mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-26 10:26:26 +01:00
runner-task-thread-integration
9
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandClaude Fable 5
|
b996b71a38 |
Deduplicate wake-payload issue descriptions and compact resume deltas (#10216)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Heartbeat wake payloads and the task-context markdown are the two channels that deliver an issue's brief into an agent's prompt > - #10151 fixed wake-prompt-only adapter lanes waking without the issue description by adding it to the structured wake payload > - That left the description delivered twice per prompt on lanes that also inject the task-context markdown, and re-delivered in full on every resume wake, permanently bloating persistent-session context > - This pull request makes the task markdown the single description carrier on lanes that use it, and omits the description from non-assignment resume deltas on all lanes while keeping it for assignment-shaped and recovery wakes > - The benefit is that every lane receives the brief exactly once when it needs it, and long-lived sessions stop re-paying the full brief in tokens on every wake ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10151 Related prior work: #2883, #8402 (earlier description-delivery attempts referenced by #10151). I searched the PR list for open work on wake-payload description handling and found none besides the merged #10151. **Bug:** After #10151, adapters that inject the `Paperclip task context` markdown (ACPX engine lanes, claude-local CLI, hermes server and gateway) receive the issue description twice in a single prompt — once in the wake prompt's `Issue description:` block and once in the task markdown. Separately, resume deltas re-send the full description (up to 12k characters) on every wake even though the persistent session already received it. **Expected behavior:** The description appears exactly once per prompt on every lane, and resume deltas only carry it when the resuming session may not have seen the brief (assignment-shaped or recovery wakes), leaving an explicit fetch breadcrumb otherwise. **Reproduction:** Wake a claude-local or ACPX agent on an issue with a description and inspect the assembled prompt: the description text appears in both the wake-payload block and the task-context block. Wake the same session again via a comment: the full description is present again in the resume delta. **Affected version:** Current `master` (with #10151 merged). **Deployment mode:** Adapter-backed heartbeat execution, local and sandboxed lanes. ## What Changed - `renderPaperclipWakePrompt` accepts `suppressIssueDescription`; the four task-markdown lanes pass it so the task markdown stays the single, uncapped description carrier there. - Non-assignment resume deltas omit the description and emit `- issue description: omitted from this resume delta; fetch the issue if you need the latest brief`. Assignment-shaped reasons (`issue_assigned`, `issue_reopened_via_comment`, `issue_recovery_action_restored`, `issue_tree_restored`) and recovery wakes still deliver the full brief. - `buildPaperclipTaskMarkdown` gains `includeDescription`; the server now also publishes `context.paperclipTaskMarkdownCompact` (description stripped, directives and wake comment kept), and the new `selectPaperclipTaskMarkdown` helper picks the right variant under the same resume rules, falling back to the full markdown when no compact variant exists (version skew safety). - The wake prompt's description block now carries the same user-authored trust framing the task markdown already had. ## Verification - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/acp.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/acp.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts` — 137 tests passed, including new coverage for suppression, resume omission plus breadcrumb, assignment-shaped resume inclusion, compact-variant building, variant selection, and an end-to-end ACPX prompt-assembly test asserting the description appears exactly once on fresh wakes and not at all on comment resumes. - `npx vitest run` in `packages/adapters/hermes` — 59 tests passed, including a gateway execute-level test asserting the brief is sent exactly once on fresh runs and not re-sent on stable-session resumes. - `tsc --noEmit` in `packages/adapter-utils`, `packages/adapters/claude-local`, `packages/adapters/hermes` — clean; `server` matches the `master` baseline exactly (pre-existing plugin-sdk resolution errors only, none in touched files). - Pre-existing failures confirmed identical on clean `master`: claude-local `execute.remote.test.ts` / `test.probe.test.ts`, adapter-utils `mcp-isolation.integration.test.ts` (requires a newer local Claude CLI). ## Risks - Behavioral shift, prompt-only: a resumed session woken by a comment on an issue it never handled (rare — assignment wakes normally precede comment wakes) would not get the inline description; the breadcrumb plus the standard issue-fetch path covers it. - Additive context key (`paperclipTaskMarkdownCompact`); older adapters ignore it and newer adapters fall back to the full markdown when it is absent, so mixed-version deployments degrade to current behavior. - No schema, migration, or API changes; the structured wake-payload JSON shape is unchanged. - Known follow-up deliberately out of scope: openclaw embeds the raw wake-payload JSON (which still contains the description) in prompt text for machine parsing. The hermes-gateway lane is handled: it detects stable-session resumes (issue/agent session-key strategy plus a stored prior session id), compacts the task markdown, and omits the description from its prompt-embedded JSON copy. > This is a focused correctness/efficiency fix to existing wake plumbing and does not overlap with planned roadmap feature work. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking enabled, with repository tool use, shell execution, and local test execution via Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details (execution-workspace branch, same convention as merged #10202) - [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 (code-level docs; no user-facing docs affected) - [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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
