mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-26 18:31:34 +01:00
0ac9c6e80f7660f2ed2dda81860aae59e8cf83da
3507
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Dotta
|
0ac9c6e80f |
Merge branch 'pr-10980' into pap16587-combined
# Conflicts: # server/src/worktree-config.ts |
||
|
Dotta
|
615c674070 | Merge branch 'pr-10978' into pap16587-combined | ||
|
Dotta
|
45d0bdf6bb | Merge branch 'pr-10979' into pap16587-combined | ||
|
Dotta
|
ead4149b1a | Merge branch 'pr-11005' into pap16587-combined | ||
|
|
03cfad7ceb |
feat(apps): connect Notion through MCP OAuth (#11009)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Apps give agents governed access to external tools. > - The Apps gallery lists Notion, but the server required manually configured OAuth credentials. > - Notion's hosted MCP server supports OAuth discovery and dynamic client registration. > - Notion also requires HTTPS or a loopback HTTP redirect URI. > - This pull request adds a direct Notion MCP OAuth path with PKCE and reusable dynamic clients. > - It also adds the current Apps UI states for connect and reauthorization. > - The benefit is a secure Notion connection with no manual client credential setup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Apps gallery, Apps connect route, OAuth token lifecycle, and managed MCP gateway. **Subsystem affected** `server/`, `packages/shared/`, `scripts/`, and `ui/`. **Current behavior** The Notion gallery cards are disabled. The server uses the classic Notion OAuth endpoints and requires operator-supplied client credentials. It does not register an OAuth client from provider metadata. Concurrent refreshes can also replay a rotating refresh token. **Proposed behavior** Enable the Notion Apps flow. Discover OAuth metadata from `https://mcp.notion.com/mcp`. Register and reuse a public RFC 7591 client with PKCE. Require HTTPS or loopback HTTP callbacks. Serialize refreshes, store each rotated refresh token before the new access token can be used, and show a reconnect state for `invalid_grant`. **Reason and benefit** Operators can connect the built-in Notion MCP app without creating or copying OAuth credentials. Paperclip keeps dynamic clients and rotating tokens in the company secret store. **Breaking changes** None. Explicit environment client credentials still take priority. Existing Slack and Linear OAuth endpoint hints remain unchanged. Other OAuth apps remain disabled unless they are allowlisted. **Additional context** PR #10910 is a related, broader Connections v3 wizard replacement. This PR is the focused current Apps flow. The MCP Tool Gateway and Connected Apps items in `ROADMAP.md` cover this planned capability. ## What Changed - Classify all 20 reviewed Notion MCP tools with provider-scoped read and write defaults. - Require approval for selected Notion mutations, including move, duplicate, and convert actions that generic verb matching missed. - Preserve company-scoped connection and catalog resolution for Notion profiles and policies. - Add RFC 7591 dynamic client registration with `token_endpoint_auth_method=none` and mandatory PKCE. - Store the dynamic client ID on the connection and store any returned client secret in the company secret store. - Reuse the registered client for later connects and keep explicit environment credentials as the first choice. - Discover protected-resource and authorization-server metadata from the Notion MCP endpoint. - Add `redirectConstraints: "https-or-loopback-http"` to the generated Notion app definition and shared contract. - Reject non-loopback plain HTTP callbacks before network access with a TLS setup error. - Serialize client registration and token refresh operations within the server process. - Store a rotated refresh token before publishing the refreshed access token. - Treat `invalid_grant` as terminal and move the connection to a clear reauthorization state. - Add focused coverage for registration reuse, callback constraints, refresh rotation, and terminal grants. - Enable the Notion Apps route and add connect, redirect, success, error, and reconnect UI states. - Keep non-allowlisted OAuth apps blocked and cover the UI policy with regression tests. ## Verification - The focused Notion policy integration test passed with embedded PostgreSQL. - The focused 20-tool classification test passed. - The server typecheck passed on the governance head. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the rebased head. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the security follow-up. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t \u0027DCR|refresh tokens|invalid_grant|abandoned lease\u0027` passed 10 focused security tests. - `pnpm build` passed on the rebased head. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t 'OAuth|oauth'` passed 14 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts` passed 5 tests. - The complete server group passed 3,686 tests with 4 skipped. - The complete UI group passed 3,656 tests. - The full local runner found one environment-only CLI failure because this agent runtime injects static AWS credentials into a test that expects `AWS_PROFILE` only. `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` passed all 8 tests. - The prior UI verification passed 55 focused tests, `pnpm check:token-gates`, the Storybook build, and review of six 1440 x 1000 screenshots. - OAuth request sequence: protected-resource metadata `GET https://mcp.notion.com/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp`; authorization metadata `GET https://mcp.notion.com/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server`; dynamic registration `POST https://mcp.notion.com/register`; authorization `GET https://mcp.notion.com/authorize`; token exchange and refresh `POST https://mcp.notion.com/token`; MCP traffic `POST https://mcp.notion.com/mcp`. - The live metadata and registration probe confirmed that Notion accepts HTTPS and loopback HTTP redirects. It rejects a plain HTTP private hostname. - A later QA task owns the full browser consent and managed gateway tool-list dry run against a configured HTTPS deployment. ## Risks - Notion can add tools. Unrecognized names use the generic classifier, and new or changed risky tools stay quarantined after connection activation. - A deployment that uses a private non-loopback hostname must configure HTTPS before it can connect Notion. - Dynamic registration creates a provider-side client. Paperclip reuses it because registration does not provide a standard delete operation. - Refresh coordination uses a database CAS lease across service instances. An unclean crash leaves an uncertain lease and requires reconnect instead of risking refresh-token replay. - The current Apps surface overlaps with PR #10910. Merge order can require a small conflict resolution if that PR lands first. > 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 on a GPT-5 runtime. The exact deployment ID and context window are not exposed. The runtime used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and network tools. ## 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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>canary/v2026.807.0-canary.2 |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Opus 4.8
|
ea83c5c822 |
feat(task-chat): bring back copy/👍/👎 actions on the agent bubble footer (#11025)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task view shows a threaded conversation between the user and the agent, with agent replies rendered as bubbles that carry a "✓ Worked · N tools" summary line. > - The conference-room chat already offers per-message copy and thumbs-up / thumbs-down feedback, but the redesigned task thread dropped these controls from the agent bubble footer. > - Users lose a quick way to copy an agent reply or send feedback on it, and the redesign silently ignored the feedback-vote props it was already given. > - This pull request prepends a copy · thumbs-up · thumbs-down cluster to the bubble summary line and wires the existing feedback-vote props through. > - The benefit is a consistent feedback surface across both chat views, with no new API. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change; the underlying issue is described inline below following the feature template (`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml`). #### Problem or motivation The redesigned task thread renders each agent reply with a "✓ Worked · N tools · <timestamp>" summary line, but it dropped the copy and thumbs-up / thumbs-down controls that the conference-room chat still shows. Users can no longer copy an agent reply or vote feedback from the task thread. The redesign component already received `feedbackVotes` and `onVote` props but ignored them. #### Proposed solution Prepend a copy · 👍 · 👎 cluster to the summary line, leading the always-visible timestamp, reusing the shared `IssueChatFeedbackButtons` so both chat views speak the same feedback language. Anchor the cluster to the turn's summary row (a sibling of the expandable tool-history fold) so it stays on the summary line whether the tool history is collapsed or expanded. #### Alternatives considered Placing the cluster inside the expandable fold — rejected because expanding the tool history then re-centered the actions to the middle of the tall fold. #### Roadmap alignment UI polish to the task thread; no core-roadmap overlap. ## What Changed - Add `TaskChatBubbleActions`: a copy · thumbs-up · thumbs-down cluster built on the shared `IssueChatFeedbackButtons`. - Render the cluster on the agent bubble's "✓ Worked · …" summary line, leading the timestamp; runless agent replies get the same cluster with the timestamp trailing. Human and system bubbles are unchanged. - Add a `leading` slot to `TaskChatTurn` so the actions sit on the summary row, a sibling of the tool-history fold, and stay anchored when the fold expands. - Wire the redesign to the `feedbackVotes` / `onVote` props it already received. - Add a demo binding in the `TaskChatLab` dev harness. