration is idempotent (`IF NOT EXISTS` / duplicate-object guards) so users who tried the previous branch-local migration number should not get duplicate-object failures. - CI and the second Greptile pass are pending after the latest review-fix push. > 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 in the Paperclip workspace. Exact runtime model id and context window were not exposed to the agent; tool use and local command 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 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 — N/A per Paperclip task instruction: do not add screenshots/images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the work. - [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>	2026-06-19 15:38:52 -05:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

fengqing

05218571c3

fix(watchdogs): reject incomplete subtree scans (#15063 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Task watchdogs verify stopped issue subtrees and restore valid work
paths.
> - A watchdog must read the full subtree before it can prove that all
paths stopped.
> - The current query stops after 100 levels and does not report omitted
children.
> - A running child beyond this limit can be absent from both review
dispatch and mutation checks.
> - This pull request reports an incomplete scan and blocks both
decisions.
> - Complete subtrees keep their current behavior and stop fingerprints.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Fixes: #15061

Related PRs: #11327 changes subtree loading but keeps the same depth
limit without a completeness result. #10331 changes mutation freshness
after watchdog writes. Neither patch covers this boundary. This patch
does not take code from those proposals.

## What Changed

- Keep the existing 100-level traversal limit.
- Check for an eligible child beyond the boundary in the same SQL
statement as the subtree read.
- Apply the same company, visibility, harness, and watchdog-origin
filters to this check.
- Return `incomplete` without a stop fingerprint when the scan omits
eligible children.
- Skip review dispatch and reject watchdog mutation revalidation for an
incomplete scan.
- Report incomplete scans through their own count and watched issue IDs.
Log each newly incomplete issue at startup or during periodic
reconciliation. Suppress unchanged results. Allow a new warning after
the issue recovers and becomes incomplete again.
- Add real PostgreSQL regressions for dispatch, a previously valid
mutation scope, the complete boundary leaf, and excluded children.
- Document the incomplete-scan behavior.

## Verification

- Base: `569c7203aa24b95440682983ce7940ba1d4247bd`. Head:
`06f68199656f979ef5eb4897851f0fbcbca592d3`.
- Before the fix, two real PostgreSQL regressions fail. The service
dispatches a review for a partial subtree. It also accepts a prior scope
after a running depth-100 child appears. The other 19 scheduler checks
pass.
- On the exact final head, `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass on
isolated Ubuntu with Node 24.19.0, pnpm 9.15.4, and runner Rust 1.97.1.
- All 75 related tests pass. Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec
vitest run src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts
src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts
src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-watchdogs-routes.test.ts --maxWorkers=1`.
- Full `test:run` coverage passes across 29 logical groups: all official
stable-runner lanes plus supplemental service and script tests. The
selection covers all 900 server source test files without duplicate or
omitted selections. It also includes UI, CLI, and other workspace
projects.
- A separate validation tree applies both this PR and #15067 to upstream
`994d6edcdd4e15d5f9cc5cf8c135ac599104b86a` without conflicts. Type
checks, the build, and all 98 related tests across five files pass. Both
public PR heads remain unchanged.
- Four full server lanes required test-process environment corrections.
The host DNS search suffix resolved a `.invalid` fixture to an address.
Ancestor project authentication settings affected hire fixtures. The old
path-isolation tool also failed test imports with `EFAULT`. The exact
base has the same failures: 8 failed and 128 passed assertions without
isolation, then three failed imports with the old tool. All 136 checks
pass on both the base and this head with the corrected isolation. All
four original full lanes pass with the corrected tool, a resolver
without a search suffix, empty ancestor project settings, and the
standard Node path. No assertion or wait limit changed. The host
configuration remains unchanged.
- Earlier interrupted Ubuntu and Docker runs are retained and are not
counted as passes. This exact-head Ubuntu run passes the original chat,
port-conflict, and serialized lanes. The causes of the earlier host-loss
and timing failures are not fully established.
- The startup import regression in an earlier revision is fixed by a
diagnostics module with no database dependencies. All 21 startup checks
pass.
- Exact-head CI, including the added scans after marking the PR ready:
54 successful checks and 2 skipped checks. Greptile: 5/5, no outstanding
findings or follow-ups. Both review threads are resolved.
- The final audit rechecked issue authors, assignees, comments, 206 open
watchdog search results, root functions and fields, source history, and
related diffs. The latest upstream is
`994d6edcdd4e15d5f9cc5cf8c135ac599104b86a`. Its new patches do not cover
this root. No competing root repair was found within the audited scope.
The issue has no assignee or new comment.
- No model provider, production database, or user instance was used.
This verifies service behavior, not a full HTTP authorization bypass.

## Risks

- A subtree with eligible children beyond 100 levels now waits instead
of running a review. This is a deliberate safety boundary. It remains
blocked until the scan can include the full subtree.
- The boundary check adds a child-existence lookup to the existing
recursive query.
- No schema migration is required. Complete subtrees retain their
fingerprint format.
- This does not add unlimited traversal or close the separate race
between a subtree snapshot and later source mutations.
- The configuration lifecycle defect in #15060 is handled by separate PR
#15067. This branch does not include its schema or configuration
changes.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, assisted with source analysis,
implementation, and test execution. The exact serving model ID and
context window are not exposed in this session. The agent used
reasoning, shell tools, GitHub CLI, and real PostgreSQL tests.