b13eb5b2b5 |
Skill Studio: three-pane skill IDE with sandboxed test runs (#9241)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Skills Manager gives operators a reusable skill layer, but iteration still required manual edits, ad hoc prompts, and indirect run inspection. > - Skill authors need a focused workflow for editing skill files, saving representative test inputs, and running those inputs through an agent without exposing harness tasks as normal company work. > - The backend therefore needs durable test inputs, reusable run templates, hidden harness issues, scoped run execution, retention metadata, and read-containment rules around hidden work. > - The frontend needs a three-pane Studio that keeps skill files, saved inputs/templates, and run output/history visible together while preserving the existing design system and token rules. > - This pull request ships that Skill Studio surface end to end: database migrations, shared contracts, server APIs/services, hidden harness execution behavior, UI routes/components, and focused tests. > - The benefit is faster and safer skill iteration, with inspectable outputs and fewer ways for internal harness work to leak into normal task lists, costs, or adjacent read APIs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. Feature request summary: - Problem: Skill authors need to edit and test company skills in one place instead of switching between the skill detail page, task creation, run output, and manual prompt history. - Proposed solution: Add a Skill Studio workbench with saved inputs, reusable templates, hidden sandboxed test runs, live run status, output inspection, run history, rerun/delete controls, and frontmatter-aware editing. - Expected users: Paperclip operators and agent-company maintainers who create, fork, import, and tune skills. - Related public PRs: Supersedes #9205, which was replaced so the public PR branch name follows contributor policy. - Duplicate search: searched public GitHub issues and PRs for "Skill Studio"; no other active public issue or PR directly covers this feature. ## What Changed - Added database migrations for Skill Studio test inputs, test runs, test run retention, and reusable run templates. - Added shared Skill Studio types, validators, route helpers, frontmatter utilities, and status handling. - Added server services and routes for saved inputs, test runs, templates, reruns, terminal-run deletion, hidden harness issue execution, and run-detail hydration. - Strengthened hidden-issue read containment across issue-adjacent routes and cost rollups used by skill test harness work. - Added the Skill Studio UI with skill file editing, frontmatter editing, saved inputs, templates, run creation/cancel/rerun/delete flows, output rendering, history, route support, and responsive pane behavior. - Added focused backend, shared, and UI tests for the new APIs, routing logic, editor/run behavior, hidden-issue containment, and migration safety. - Rebased onto current `master`, removed the generated lockfile diff from the PR, and verified no workflow files are changed. ## Verification - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - [x] `pnpm check:token-gates` - [x] `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skill-test-runs-service.test.ts ui/src/lib/skill-studio.test.ts ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx` — 5 files, 132 tests passed - [x] Greptile review on the latest PR head - [x] GitHub PR checks on the latest PR head ## Risks - Medium risk because this is a broad feature touching database schema, server orchestration, issue visibility, and a large UI surface. - Hidden harness issue containment is security-sensitive; this PR includes regression coverage for adjacent read paths and cost rollups. - The new migrations are additive and use idempotent guards where applicable, but deployed databases that previously tested draft migration numbers should still be checked carefully. - The UI depends on a new resizable panels package in `ui/package.json`; the lockfile is intentionally left to repository automation. > 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 shell, git, and GitHub CLI tool use. Earlier feature commits include assistance from other Paperclip coding agents; this PR preparation, rebase, cleanup commit, and PR body were completed by OpenAI Codex in a Paperclip worktree. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
246e1b38bf |
[codex] Include checkbox selections in continuation wakes (#8893)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue-thread interactions are the subsystem that lets board users answer structured prompts and resume agent work > - Checkbox confirmations capture a selected subset of known options, then wake the assignee through continuation context > - The wake context previously carried generic interaction metadata, but not the accepted checkbox option ids or option labels > - That meant the resumed agent could be woken after a checkbox confirmation without seeing the board's selected options in the turn context > - This pull request carries accepted checkbox selections through the interaction continuation wake snapshot and renders them into the adapter wake prompt > - The benefit is that agents can act on checkbox-confirmation selections without refetching or guessing the user's choices ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. Searched public issues and PRs for checkbox confirmation / continuation selection duplicates and found no matching issue or PR. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip or can reproduce on `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? When a board user accepted a `request_checkbox_confirmation` interaction, the assignee continuation wake included generic interaction metadata but did not include the accepted checkbox selections. The resumed agent turn therefore had no in-prompt access to the selected option ids or option labels/descriptions. ### Expected behavior When a `request_checkbox_confirmation` interaction is accepted, the resumed agent wake should include the checkbox prompt, selected option ids, and selected option labels/descriptions so the agent can act on the selected subset directly. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create an issue-thread `request_checkbox_confirmation` interaction with multiple options and `continuationPolicy: "wake_assignee"`. 2. Accept the interaction with one or more selected options. 3. Inspect the continuation wake payload/prompt received by the assignee. 4. Observe that the selected checkbox options are missing from the wake context before this fix. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced against the pre-fix code path on `master`; this PR head is `9d17e70bce373e4850117f30c015c973c4b61789`. ### Deployment mode Local dev (pnpm dev) / built from source. ### Installation method Built from source (pnpm dev / pnpm build). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific (core bug). The Codex/local adapter path exposed the missing wake context, but the missing field was in core interaction continuation payload construction. ### Database mode Embedded PGlite or external Postgres; the bug is not database-mode specific. ### Access context Both. Board users resolve the checkbox interaction, and agent bearer-key wakes consume the continuation context. ### Node.js version `v22.22.2` ### Operating system Linux workspace. ### Relevant logs or output No runtime exception is required to reproduce this. The failure mode is missing `checkboxSelection` data in the resolved interaction continuation wake payload. ### Relevant config Not config-related. ### Additional context Root cause: accepted checkbox interaction results were not extracted into the continuation wake context, and adapter wake payload normalization/rendering had no typed `checkboxSelection` field. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII (usernames, file paths, API keys, tokens, company names) and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Added checkbox selection extraction for accepted `request_checkbox_confirmation` interactions and stored it in interaction continuation wake context. - Included checkbox selection context in heartbeat wake payload construction. - Added adapter-utils normalization and wake prompt rendering for checkbox prompt, selected ids, and selected option details. - Added regression coverage for route continuation context, heartbeat payload summaries, and adapter wake prompt rendering. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` - `rg -n "checkbox|confirmation|interaction|wake|continuation" ROADMAP.md` - `gh pr list --state all --search "checkbox continuation selection repo:paperclipai/paperclip" --json number,title,state,url,headRefName --limit 20` - `gh issue list --state all --search "checkbox confirmation options repo:paperclipai/paperclip" --json number,title,state,url --limit 20` ## Risks Low risk. The new payload field is additive, only populated for accepted checkbox confirmations, and existing continuation fields are preserved. The main compatibility risk is downstream code assuming an exact wake payload shape; adapter normalization treats the new field as optional. > 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 shell/tool execution in this workspace. ## 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
|
7069053a1f |
[codex] Add ask issue work mode (#8334)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue work mode controls how a task starts and how the conversation composer frames the operator's intent. > - Paperclip already supports standard agent execution and planning mode, but there is no lightweight mode for asking a question without immediately implying execution or plan drafting. > - That gap makes low-commitment clarification workflows look like normal task execution. > - This pull request adds an explicit Ask mode and threads it through shared contracts, server heartbeat context, and the issue composer UI. > - The benefit is that operators can create or switch a task into a question-oriented mode while preserving existing agent and planning flows. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline feature request follows the repository feature request template. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `packages/shared`, `server/`, and `ui/`. ### Problem or motivation Issue conversations currently distinguish standard agent work from planning work, but question-first conversations do not have a clear public mode in the shared contract or UI. Operators who want to ask an agent a focused question have to use standard mode, which can imply normal task execution, or planning mode, which asks for a plan rather than an answer. ### Proposed solution Add Ask as a first-class issue work mode. It should be selectable from issue creation and issue chat, cycle alongside Standard and Planning from the keyboard shortcut/menu, appear distinctly in composer styling, and be included in heartbeat context so agents know to answer directly instead of executing or drafting a plan. ### Alternatives considered - Keep using standard mode