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 gates CLEAN. - `pnpm typecheck` — clean across all packages. - `cd ui && pnpm vitest run src/components/task-chat/TaskChatBubble.test.tsx src/components/task-chat/TaskChatTurn.test.tsx` — 31/31 pass. - Manual: open a task thread, confirm the copy / 👍 / 👎 cluster shows on the agent bubble summary line before the timestamp, copy works, votes toggle, and the cluster stays on the summary line when the tool history is expanded. Visual change: snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated, per the `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` entry "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". ## Risks Low risk. UI-only change scoped to the redesigned task-chat bubble footer. It reuses an existing shared feedback component and existing vote props; no API, schema, or server change. Human and system bubbles are untouched. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, 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 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>canary/v2026.807.0-canary.1 |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
cfed36ea6b |
feat(plugin-daytona): persistent session model with plain command dispatch (#10941)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies > - One core subsystem runs agent work inside sandboxes > - The Daytona provider uses that path to run user commands > - The current one-shot model does not keep a shell alive across commands > - This pull request adds an opt-in persistent session model for Daytona > - The benefit is faster command dispatch with the same sandbox boundaries ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting. This change touches `packages/adapters`, provider tests, span names, and sandbox command behavior. ### Problem or motivation The Daytona provider needs a persistent shell for repeated command dispatch. The old advisory wrapper path does not reach that goal. It also adds cost and removes the session speed gain. ### Proposed solution Add a `useSessions` driver flag. Keep it off by default. Open one Daytona session per lease when the flag is on. Send each user command into that session. Read stdout and stderr from the session logs endpoint. Run each command in a subshell so `exit` does not stop the shell. Remove the advisory `bwrap` wrapper path and its lease metadata. Add session setup and teardown spans. Keep a hard delete on teardown. ### Alternatives considered Keep the advisory `bwrap` wrapper. That path does not give a real persistent session. It also keeps extra command overhead. Keep a one-shot fallback for user commands. That would weaken the session model and hide a missing session case. ### Roadmap alignment This work fits the `Cloud / Sandbox agents` milestone in `ROADMAP.md`. It also supports the control plane goal of safe remote sandbox execution. ### Additional context The handoff verification reported `tsc --noEmit` clean and 119 Daytona unit tests passing. The handoff also reported a clean host span allowlist test and five expected commits on the branch. The security review gate remains required before merge. ## What Changed - Added an opt-in persistent session model for the Daytona sandbox provider. - Routed user commands through `executeSessionCommand` when sessions are enabled. - Removed the advisory `bwrap` command wrapper path and the lease metadata it used. - Added session lifecycle spans and span allowlist coverage. - Documented the leak bound in `DIRECTORY-CONSTRAINT-FINDINGS.md`. ## Verification - `tsc --noEmit` clean for the Daytona plugin, per handoff verification. - Daytona unit suite passes, with 119 tests, per handoff verification. - Host span allowlist test passes, per handoff verification. ## Risks - Persistent sessions can leak if teardown fails. - Session logs must keep stdout and stderr separate. - The flag stays off by default to limit rollout risk. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5, Codex, 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>canary/v2026.807.0-canary.0 |
||
|
|
d84c5eae7a |
feat(ui): hide task priority from the UI (keep data model) (#11024)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks and issues carry a `priority` field that renders across many product surfaces: the detail header, the Triage properties panel, Kanban and thread cards, the New Task composer, list Sort/Group/Filter menus, search filters, and the dashboard chart. > - Product feedback found the priority level adds visual noise and decision cost without clear value in day-to-day task flow. > - We want to remove priority from the interface, but keep the data model, API, validation, and search DSL fully intact so the choice is reversible with no migration. > - This pull request hides every priority indicator and control behind one compile-time flag, `SHOW_TASK_PRIORITY_UI`, set to `false`. > - The benefit is a calmer, simpler UI now, with a single-boolean revive path and zero data loss. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description <!-- No public GitHub issue exists. Describing in-PR per the feature template. --> **Subsystem affected** The web UI (`ui/src`): issue detail, properties panel, Kanban/thread cards, New Task dialog, issues list Sort/Group/Filter menus, search filter bar/sheet, dashboard charts, and the design-guide showcase. **Problem or motivation** The task/issue priority level appears across many surfaces and adds visual clutter and decision overhead without pulling its weight in normal task flow. We want it gone from the interface without discarding the underlying data or breaking anything that depends on it. **Proposed solution** Add a single compile-time UI flag, `SHOW_TASK_PRIORITY_UI` (default `false`), and gate every priority indicator and control behind it. Leave the data model, API params, Zod validation (including the `"medium"` default), and the search filter DSL untouched. Reviving priority is a one-line flip of the flag back to `true`. **Alternatives considered** Deleting the priority code and schema outright. Rejected: it is irreversible, needs a data migration, and throws away a field the API and search still support. A gated flag keeps the change reversible and low risk. **Roadmap alignment** UI simplification. This is a presentation-only change; it does not alter core agent or data behavior. ## What Changed - Added `ui/src/lib/ui-flags.ts` exporting `SHOW_TASK_PRIORITY_UI: boolean = false` (typed `boolean` so gated branches are not flagged as dead code). - Gated the priority row in the Triage properties panel and the editable priority control in the issue detail header (plus its skeleton seed). - Gated the per-card priority icon in `KanbanBoard` and in `IssueThreadInteractionCard`. - Hid the priority chip and the mobile "more" menu priority section in the New Task dialog. The submit path still sends the `"medium"` default. - Removed the Priority options from the issues list Sort and Group-by menus; the comparator and grouping logic stay dormant. - Hid the Priority sections in the issue filters popover and in the search filter bar and sheet. The `priority:` search DSL and filter state stay functional at the data layer. - Suppressed active-filter priority pills for consistency. - Gated the "Tasks by Priority" dashboard chart and the design-guide priority showcase subsection. - Left activity-feed "changed priority" history text intact as a historical record. - Updated call-site tests to assert priority UI is absent while the flag is off, added focused hidden-surface tests, and added a test that proves creating a task still persists `priority: "medium"`. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all 3 gates clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run` on the touched surfaces (IssueProperties, IssueFiltersPopover, IssuesList, NewIssueDialog, IssueDetail, PriorityIcon and its interaction test) — all green under `TZ=UTC`. - Manual: with the flag off, priority does not appear in the detail header, Triage panel, New Task composer, Sort/Group/Filter menus, or the dashboard chart. Creating a task still persists `priority: "medium"`, and the `priority:` search token still filters at the data layer. ## Risks Low risk. The change is presentation-only and additive: no data model, API, validation, or search-DSL changes. The priority code paths remain compiled and tested; flipping `SHOW_TASK_PRIORITY_UI` to `true` restores the full UI. Visual snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated per the `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` entry "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, with tool use / code execution in an agentic coding harness. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change 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 - [ ] 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>canary/v2026.806.0-canary.10 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