## 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

2026-10-26 20:53:47 -07:00

DottaandPaperclip

10d0555189

fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision
record.
> - Resolver routes used different authorization rules.
> - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with
normal issue access.
> - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction.
> - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy
evaluator.
> - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and
company isolation.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Fixes: #8087

Refs: #7403

Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change
keeps human-only review as an explicit policy.

**What happened?**

Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still
required board access.

This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see
the same problem without board identity.

**Expected behavior**

Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract.

The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It
must also apply all normal governance controls.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent.
2. Resolve it with another authorized agent.
3. Observe the board-only denial.

**Paperclip version or commit**

The problem exists on `master` before this change.

**Deployment mode**

Local development with `pnpm dev`.

## What Changed

- Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`.
- Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind.
- Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task
watchdog scope.
- Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit.
- Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction
data.
- Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board
UI.
- Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression
fixtures.
- Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior.
- Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior
runs.

## Product Rules

- An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the
next action.
- `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond.
- `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator.
- `human_only` requires an authorized person.
- A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the
audience.
- These controls cannot widen the audience.
- A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent.
- A task watchdog does not receive board authority.
- An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue
action limit.
- Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions.
- The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason.

## Verification

- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts`
- The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice.
- The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing
provenance.
- The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks.
- The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected.
- Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments.

## Risks

- New interaction writes use `anyone` by default.
- Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need
stricter review.
- Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human
restrictions.
- Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery.
- Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit.
- The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind.
- Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these
rules.

> This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in
`ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID
or context window.

The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and test
execution.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked public issues or described the issue with the
required labels
- [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation
- [x] I have considered and documented the risks
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-08-16 13:46:50 -05:00

a71c4b6782

[codex] feat(watchdog): add task watchdog control plane (#8339 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task lifecycle and recovery subsystems decide when agent work is
still productive, stalled, or ready for review.
> - Existing recovery paths can observe stopped or incomplete work, but
there was no first-class per-task watchdog model with scoped review
permissions.
> - Watchdog follow-ups also need strict boundaries so
recovery/status-only runs cannot mutate approvals or perform deliverable
work.
> - This pull request adds the task watchdog data model, API/service
layer, scheduler/review flow, adapter wake context, UI configuration
surfaces, and docs.
> - The branch has been rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip`
`master`; the watchdog migration is now ordered after master's latest
migrations as `0104_issue_watchdogs`.
> - The benefit is a more explicit task-review loop that preserves
Paperclip's single-assignee and governance invariants while making
stalled work easier to route.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

No linked GitHub issue. Paperclip task:
[PAP-11275](/PAP/issues/PAP-11275).

## Problem or motivation

Task recovery needs a first-class watchdog path that can inspect stopped
work and create scoped follow-ups without bypassing normal task
ownership. Board/UI users need a way to configure watchdogs on tasks and
see watchdog-related live work. Recovery/status-only runs must remain
limited to status reporting and must not create approvals, link
approvals, or submit approval comments.

## Proposed solution

Add a task-watchdog data model, scheduler/classifier, scoped mutation
guard, adapter wake context, API/UI configuration surfaces, and
documentation so watchdog agents can review stopped task subtrees under
explicit boundaries.

## Alternatives considered

Reuse the existing recovery-action flow only. That would keep
stopped-work detection implicit, make per-task watchdog assignment
harder to expose in the UI, and would not provide a durable
scoped-review issue for stalled task trees.

## Roadmap alignment

This is Paperclip control-plane lifecycle infrastructure for task
execution and recovery. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not
duplicate an existing planned core item.

## What Changed

- Added issue watchdog schema, migration, shared contracts, validators,
CRUD API, and service support.
- Added task watchdog scheduler/classifier behavior, scoped mutation
enforcement, adapter wake context, and default watchdog mandate
guidance.
- Added UI surfaces for configuring watchdogs on new/existing tasks,
viewing watchdog activity, and exposing the experimental setting.
- Added docs for the user-facing task watchdog workflow and
implementation semantics.
- Gated new-task watchdog setup behind `enableTaskWatchdogs` and blocked
cheap status-only recovery runs from approval mutations.
- Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the idempotent watchdog
migration from the branch-local `0102_issue_watchdogs` slot to
`0104_issue_watchdogs`.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by loading watchdog classifier input with
a recursive subtree query and centralizing the watchdog origin-kind
constant.
- Added and updated focused server/UI tests for watchdog routes,
scheduler/classifier behavior, scope boundaries, live task visibility,
settings, and new issue dialog behavior.

## Verification

- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `git diff --check`
- Verified the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows`.

## Risks

- Medium risk: this introduces a new task lifecycle surface touching DB
schema, server routes/services, adapter wake context, and UI task
configuration.
- Watchdog scheduling behavior depends on the new experimental setting
and runtime context checks behaving consistently across local and
production agents.
- The watchdog migration is idempotent (`IF NOT EXISTS` /
duplicate-object guards) so users who tried the previous branch-local
migration number should not get duplicate-object failures.
- CI and the second Greptile pass are pending after the latest
review-fix push.

> 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 in the Paperclip workspace. Exact
runtime model id and context window were not exposed to the agent; tool
use and local command 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 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 — N/A per Paperclip task instruction: do not add
screenshots/images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the
work.
- [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>

2026-06-19 15:38:52 -05:00