for questions: rejected because it does not communicate answer-only intent to the agent or the UI. - Reuse planning mode for questions: rejected because planning mode asks for a plan and is semantically different from asking a question. - Add only local UI copy: rejected because the mode needs to be represented in the shared contract and server heartbeat context to be reliable. ### Roadmap alignment This is a focused issue-workflow improvement. `ROADMAP.md` was checked and no duplicate planned core work was found. ### Additional context Related public searches performed before opening this PR: - GitHub PR search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip` - GitHub issue search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip` - GitHub PR search for `"work mode" "ask" repo:paperclipai/paperclip` No duplicate PR was found. ## What Changed - Added `ask` to the shared issue work-mode contract and validation coverage. - Included issue work mode in heartbeat context summaries so agents can see standard, planning, and ask state. - Added Ask mode metadata, styling, composer tone handling, and selection/cycling behavior in the issue chat/new issue UI. - Updated focused tests for shared validators, heartbeat context, and affected UI work-mode flows. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` The broader targeted command passed 8 test files / 245 tests. Visual reference for Standard/Planning/Ask composer states: https://gist.github.com/cryppadotta/714d8590bac55500a65e7e16de5bb4b8 It emitted an expected warning from an existing server test fixture about a missing run-log fixture while verifying derived issue comment metadata. ## Risks Low to moderate risk. This adds a new enum value that crosses shared, server, and UI contracts. Existing standard and planning modes are preserved, but any downstream code assuming only two non-terminal work modes may need to handle `ask`. > 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 in Paperclip CodexCoder mode, with shell, git, GitHub connector, and local test execution tools. Context window and exact hosted model snapshot are not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`, `feat/...`) 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] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
7fb40264f8 |
[codex] Revert PR #7678 (#7765)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue comment wake handoffs are part of the control-plane execution loop that decides when agents resume work after comments and issue updates. > - PR #7678 changed that wake handoff behavior in server issue routes, heartbeat context, and related tests. > - The change broke an important workflow after merge, so the safest immediate fix is to restore the pre-#7678 wake behavior. > - This pull request reverts the wake-handoff behavior from PR #7678 while keeping narrow review-requested safeguards that prevent known runtime/test regressions. > - The benefit is that Paperclip returns to the last known working wake behavior without reintroducing avoidable UUID skill lookup and annotation-resolution test gaps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #7678 Bug context: - What happened: PR #7678 was reported to have broken an important Paperclip workflow after it merged. - Expected behavior: Paperclip should preserve the prior issue comment wake handoff behavior until a corrected change is ready. - Steps to reproduce: Use the workflow affected by PR #7678's issue comment wake handoff changes. - Paperclip version/commit: `master` after merge commit `4da79a88c67e54084d40bd18cada5ee5c8be23da`. - Deployment mode: Paperclip control-plane server behavior. ## What Changed - Reverted merge commit `4da79a88c67e54084d40bd18cada5ee5c8be23da` from PR #7678 to restore pre-#7678 wake-handoff behavior. - Preserved the safe accepted-plan routing check so `parseObject(...)` is not used as a boolean. - Preserved UUID filtering for run-scoped skill mentions so legacy non-UUID skill IDs do not reach a Postgres UUID lookup. - Restored the annotation thread-resolution test guard that verifies resolving a thread does not wake the assignee. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && NODE_ENV=test PAPERCLIP_HOME=/tmp/... PAPERCLIP_INSTANCE_ID=pap10614-revert TMPDIR=/tmp/... pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1 server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-project-env.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts` - Result: 4 test files passed, 26 tests passed. - Earlier targeted revert verification also passed: 4 test files, 50 tests. ## Risks - This intentionally restores behavior from before PR #7678, so intended wake-handoff improvements from that PR are removed. - The PR is no longer a byte-for-byte revert because Greptile identified two narrow safeguards worth preserving. - Low migration risk: no schema or dependency changes are included. - Follow-up work may still be needed to reintroduce the desired wake handoff behavior without the regression. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in this Paperclip heartbeat, with shell/tool execution and repository write 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 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 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4da79a88c6 |