2d8c4484af |
chore: trigger PR verification
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
2ba053e2c3 |
fix(config): fsync backup and rename metadata
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4203b34330 |
chore: retrigger PR verification
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
674f5d5f2c |
merge: refresh config safety branch
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
75acc4650f |
feat(sandbox-providers): pre-fill environment form with default sizing and image values (#11004)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent runs execute inside sandbox environments. Sandbox provider plugins (Daytona, Modal, exe.dev, and others) declare a JSON-Schema `configSchema`. The Environment configuration form renders from that schema. > - The sizing and image fields open empty. Users must guess working values. The Modal form cannot submit at all until the user types an app name and an image by hand. > - The form renderer already pre-fills every field that declares a JSON-Schema `default`. The manifests do not use this mechanism for sizing or image fields. > - This pull request adds optional `default` values to the Daytona, Modal, and exe.dev manifest schemas. > - The benefit is a form that opens with known-good values. Users can create a working environment without provider research. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Current behavior** The Environment configuration form opens with empty sizing and image fields for the Daytona, Modal, and exe.dev sandbox providers. Users must find working values in provider documentation. Modal declares `appName` and `image` as required with no default, so the form blocks submission until the user invents both values. **Proposed behavior** The provider manifests declare JSON-Schema `default` values. The existing form renderer pre-fills them: - Daytona: CPU `4`, memory `4` GiB, disk `10` GiB, image `daytonaio/sandbox:0.8.0` - exe.dev: CPU `4`, memory `4GB`, disk `20GB` - Modal: app name `paperclip`, image `node:22` Secret-ref fields (API keys, tokens) get no defaults on purpose. The form persists a raw string in a secret-ref field as a company secret on save. A placeholder default would become a stored secret with a bogus value. Each plugin test suite now guards this invariant. **Reason and benefit** New users can create a working sandbox environment without guessing. The defaults stay optional: users can clear or change every value, and the schema marks no new field as required. The Modal image default `node:22` satisfies the sandbox runtime contract in `SANDBOX-REQUIREMENTS.md` (`node`, `sh`, and `tar` on PATH). **Subsystem affected** Sandbox provider plugins (`packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/*`): environment driver `configSchema` manifests. **Breaking changes** None. Defaults only seed the create-mode form. Saved environments keep their stored config. E2B, Novita, Cloudflare, and Kubernetes manifests do not change: E2B and Novita already default to their base templates, and the Cloudflare bridge and Kubernetes cluster fields have no sensible universal value. ## What Changed - Add `default` values for `cpu`, `memory`, `disk`, and `image` in the Daytona manifest. Trim the memory description to match. - Add `default` values for `cpu`, `memory`, and `disk` in the exe.dev manifest. - Add `default` values for `appName` and `image` in the Modal manifest. Extend the image description with the runtime-contract rationale. - Add manifest tests in all three plugins: defaults match expected values, defaults satisfy their own schema constraints, and no secret-ref field declares a default. - Bump plugin versions: daytona and modal `0.1.0` → `0.1.1`, exe-dev `0.1.1` → `0.1.2`. ## Verification - Run `pnpm test` in `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona`, `.../modal`, and `.../exe-dev`. The new `* manifest form defaults` suites pass. - Run `./node_modules/.bin/tsc --noEmit` in each of the three packages. Typecheck passes. - Manual: rebuild the plugins (`pnpm build` in each package), let the plugin dev-watcher refresh the manifest, then open Environments → New environment. The Daytona form shows CPU 4, Memory 4, Disk 10, and image `daytonaio/sandbox:0.8.0`. The Modal form shows `paperclip` and `node:22`. The API key fields stay empty. - Verified live on a local instance: the served `configSchema` in the plugin registry carries the new defaults, and existing environments are unchanged. ## Risks - Low risk. The change touches only manifest schema metadata and tests. No runtime code path changes. - New environments created with untouched forms now request 4 CPU / 4 GiB / 10 GiB from Daytona instead of provider minimums. This can raise cost per sandbox for users who previously saved empty fields. - The Daytona image default pins `daytonaio/sandbox:0.8.0`. The default needs a manual bump when Daytona ships new sandbox images. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model ID `claude-fable-5`), via the Claude Code CLI, with extended thinking and 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 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 mergecanary/v2026.806.0-canary.8 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7170837abf |
merge: retain reviewed config safety history
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4f739c1074 |
fix(config): preserve extensions and guard invalid repairs
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f258b34bbd |
fix(ui): unify cloud-managed sign-out (#10994)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip can run as a self-hosted app or as a Cloud-managed tenant. > - These modes need different sign-out sequences because Cloud owns three sessions. > - Several visible controls implemented sign-out separately and could choose different paths. > - This pull request adds one Cloud-aware sign-out action and moves every visible control to it. > - The benefit is one safe sign-out path in Cloud and unchanged local sign-out in self-hosted deployments. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #2073. That older PR adds a separate company-settings sign-out surface. This change centralizes the existing account, company, and instance-settings surfaces and preserves the self-hosted behavior described there. **What happened?** Visible sign-out controls used separate implementations. A Cloud-managed control could call the app-local sign-out endpoint and open the local auth page. That path did not enter the Cloud-owned logout sequence for the tenant, Cloud, and identity sessions. **Expected behavior** Every visible sign-out control must use one action. Cloud-managed instances must navigate the top-level window to the same-origin `/cloud/logout` route without a local sign-out call first. Authenticated self-hosted instances must keep the local sign-out API and cache invalidation behavior. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a Cloud-managed tenant. 2. Use the account menu, company menu, or instance-settings sign-out control. 3. Observe that independently implemented controls can enter different sign-out paths. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem reproduces at `656ecfa585b31938e2685ffab3db22e794474803`. **Deployment mode** Cloud-managed tenant built from source. The regression tests also cover authenticated self-hosted mode. ## What Changed - Added `useSignOut` as the shared Cloud-aware sign-out action. - Navigated Cloud-managed sessions to `/cloud/logout` exactly once without calling local auth first. - Preserved local API sign-out and cache invalidation for authenticated self-hosted sessions. - Migrated the account menu, company menu, and instance general settings to the shared action. - Added focused tests for mode selection, menu closure, pending state, failure state, and settings behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/hooks/useSignOut.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceGeneralSettings.test.tsx` — 26 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` — passed. ## Risks - Low risk. The change centralizes existing behavior and adds no schema, API, telemetry, or style-token changes. - Cloud mode depends on the existing health decision. Tests pin both mode branches. - The change does not alter Fetch Metadata, CSRF, cookie, prefetch, or return-URL protections owned by the Cloud logout route. > 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. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. The agent used high-reasoning mode, shell tools, and API tools. ## 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 - [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>canary/v2026.806.0-canary.9 |
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5
|
52b8741b8e |
perf(server): cut steady-state DB hot paths in dashboard, attention, and productivity sweeps (#10992)
<!-- ASD-STE100 --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server keeps fleet health with periodic sweeps and shows a dashboard with run activity > - The Paperclip instance became slow again after the first round of recovery-sweep indexes landed > - Live profiling found four steady-state hot paths that read much more data than they use > - This pull request bounds the dashboard recursion, adds the missing taskKey index, and narrows two wide reads > - The benefit is a large drop in constant database load and a responsive server ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Describe the bug** The server becomes slow while agents work. Live query sampling shows four hot paths: 1. The dashboard run-activity recursive CTE reads every run a company ever had on each call. One call takes 2.85 seconds. The UI calls it after almost every fleet event through the dashboard and sidebar-badges routes. 2. The productivity-review sweep runs each 30 seconds. Its run-scope filter is `issueId OR taskId OR taskKey` on the run context JSONB. No index exists for `taskKey`. The planner must detoast every run snapshot for the agent. One query takes 444 ms and the sweep makes one for each of ~152 candidate issues. 3. The attention failed-run section selects the full `context_snapshot` for every run newer than the oldest exhausted run. That fetch moves 29 MB for each feed build. 4. The retention sweep pages the attention feed with a cursor. Each page makes a full feed rebuild. **Expected behavior** Periodic sweeps and dashboard queries read only the data they use, and use indexes. **Actual behavior** The database stays saturated. Users see a slow server. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/dashboard.ts`: bound both arms of the `recovered_runs` recursive CTE to the chart window. A retry is always newer than the run it retries, so the bound cannot change visible chart data. Live time went from 2,852 ms to 54 ms. - `packages/db/src/migrations/0210_heartbeat_context_taskkey_index.sql`: add the `taskKey` expression index that completes the issueId/taskId/taskKey trio. With all three, the planner uses a BitmapOr. Live time for the productivity run-scope query went from 444 ms to 1.9 ms. - `packages/db/src/schema/heartbeat_runs.ts`: mirror the new index in the Drizzle schema. - `server/src/services/productivity-review.ts`: select only the seven run fields the evidence code reads. Before, the query pulled full rows with `result_json` (up to 43 kB per row, 100 rows per issue). - `server/src/services/attention.ts`: project `issueId`/`taskId` text fields instead of the full `context_snapshot` in the failed-run newer-runs query (29 MB per feed build before). - `server/src/index.ts`: the retention sweep now builds the attention feed once per company with `all: true` instead of one full rebuild per cursor page. - `packages/db/src/heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts`: cover the new index and re-run migration 0210 statements to prove idempotency. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` (includes migration numbering and safety checks) — pass. - `npx tsc --noEmit` in `server/` — pass. - `npx vitest run packages/db/src/heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts` — pass (embedded Postgres, full migration chain, planner assertions, idempotent re-run of 0209 and 0210). - `npx vitest run` on attention, dashboard, productivity-review, decision-retention, issue-blocker-attention, and issue-review-attention test files — 72/72 pass. - Live EXPLAIN ANALYZE before/after numbers are in the What Changed list. ## Risks - Migration 0210 builds one btree index without CONCURRENTLY inside the transactional migration runner. The table is not in the large-table bucket. The 0209 twin built in seconds on a 100k-row live table. - The CTE bound excludes retry ancestors that are older than the chart window. Those rows are not visible to the chart query, so chart output does not change. - The attention projection changes JSONB scalar handling in one edge case: a non-string `issueId`/`taskId` value now casts to text instead of reading as absent. These keys are always strings in practice. - The retention sweep now holds one full feed in memory per company. The cursor loop already accumulated all pages into one array, so peak memory is unchanged. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic, Mythos-class tier, extended thinking + tool use) via Paperclip agent runtime. - [x] I searched existing PRs and issues and this change is not a duplicate. Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
656ecfa585 |
fix(server): keep Date fields intact through secret redaction; harden chat notice timestamps (#10984)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The task chat thread renders issue comments, system notices, and run
transcripts
> - The server routes comment payloads through the run-secret redaction
walker before it sends them
> - The walker rebuilds each object with `Object.entries`, and this
collapses `Date` instances to `{}`
> - The chat renderer then calls `.toISOString()` on an invalid date and
throws, and the thread falls back to the error banner
> - This pull request keeps `Date` instances intact in redacted
responses and makes the renderer safe against bad timestamps
> - The benefit is that task threads with system notices render
correctly again
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
Task threads that contain a system notice showed the banner "Chat
renderer hit an internal state error." in place of the conversation.
This occurred on many tasks.
**Expected behavior**
The thread renders all comments and system notices with correct
timestamps.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a task that has at least one system notice comment (for example
a "Workspace ready" notice).
2. `GET /api/issues/{id}/comments` returns `createdAt: {}` for every
comment because the secret-redaction walker collapses `Date` objects.
3. The system-notice row calls `new Date({}).toISOString()`. This throws
`RangeError: Invalid time value` and trips the thread error boundary.
**Version / deployment**
Regression from #9934 (`e43f187ca`). It applies to all deployments that
include that commit.
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/run-secret-redaction.ts`:
`redactRegisteredSecretValues` now returns `Date` instances as-is. Dates
hold no redactable text, and the `Object.entries` rebuild turned them
into `{}`.
- `ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.tsx`: the system-notice row formats
its timestamp with a new `toValidIsoString` helper. A value that does
not parse as a date now degrades to "no timestamp" instead of a render
crash.
- Regression tests at three layers:
- Walker unit tests: `Date` values survive with and without registered
secret values.
- Route test: `GET /issues/:id/comments` serializes `createdAt` /
`updatedAt` as ISO strings.
- Render test: a system notice with a malformed `createdAt` renders
without the error boundary.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run --root server
src/__tests__/run-secret-redaction.test.ts` — 5 passed.
- `npx vitest run --root server
src/__tests__/issue-comment-redaction.test.ts` — 4 passed (embedded
Postgres route test).
- `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx
src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts` — 121 passed.
- Each new test was run against the unfixed code and failed there, which
confirms it guards the regression.
- A local sweep rendered 47 real issue threads through
`IssueChatThread`: 7 tripped the boundary before the fix, 0 after.
## Risks
- Low risk. The server change only preserves `Date` objects that the
walker destroyed before. String redaction behavior does not change, and
the registry-key stripping does not change.
- The UI change only affects the timestamp of system-notice rows and
omits it when the value is invalid.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic. Agentic coding session
with tool use (file edits, shell, Vitest). No extended-context or
special reasoning mode.
## 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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
|
e591e75b8c |
perf(db): index context_snapshot/payload issueId lookups used by recovery sweeps (#10969)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The server runs a recovery sweep every 30 seconds. The sweep makes
sure assigned issues do not stall.
> - The sweep reads the latest heartbeat run for each candidate issue.
It filters `heartbeat_runs` on `context_snapshot ->> 'issueId'`. No
index covers this expression.
> - Each lookup scans ~26k rows and detoasts each row's JSONB context
(~645 ms per query, measured with EXPLAIN ANALYZE). With ~460 candidate
issues, one sweep schedules ~500 seconds of database work every 30
seconds.
> - The database saturates. Users see the whole server as slow.
> - This pull request adds expression indexes so these lookups become
index scans.
> - The benefit is that the recovery sweep drops from ~500 seconds of
database work per tick to milliseconds, and the server becomes
responsive again.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The server became slow for all users. `pg_stat_activity` sampling showed
the same two recovery-sweep queries active continuously (15/15 samples).
Each `getLatestIssueRun` call filtered `heartbeat_runs` on the unindexed
expression `context_snapshot ->> 'issueId'`, scanned ~26k rows, and
detoasted a 2.1 GB TOAST region. `heartbeat_runs` accumulated 10.8
billion sequential tuples read. `hasActiveExecutionPath` also scanned
`agent_wakeup_requests` (1.8M rows) on the unindexed expression `payload
->> 'issueId'`.
**Expected behavior**
Per-issue run lookups in the recovery sweep complete in milliseconds.
The sweep finishes well inside its 30-second interval. Background
maintenance does not degrade interactive latency.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a board with several hundred issues in `todo` / `in_progress` /
`in_review` and a large `heartbeat_runs` table with big
`context_snapshot` payloads.