[codex] Refine issue comment wake handoffs (#7678)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The heartbeat and issue-comment routes decide when an assigned agent wakes up and what context it receives. > - Passive comments and annotation notes can currently wake assignees even when no actionable state changed. > - Accepted planning confirmations also need to preserve recent plan comments so child-issue creation does not lose board/user constraints. > - Runtime skill mentions should only send UUID ids into database lookups, because legacy slug-like ids are not valid runtime skill ids. > - This pull request tightens those wake and handoff rules in one server-side branch. > - The benefit is fewer noisy agent wakeups and better accepted-plan continuation context without changing the task model. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Internal Paperclip task: [PAP-10535](/PAP/issues/PAP-10535). Problem or motivation: Passive comments and annotation notes could wake the current assignee even when no actionable state changed, and accepted plan continuations needed recent plan comments preserved in the wake handoff. Runtime skill mentions also needed to ignore non-UUID ids before database lookup. Proposed solution: Tighten server-side wake routing so passive comments do not wake assignees unless they reopen the issue, preserve mention-targeted wakeups, include recent non-deleted plan comments in accepted confirmation wake payloads, and guard runtime skill mention lookup to UUID-like ids. Alternatives considered: Leaving passive assignee wakeups in place was rejected because it keeps generating noisy non-actionable heartbeats. Treating every skill mention-like token as a runtime skill id was rejected because legacy slug-like ids are not valid runtime skill ids. Roadmap alignment: This aligns with the V1 control-plane heartbeat contract by making wakeups more intentional and preserving handoff context for approved plans. This PR was split from the local `master` branch on June 7, 2026. It covers server-side heartbeat and comment-wakeup behavior only. I searched GitHub for duplicate/related PRs; the results were broader heartbeat/run PRs, not this exact passive-comment and accepted-plan handoff change. ## What Changed - Filter runtime skill mention extraction so only UUID-like skill ids are looked up. - Stop ordinary issue comments and document annotation comments from waking the current assignee unless the comment reopens the issue. - Keep mention-targeted wakeups intact while removing passive assignee wakeups. - Include recent non-deleted issue comments in accepted-plan confirmation wake payloads and task markdown. - Updated focused server tests for the new wakeup and accepted-plan behavior. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-project-env.test.ts server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-redaction.test.ts` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-redaction.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter /server typecheck` - PR checks green on head `a379a0264d384510ff8ac4a47fb1e44d7b556f68` - Greptile rerun green on head `a379a0264d384510ff8ac4a47fb1e44d7b556f68`: 9 files reviewed, 0 comments added, 0 unresolved review threads ## Risks - Medium behavioral risk: agents will no longer wake for passive comments unless mentioned or unless the comment reopens/resumes the issue. That is intentional, but any workflow relying on passive assignee comment wakeups should use explicit mentions or structured resume paths. - Low migration risk: no schema or migration changes. > 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 shell, git, GitHub CLI, and local test execution. Exact hosted model variant and context-window size were not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d9f91576a0 |
Add accepted-plan decomposition exact-once guards and UI state (#6831)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so planning approvals and child-issue fan-out are part of the core control-plane loop. > - Accepted plans are supposed to be a safe bridge from planning into execution, especially when agents wake from review decisions and reuse isolated workspaces. > - The duplicate-subtask incident showed that an accepted plan revision could be interpreted more than once across overlapping runs, which broke the single-source-of-truth model for issue decomposition. > - Fixing that required tightening the backend contract first: accepted-plan decomposition needs an exact-once fingerprint, durable claim state, and retry-safe child creation. > - Once that backend behavior existed, the board still needed visibility into what happened, so the issue detail view needed a dedicated decomposition section instead of forcing operators to reconstruct child creation from raw activity. > - This pull request adds the exact-once decomposition primitive, hardens wake routing and regressions around the incident, and surfaces decomposition state in the UI so future incidents are both prevented and easier to inspect. ## What Changed - Added accepted-plan decomposition semantics to `doc/execution-semantics.md`, including the exact-once fingerprint, durable claim/result expectations, and retry/resume behavior. - Added persistent accepted-plan decomposition claims in the backend, including schema, shared types/validators, service logic, and issue routes for creating and listing decomposition state. - Hardened heartbeat routing so an accepted-plan continuation stays scoped to the relevant planning issue instead of opportunistically re-decomposing another accepted issue on the same assignee. - Added regression coverage for the original failure modes: concurrent same-parent retries, cross-issue accepted-plan isolation, and partial child recreation under the same fingerprint. - Added the `Plan decomposition` issue-detail section plus supporting API/query-key/activity formatting updates so operators can see revision status, owner, child counts, and the linked child issues directly in the UI. - Included the small follow-up UI fix so the decomposition section still renders when the issue work mode is no longer `planning`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "lists persisted decompositions with child issue summaries"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "accepted plan