2. Let the heartbeat scheduler run its 30-second recovery sweep.
3. Observe `pg_stat_activity`: the per-issue `heartbeat_runs` lookups
run continuously; `EXPLAIN ANALYZE` shows a filter on `context_snapshot
->> 'issueId'` removing tens of thousands of rows per call.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master (
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
baf8f1dbe9 |
fix(server): preserve post-outage archive decisions
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8d061f180c |
fix(server): reactivate drifted managed sandboxes
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
2cfbb3e4c5 |
docs(skills): require explicit assignment modes
Update shipped and operational skill-sync examples for the required merge-mode contract. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b616d887f6 |
feat(skills): require explicit assignment merge modes
Make agent skill sync use required add, remove, or replace semantics. Default imported skill conflicts to skip and expose per-skill import outcomes across the API, UI, and CLI. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
94f61276e0 |
fix(config): match dotenv comment semantics
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d6167516db |
fix(server): guard managed environment stock drift
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3097d96581 |
fix(config): preserve extensions and guard invalid repairs
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
31a54faef6 |
fix(config): preserve env files during managed updates
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Opus 4.8
|
2ea22d6cea |
fix(ui): white text on light-mode user chat bubbles (#10952)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task detail view shows the conversation as chat bubbles. The requester's own messages sit in a solid accent-colored bubble. > - The bubble container sets `text-white`, but the message body renders through `MarkdownBody`. Tailwind prose tokens (`--tw-prose-body`) win over the inherited container color. > - `prose-invert` only lightens the prose text in dark mode. In light mode the prose body stayed its default dark color, so the text read as near-black on the blue bubble and was hard to read. > - This pull request maps the human bubble's prose tokens to the inherited text color in both themes. > - The benefit is that the requester's chat text is readable white-on-blue in light mode, and dark mode stays exactly as it was. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description <!-- No public GitHub issue exists; described in-PR per the bug report template. --> **What happened?** In light mode, the text inside the user's own chat bubbles in the task detail view rendered as dark (near-black) on the solid blue accent background. This made the requester's messages hard to read. **Expected behavior** The text inside the user's accent-colored chat bubbles should be white in light mode, matching the bubble's `text-white` intent. Dark mode already rendered correctly and should not change. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a chat-style task detail view in light mode. 2. Post a message as the requester (human) so it renders in the solid blue accent bubble. 3. Observe the body text renders dark on blue instead of white. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduces on `master` (branched from `814cb3367`). **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific (core UI bug). ## What Changed - Add the existing `paperclip-markdown-on-accent` class to the human-branch `MarkdownBody` in `TaskChatBubble.tsx`. This class (already used by `IssueChatThread` for the same accent bubble) maps prose body/heading tokens to `currentColor`, so the text follows the bubble's `text-white` in both themes. - Apply the same class to the human-branch `MarkdownBody` in `TaskChatDescriptionBubble.tsx` (the description-as-first-bubble surface) for consistency. - Add unit tests covering that the human accent bubble carries the on-accent class and the agent/neutral bubbles do not. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 CLEAN. - `pnpm --filter ./ui vitest run src/components/task-chat/TaskChatBubble.test.tsx` → 9/9 passing. - Manual: in light mode, the requester's chat bubble text renders white on blue; agent/neutral bubbles unchanged; dark mode unchanged. This is a visual change. Snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated, per `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` → "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". ## Risks Low risk. The change is scoped to the human-branch `MarkdownBody` className on two chat-bubble components and only remaps prose color tokens to the inherited text color. Agent and neutral bubbles are untouched, and dark mode behavior is unchanged. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, ~200K context window, extended thinking mode, with tool use / 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 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>canary/v2026.806.0-canary.7 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
814cb33676 |
feat(server): allow agents to resolve review confirmations (#10939)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue reviews use thread confirmations to record explicit verdicts > - The server allowed users to resolve review confirmations but rejected all agent actors > - This one-way rule prevented an eligible agent reviewer from completing a review > - The existing review policy already defines which actor can submit a verdict > - This pull request applies that policy to agent confirmation verdicts on writable issues > - The benefit is a consistent review gate for users and agents with preserved audit attribution ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Builds on: #10931 (merged into master before this PR) - Refs #8617 ## What Changed - Allow eligible agents to accept or reject pending review confirmations on issues they can write. - Allow a creator agent to withdraw its own pending review confirmation when the review policy permits it. - Reuse the review verdict policy check for users and agents. - Require an explicit, same-run review-confirmation binding so unrelated board-only confirmations stay protected. - Preserve board-only tool action confirmations and existing user attribution. - Add route and service tests for agent accept, reject, withdrawal, human-only denial, and user attribution. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts` (256 passed after rebasing onto master and the atomic binding fix) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - The change expands who can resolve pending review confirmations. The existing issue write checks and review policy limit this access. - Tool action confirmations remain board-only. - The pull request depends on the review policy helper from #10931, which is now merged into master. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. The roadmap marks Agent Reviews and Approvals as shipped. This pull request fixes a narrow server behavior gap in that shipped capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-5.6-sol`, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose the context window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.806.0-canary.6 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f554d67377 |
fix(server): add explicit review verdict policies (#10931)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issues use `in_review` to request a final decision from an authorized writer > - The server rejected an assignee agent that tried to close its own review, even when the issue had no independent-review rule > - This rejection stopped the default agent workflow and did not represent the configured execution-stage rules > - Paperclip needs an open default and explicit issue-level constraints for teams that require an independent or human verdict > - This pull request removes the unconditional rejection and adds `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only` review policies > - The benefit is a working default path with opt-in, authenticated verdict controls ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10635, #4429, and #10671. The related public work covers execution-stage independence, self-approval fallback behavior, and durable review paths. This change is distinct. It controls who can resolve an issue review verdict. It keeps configured execution stages active. ## What Changed - Added a nullable `review_policy` issue column. Null has the same meaning as `anyone`. The migration does not backfill existing issues. - Added shared create, update, response, and compact issue contracts for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Removed the unconditional agent self-approval rejection for `in_review` issues. - Added one reusable verdict-actor check for terminal status changes and pending interaction accept or reject actions. - Used the authenticated principal type for `human_only`. Agent keys and run tokens remain agent principals. - Used the latest transition into `in_review` to identify the requester for `not_creator`. - Added actionable 403 responses that name the policy, the allowed actor, and the next step. - Kept the configured execution-stage transition and signoff behavior. - Added focused contract, helper, status-route, interaction-route, and execution-stage regression tests. - Updated the implementation specification for the new issue field. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 42 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed across server, CLI, plugin SDK/examples, plugin wiki, and UI. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - SecurityEngineer review approved the authenticated-principal checks and accepted policy-relaxation tradeoff with no required changes. - Greptile reviewed the latest head at 5/5 with zero inline comments or follow-ups. - The latest-head GitHub rollup passed build, typecheck, server/workspace tests, serialized suites, canary, e2e, and external security checks. ## Risks - The migration adds one nullable text column. It has no default and no backfill. - `not_creator` reads the latest recorded transition into `in_review`. It denies the verdict when it cannot identify the requester. - Agents can change or relax `reviewPolicy` when they have issue write access. This is intentional for this issue-level control. - Null and `anyone` do not add a database query to the verdict path. - Configured execution-stage checks still run after the issue-level policy check. > This work aligns with the completed "Agent Reviews and Approvals" and "Enforced Outcomes" roadmap items. It does not add a new roadmap capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed to the agent. The run used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub CLI 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 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>canary/v2026.806.0-canary.5 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5b62a3883f |
feat(settings): add experimental Simplified English Interactions flag (#10934)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents ask humans for decisions through interaction blocks: plan confirmations, structured questions, suggested tasks, and checkbox prompts > - Each agent writes these decision prompts in its own style, so operators can get long or unclear text at the exact moment they must decide > - There is no instance-level control that makes agents use a controlled language for these decision points only > - This pull request adds an experimental setting that tells agents to write all user-interaction content in ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English, with the context the user needs and the effect of each choice > - The benefit is faster, clearer human decisions, with agent thinking and normal responses unchanged ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10410 (optional `/simplified-english` skill in the skills catalog; this PR adds the instance-level toggle for interactions). **Problem or motivation** Agent-posted user interactions (plan confirmations, structured questions, suggested-task proposals, checkbox prompts) are written in each agent's default style. Operators who want fast, unambiguous decisions have no way to ask agents to use a controlled language for exactly those decision points. **Proposed solution** Add an experimental instance setting, `enableSimplifiedEnglishInteractions` ("Simplified English Interactions"). When it is on, the server sets `simplifiedEnglishInteractions: true` in the heartbeat wake payload. The shared wake-prompt renderer, used by every adapter, then emits a directive: write all user-interaction content in ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English, state what information the user needs to decide, and state what happens for each choice. The directive applies to interaction content only. Thinking, comments, documents, and other responses keep their usual style. **Alternatives considered** Per-agent instructions work today, but someone must maintain them on every agent. An instance-level toggle applies uniformly and turns off in one place. Server-side rewriting of interaction payloads was rejected: post-hoc translation is lossy and cannot add the decision context that only the agent has. **Roadmap alignment** Extends the experimental settings surface with another opt-in agent-behavior refinement, consistent with existing prompt-side flags. ## What Changed - Added `enableSimplifiedEnglishInteractions` to the experimental instance-settings zod schema, mirror type, and feature catalog (default off, tier preference) in `packages/shared`. - Server `instance-settings.ts` normalizes the flag on both read branches; `heartbeat.ts` reads it once and passes `simplifiedEnglishInteractions` into `buildPaperclipWakePayload`. - Shared adapter renderer (`packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts`): added the field to `PaperclipWakePayload`, normalization, and an `- interaction language (experimental): ...` directive emitted in both fresh and resume prompt lanes, so one injection point covers all adapters. - UI: new experimental settings card "Simplified English Interactions" in `ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.tsx`, in alphabetical card order; fixtures updated. - Tests: renderer coverage for flag on/off in both lanes, plus schema/catalog/UI fixture updates. ## Verification - From the repo root: `node_modules/.bin/vitest run packages/adapter-utils` (88/88), `packages/shared` validators (25/25), server instance-settings + heartbeat suites (47/47 and 70/70 consumer tests), `ui` settings tests (32/32). - Typecheck is clean in all four touched packages. - Manual check: turn the flag on in Settings → Experimental, wake an agent, and confirm the wake prompt contains the interaction-language directive; turn it off and confirm the directive is absent. ## Risks - Low risk: the flag defaults to off, and the only behavior change is one extra directive line in the wake prompt when an operator turns it on. - The directive is advisory to the agent; models can still deviate from STE. No data or API shape changes; no migration. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model ID `claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use via Claude Agent SDK. ## 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>canary/v2026.806.0-canary.4 |
||
|
|
e43f187cad |
feat(secrets): add human-approved secret proposals (#9934)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Agents can encounter credentials during work. > - Directly creating live secrets or bindings would bypass human governance. > - Proposal records must remain inert and separate from live secret resolution until an authorized human approves them. > - Approval must reuse the existing secret-create and protected agent-config write paths. > - This pull request adds the propose, review, approve, and reject lifecycle. > - The benefit is that agents can safely hand credentials into Paperclip without exposing plaintext or gaining authority to activate them. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Follow-on to #9921, which established run-bound agent secret access. **Problem / motivation:** Agents can receive credentials during work. There is no governed way for them to propose a credential or binding without exposing plaintext in work artifacts or immediately creating live access. **Proposed solution:** Store agent-authored proposals outside live secret tables. Encrypt each proposed value and register exact-value redaction when Paperclip receives it. Require an authorized human to approve or reject each proposal. Approval executes through the normal write paths as the human approver. Binding proposals can target only the proposer or its downward reporting chain under the restrictive V1 policy. **Alternatives considered:** We rejected live secrets with a `proposed` status. That design would put untrusted rows in resolver, list, and sync paths. It would also allow uniqueness squatting. We rejected direct agent binding writes because a binding is an agent-config write and must keep the existing human permission gate. **Roadmap alignment:** This change extends the run-bound agent secret-access foundation in #9921 with a governed proposal workflow. ## Security Verdict Q0 SecEng verdict: **PASS-with-required-changes**. The review accepted the separate proposal-table design and required the implementation to: - fail closed unless both encryption and exact-value run redaction registration succeed; - scrub ciphertext idempotently on reject, withdraw, and expiry, with audit-visible state; - treat agent justification as hostile input and foreground action, target, provenance, and approver permissions; - snapshot and re-check the target agent plus reports-to chain at approval to prevent org-chart laundering; - make cascade approval atomic and fail closed if either secret creation or binding authorization fails; - deny low-trust, `skill_test`, `task_bridge`, and non-run-bound sources consistently; and - execute approval through the normal human secret/config write paths, including protected-change gates. Those requirements are implemented and covered by focused service, route, and UI tests. Residual V1 risk remains the accepted 14-day encrypted retention window. Proposal-time redaction also cannot clean a value that leaked before the propose call. ## What Changed - Added `company_secret_proposals`, migration `0207`, shared proposal contracts, and a state-machine service for create, approve, reject, withdraw, cascade, expiry, and ciphertext scrubbing. - Added run-bound agent proposal routes and board review routes. The routes derive provenance from authentication and enforce source restrictions, company isolation, chain-of-command checks, approval-as-approver, wake-on-resolution, and dual audit trails. - Added durable per-run exact-value redaction registration so proposal values remain redacted on later read surfaces. - Added the Secrets **Proposals** tab and agent configuration **Proposed access** rows. The UI shows fingerprint and length only. It also frames agent justification as untrusted input, runs permission preflight, supports approve and reject actions, and confirms cascades. - Updated OpenAPI, agent skill guidance, API reference documentation, and focused server and UI regression coverage. - Rebased the branch onto current `master` and renumbered the proposal migration after `0206`. ## QA Acceptance Results Q5 QA verdict: **PASS — 9/9 acceptance criteria met**, with one Minor non-blocking follow-up. - **AC1:** proposed values never echo, never appear in live lists/resolvers, and expose only fingerprint + length to board reviewers. - **AC2:** restrictive `self_and_reports` matrix passes: self/downward allowed; upward/lateral denied. - **AC3:** secret approval uses the normal create path, honors rename overrides, records proposer/approver provenance, and scrubs ciphertext. - **AC4:** approved bindings materialize and resolve through the target agent's runtime list/fetch routes. - **AC5:** pending-secret bindings require cascade; cascade succeeds atomically and permission failures leave nothing applied. - **AC6:** reject, withdraw, dependent rejection, and expiry paths scrub ciphertext and preserve reasons/audit state. - **AC7:** token/source and approver denial matrix passes through live checks plus focused route tests. - **AC8:** proposal lifecycle events and reused `secret.created`/config-write events form the required dual audit trail; origin-issue notification and wake are queued. - **AC9:** both review surfaces render and execute correctly; UI approval materializes the binding. QA also confirmed zero plaintext occurrences for all exercised proposal values in server logs. The single finding is that the company-level `bindingTargetPolicy` toggle is not wired yet. V1 is hardcoded to the restrictive `self_and_reports` policy. The matrix is correct and the follow-up is tracked separately, so QA classified it as non-blocking. ## Verification - Focused server proposal and redaction suite: 83 tests pass. - Focused proposal review UI suite: 54 tests pass. - Embedded-Postgres migration reapply test: 1 test passes with the documented 30-second timeout. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passes, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes with all gates clean. - Q5 exercised the complete propose, review, approve, bind, and runtime-resolve flow over real HTTP, JWT, and database paths. It verified 9/9 acceptance criteria. ## Risks - Proposal ciphertext is retained encrypted for up to 14 days while pending. Terminal-state and expiry scrub paths reduce but do not remove server-compromise risk during that window. - The V1 target policy is restrictive but not yet company-configurable. A separate follow-up owns that change. - A new migration can require another renumber if another migration lands before maintainers merge this pull request. > 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. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed. The agent used reasoning, repository editing, terminal execution, Paperclip API, and GitHub CLI capabilities. Q3 UI work also records Claude Opus 4.8 assistance in its commit trailers. ## 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 or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Opus 4.8
|
f950952de7 |