decomposition" server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts` - Manual UI path: create a planning issue without an isolated execution workspace, add a `plan` document, accept the `request_confirmation`, let Paperclip create child issues, then reopen the parent issue detail page and confirm the `Plan decomposition` section shows the accepted revision, status, idempotent-claim badge, and child links. - Separate follow-up bug noted during manual UI validation: accepting a plan on an issue whose run never records `workspace_finalize` is tracked in `PAPA-445` and is not part of this PR’s fix scope. ## Risks - This adds a new migration and a large Drizzle snapshot update; reviewers should confirm the schema shape and generated metadata match the intended decomposition table. - The exact-once claim changes sit on the accepted-plan fan-out path, so regressions there could block legitimate child creation or mis-handle retries if the claim state machine is wrong. - The new UI only appears when decomposition records exist; reviewers should use the manual verification path above rather than expecting existing issues on a stale local instance to show the section automatically. - `PAPA-445` remains an open follow-up for the `workspace_finalize` accept gate when a planning handoff never records finalize; that bug can interfere with reproducing the UI flow on isolated workspaces but does not change the correctness of the exact-once decomposition feature itself. > Checked `ROADMAP.md`: this PR is a bug fix / control-plane hardening change for accepted-plan decomposition, not a new uncoordinated roadmap feature. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` (GPT-5-based coding agent; exact backend model ID/context window not exposed in the run context), with repository tool use, shell execution, and code-editing capabilities. <img width="806" height="1069" alt="Screenshot 2026-05-27 at 11 05 48 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5b00b670-96cd-4470-b0a3-581743bcae28" /> ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a1b30c9f35 |
Add planning mode for issue work (#5353)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board users and agents coordinate execution. > - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead of immediate implementation work. > - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution comments from planning-oriented issue work. > - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI affordances for standard vs planning mode. > - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed, discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing the normal issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB, shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and adapter heartbeat payloads. - Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for `issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations. - Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested follow-up issues. - Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles. - Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual verification spec for planning-mode surfaces. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts` ## Screenshots Desktop planning detail:  Desktop planning row:  Desktop staged standard toggle:  Mobile planning detail:  Mobile planning row:  ## Risks - Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final numbered migration safely. - Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by defaulting missing values to `standard`. - UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning display and toggle behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with shell/tool use. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
3fa5d25de1 |
[codex] harden heartbeat run summaries and recovery context (#3742)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Heartbeat runs are the control-plane record of what agents did, why they woke up, and what operators should see next > - Run lists, stranded issue comments, and live log polling all depend on compact but accurate heartbeat summaries > - The current branch had a focused backend slice that improves how run result JSON is summarized, how stale process recovery comments are written, and how live log polling resolves the active run > - This pull request isolates that heartbeat/runtime reliability work from the unrelated UI and dev-tooling changes > - The benefit is more reliable issue context and cheaper run lookups without dragging unrelated board UI changes into the same review ## What Changed - Include the latest run failure in stranded issue comments during orphaned process recovery. - Bound heartbeat `result_json` payloads for list responses while preserving the raw stored payloads. - Narrow heartbeat log endpoint lookups so issue polling resolves the relevant active run with less unnecessary scanning. - Add focused tests for heartbeat list summaries, live run polling, orphaned process recovery, and the run context/result summary helpers. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-list.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-live-run-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` ## Risks - The main risk is accidentally hiding a field that some client still expects from summarized `result_json`, or over-constraining the live log lookup path for edge-case run routing. - Recovery comments now surface the latest failure more aggressively, so wording changes may affect downstream expectations if anyone parses those comments too strictly. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in the Codex CLI environment. Exact backend model deployment ID was not exposed in-session. Tool-assisted editing and shell execution were used. ## 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 |