fix: reliably show plans in the Plan pane and restore sticky plan confirmation CTAs (#10930)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Chat-style tasks show an agent's plan in a dedicated "Plan" pane, and a plan confirmation lets the user accept or request changes to that plan > - When an agent asked for confirmation but never actually published the plan document (it only wrote the plan in a comment or a question), the Plan pane rendered empty, and the confirmation call-to-action that used to sit pinned at the bottom of the pane had disappeared > - A user asked to confirm a plan they cannot see, with no visible CTA, is stuck — the feature silently fails > - This pull request closes the gap on both sides: it prevents plan confirmations that don't point at a real, latest plan revision, it teaches agents to publish the plan document before confirming, and it restores the sticky confirmation action bar and an explanatory empty state so the pane never goes silently blank > - The benefit is that when a plan is expected, it reliably shows up in the right pane with reachable accept/revise actions ## Linked Issues or Issue Description <!-- No public GitHub issue exists; describing in-PR per the bug template. --> **Bug report** - **What happened:** A task in planning mode could present a plan confirmation while the Plan pane stayed empty (no plan document rendered), and the plan-card confirmation CTAs that were previously pinned to the bottom of the Plan pane no longer appeared. - **Expected behavior:** When a plan is expected, the plan document appears in the Plan pane; when a plan is genuinely missing, the pane explains why rather than showing nothing; and the accept/request-changes CTAs stay visible and reachable while the plan scrolls. - **Steps to reproduce:** Put a task in planning mode with the chat-style task view enabled, have an agent create a plan confirmation without first publishing the `plan` document, and open the Plan tab — the pane is blank and the confirmation actions are missing. - **Deployment mode:** Local dev and self-hosted; UI + server. Related PR (not a duplicate): #9609 "Pin pending confirmations by composer" pins confirmations in a different surface (the composer); this PR restores the Plans-pane action bar and the server/agent guarantees behind it. ## What Changed - **Server:** Reject a `request_confirmation` whose target is a plan document unless a plan document exists and the target points at its *latest* revision, so a confirmation can never reference a plan the pane cannot render (`readPlanTarget` is now exported for reuse). - **Agent instructions:** The CEO and default agent instruction bundles now spell out a plan-publish contract — publish the `plan` document, re-`GET` it and capture `latestRevisionId`, then create the confirmation targeting that revision; never present a plan only in a thread comment or via `ask_user_questions`. - **UI — sticky CTAs:** Restore the plan confirmation action bar pinned to the bottom of the Plans tab so accept/revise stay reachable while the plan scrolls. - **UI — diagnostics:** Keep the Plan tab visible whenever an issue is in planning mode (even before a plan document exists) and show an empty state explaining why the pane is empty instead of rendering nothing. - **UI — annotations:** Add a `panelPlacement="inline"` mode so the plan-document annotation panel renders in document flow instead of as a floating side panel when hosted in the narrow task properties pane. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 CLEAN - `pnpm typecheck` → clean (all packages) - UI: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/issue-properties/IssuePlanConfirmationActionBar.test.tsx src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx` → 69 passed - Server: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts` → 60 passed - Manual: with a planning-mode task, the Plan tab stays visible, shows the plan document (or a diagnostic empty state), and the confirmation CTAs stay pinned at the bottom. Visual note: snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated — per `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". The `storybook-visual` label is intentionally not added. ## Risks Low-to-moderate. The server change adds a validation gate on plan-document confirmations: an interaction that targets a stale or nonexistent plan revision is now rejected with a 422 instead of being created. This is the intended guarantee, but any caller that relied on creating such confirmations will now need to publish the plan document first (which the updated agent instructions cover). UI changes are additive to the Plans tab and gated by the existing chat-style-task experimental flag. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, with tool use (file editing, shell, test execution). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Opus 4.8
|
dc71fef6bf |
feat(ui): show task identifier in task-detail breadcrumb header (#10933)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task detail page shows a breadcrumb header with the task status glyph and the task title. > - The breadcrumb did not show the task identifier, so a reader could not name the task without opening extra context. > - Agents and people refer to tasks by identifier, so the identifier belongs next to the title. > - This pull request renders the task identifier in the breadcrumb header, between the status glyph and the title. > - The benefit is faster reference: a reader sees the task key and the title together at the top of the page. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The task detail breadcrumb header. It shows the status glyph and the task title, but not the task identifier. **Subsystem affected** Web UI — the breadcrumb bar on the task detail page (`ui/src/components/BreadcrumbBar.tsx`, `ui/src/context/BreadcrumbContext.tsx`, `ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.tsx`). **Current behavior** The breadcrumb header renders the status glyph and then the task title. The task identifier does not appear in the header. **Proposed behavior** The breadcrumb header renders the task identifier between the status glyph and the title. The identifier uses gray monospace styling from design tokens (`font-mono text-muted-foreground`). **Reason and benefit** A reader can name and reference the task from the header without opening more context. The identifier and the title appear together. **Breaking changes** None. The identifier field is optional. Crumbs without an identifier render as before. ## What Changed - Add an optional `identifier` field to the `Breadcrumb` type and include it in the `breadcrumbsEqual` comparison so an identifier change triggers a fresh render. - Add a `CrumbIdentifier` helper in `BreadcrumbBar` that renders the identifier in gray monospace (`font-mono text-muted-foreground`), placed after the leading status glyph in each crumb variant. - Wire the issue identifier onto the task crumb in `IssueDetail`. - Add unit tests that cover the identifier field in `breadcrumbsEqual` (fresh render on change, no-op on identical value). ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 gates CLEAN (color literals, arbitrary bracket values, raw font-size). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/context/BreadcrumbContext.test.tsx` → 4/4 tests pass. - `pnpm typecheck` → the four changed files typecheck clean. - Manual: open a task detail page. The breadcrumb header shows the status glyph, then the task identifier in gray monospace, then the title. Visual change. Snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated, per `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` → "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". ## Risks Low risk. The change is additive and the identifier field is optional. It touches only the breadcrumb header rendering and the equality check. No data model or API change. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, 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 - [ ] 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>canary/v2026.806.0-canary.3 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ac3b2e1d7a |
fix(ui): use cloud logout for managed sign-out (#10937)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip supports self-hosted and Cloud-managed authenticated deployments > - A Cloud-managed tenant uses the Cloud harness to own the full browser session > - The account menu treated every authenticated deployment as Cloud and called the local sign-out API first > - This pull request uses the existing Cloud health metadata as the mode gate > - Cloud-managed sign-out now starts the harness logout round trip with a top-level navigation > - Self-hosted authenticated sign-out keeps the existing local API flow > - The benefit is a complete Cloud logout without changing self-hosted behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related prior work: Refs #10802. **What happened?** The account menu called the app-local sign-out endpoint before it moved an authenticated browser to the Cloud logout route. It also used authenticated deployment mode as the Cloud test. This test included self-hosted authenticated instances. **Expected behavior** A Cloud-managed tenant must navigate the top-level browser directly to `/cloud/logout`. A self-hosted authenticated instance must keep the app-local sign-out flow. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a Cloud-managed tenant. 2. Open the account menu. 3. Select **Sign out**. 4. Observe that the browser returns through the tenant auth route instead of completing the Cloud logout round trip. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `master` after `76f442040c`. **Deployment mode** Paperclip Cloud-managed authenticated deployment. ## What Changed - Read the existing Cloud instance metadata in the account menu. - Navigate directly to `/cloud/logout` for Cloud-managed instances without calling the local sign-out API. - Keep the local sign-out API and cache refresh for self-hosted authenticated instances. - Add regression coverage for both sides of the mode gate. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks - Low risk. The change is limited to the account-menu action. - The Cloud branch depends on the existing `health.cloud` metadata that already gates other Cloud UI behavior. - The self-hosted regression test verifies that authenticated mode alone does not select the Cloud route. > 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 based on GPT-5. The runtime provided agentic reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and test execution. The exact internal model ID and context window are not exposed 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 - [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>canary/v2026.806.0-canary.2 |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
f5e9ca3e89 |
fix(adapters): keep user-scoped env bindings on the agent Test action (#10926)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The agent Test action builds adapter config from the form.
> - The build-config parser kept plain and secret_ref bindings.
> - It dropped user_secret_ref bindings on the create path.
> - This PR shares one parser that keeps every binding shape.
> - The test path now sends the same env binding set that a real run
sees.
> - The benefit is one fix across every adapter build-config path.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The agent Test action dropped a user-scoped env binding in create mode.
The same agent config worked in a real run. Related public PRs: #10115,
#9321, #9921, #8825.
**Expected behavior**
The Test action should keep user-scoped env bindings and resolve them
like a real run.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Set a user-scoped env binding on an agent config form.
2. Run Test in create mode.
3. The probe runs without the variable.
**Paperclip version or commit**
canary/v2026.806.0-canary.1
|
||
|
scotttongandClaude Opus 4.8
|
b1b7a9dff6 |
feat(settings): alphabetize experimental cards and drop the Experimental chip (#10924)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Instance Settings area exposes an Experimental page that lists opt-in feature toggles as cards. > - New experimental features were appended to the list over time, so the cards sat in insertion order with no predictable arrangement. > - An unordered list is hard to scan when you are looking for one specific feature. > - Each card also carried a small "Experimental" secondary badge, which is redundant on a page that is itself titled Experimental. > - This pull request sorts every card alphabetically by its title and removes that redundant badge. > - The benefit is a list that is faster to scan and headings that are less cluttered. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change, so the enhancement is described inline following `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml`: **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Instance Settings → Experimental page, which lists opt-in feature toggles as a stack of cards. **Subsystem affected** UI — the Instance Experimental settings page (`ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.tsx`). **Current behavior** Cards render in insertion order (the order features happened to be added), so finding a specific feature means scanning the whole list. Several headings also carry a redundant "Experimental" secondary badge. **Proposed behavior** Cards render top-to-bottom in A→Z order by title, and no card shows an "Experimental" secondary badge. Toggle logic, footnotes, conditional visibility, and the "Managed by Paperclip Cloud" badge are unchanged. **Reason and benefit** Alphabetical order makes the list predictable and quick to scan for a specific feature. The "Experimental" badge repeats information already conveyed by the page title, so removing it declutters the headings. **Breaking changes** None. This touches card render order and the removal of a decorative badge only — no state, persistence, toggle, or visibility logic changes. ## What Changed - Sorted every card on the Instance Experimental settings page alphabetically by its heading title. - Removed the redundant "Experimental" secondary badge from the card headings (previously on Apps, Cases, and Chat-Style Tasks). - Added tests asserting the cards render in case-insensitive alphabetical order and that no card renders an "Experimental" secondary badge. - No behavior change: toggle handlers, footnotes, managed-key handling, and conditional cards (Conference Room Chat, worktree-scoped run) are untouched and now sort into their alphabetical slots. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → all 3 gates CLEAN. - `npx vitest run ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` → 32/32 tests pass (the suite renders the real component and now covers ordering + badge removal). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` (`tsc -b`) → clean. - Manual: open Instance Settings → Experimental. The cards read A→Z and no card shows an "Experimental" chip. ## Risks Low risk. The change is limited to one page component: card render order and the removal of a decorative badge, plus new tests. No state, persistence, toggle, or visibility logic is modified. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>canary/v2026.806.0-canary.0 |
||
|
|
00a24d7e8f |
ci: split general-server tests into five shards with refreshed durations (#10925)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The PR workflow runs the server vitest suite across sharded runners because the suite is pinned to one worker. > - In successful PR run 30930345729 (2026-08-04), shard `server (3/4)` took 311 seconds of wall time and was the slowest check in the run. > - The suite has grown to about 946 seconds of serial vitest time, but the duration manifest was last sampled on 2026-08-01 at about 882 seconds. > - This pull request refreshes the per-suite duration manifest from that run's logs and splits the lane into five shards. > - The benefit is a shorter PR critical path: each shard carries about 196 seconds of suite time, level with the other lanes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10663 (previous split of this lane into four shards). Related: #10923 splits the separate serialized-suites lane into five shards. Both PRs touch `.github/workflows/pr.yml` in different matrix blocks; whichever merges second needs a trivial rebase. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The `general-server` vitest lane runs in four shards with a duration manifest sampled on 2026-08-01. **Current behavior** In PR run 30930345729, shard 3/4 ran for 311 seconds (273 seconds in the test step) and was the longest check in the run. The suite now totals about 946 seconds of serial vitest time. **Proposed behavior** Run the same suite set in five shards, balanced with a per-suite duration manifest refreshed from that run's shard logs (279 suites measured by diffing consecutive completion timestamps). **Reason and benefit** The refreshed LPT partition balances at about 196 seconds of suite time per shard (about 240 seconds per job), level with the other PR lanes. No test coverage is lost. **Breaking changes** None. The change only alters the CI partition size and the duration manifest. ## What Changed - Bump the `general-server` shard matrix in `.github/workflows/pr.yml` from four to five shards. - Refresh `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` from the 2026-08-04 run's shard logs. - Update `SHARD_COUNT` in `scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` to five. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` — 9/9 pass, including the complete non-overlapping partition proof and the duration-balance check. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` — 2/2 pass. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` — 7/7 pass. - A 5-way dry-run partition covers all suites exactly once with equal projected weights. ## Risks - Low risk. The change only alters CI partition size and duration weights; the suite set is unchanged. - One more runner is used per PR run for this lane. - Stale duration weights degrade gracefully: suites missing from the manifest get the median weight. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), Claude Code CLI, model ID `claude-fable-5`, extended thinking with 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 (workflow comments explain the new shard math) - [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: Claude <claude@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.805.0-canary.19 |
||
|
Devin FoleyandDevin Foley
|
b6e58019f2 |
ci: split serialized tests into five shards (#10923)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses CI to keep control-plane changes safe and mergeable. > - The PR workflow splits serialized server tests across isolated runners. > - A recent successful run spent 305 seconds in serialized shard 2/4. > - That job was the slowest check in the run. > - The four shards reported about 739 seconds of Vitest suite time. > - This pull request adds a fifth serialized shard and keeps release verification aligned. > - The benefit is a shorter PR critical path with no loss of test coverage. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The PR and release verification workflows run serialized server tests in four shards. **Current behavior** Successful PR run 30876682788 spent 305 seconds in `Verify serialized server suites (2/4)`. The test step used 256 seconds and made this job the slowest check. **Proposed behavior** Run the same serialized suite set in five complete and non-overlapping shards. **Reason and benefit** The measured suites reported about 739 seconds of total Vitest time. Five runners reduce the expected average suite time from about 185 seconds to about 148 seconds before setup overhead. **Breaking changes** None. The change only alters CI partition size. ## What Changed - Split serialized server tests into five shards in the PR workflow. - Apply the same five-shard layout to release verification. - Add a partition test that proves complete and non-overlapping serialized coverage. - Update release workflow coverage tests for five shards. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Low risk. CI uses one additional runner for the serialized lane. - Round-robin partition weights can still vary as suite timings change. > This change does not overlap with planned core work in `ROADMAP.md`. Related PR #10663 optimized the separate general-server lane. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, agentic coding with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have 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: Devin Foley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
72b509c895 |
Recognize delivered workspaces and reap terminal worktrees (#10908)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip separates workspace provisioning lifecycle from whether the work was actually delivered. > - Git ancestry alone cannot recognize squash merges or deliveries into a branch other than the workspace base. > - A merged pull request linked from a terminal issue is stronger delivery evidence for those cases. > - The read contract should expose that evidence without changing persisted workspace schema. > - Cleanup must remain conservative: terminal descendants, delivered work, and no active run checkout are all required. > - Reusing the existing cleanup primitives keeps service shutdown, lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival behavior consistent. > - Focused regression coverage locks in both the honest read signal and the fail-closed reaper guards. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Execution workspace close-readiness payloads and terminal workspace cleanup. **Current behavior** Delivered squash-merged or cross-branch workspaces can remain `active` and report a permanent “not merged” warning because git ancestry does not contain their original commits. **Proposed behavior** Read payloads distinguish PR-confirmed delivery, ancestry delivery, unmerged work, and unknown state. Fully terminal delivered workspace trees are archived only when no active run holds the checkout. **Reason and benefit** Operators and automation receive an honest delivery signal, while shipped worktrees stop looking active forever and genuinely unmerged work retains its warning. **Breaking changes** The workspace payload gains a derived field. Existing fields and persistence remain unchanged; no database migration is required. **What happened?** A delivered workspace can remain `active` and warn that it is not merged forever after its issue ships through a squash or cross-branch pull request. **Expected behavior** Pull-request delivery should be represented honestly, and a fully terminal delivered workspace should become cleanup-eligible when no run holds its checkout. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an issue workspace with commits ahead of its configured base. 2. Deliver those commits with a squash merge or into a different target branch. 3. Mark the source issue and descendants done, then read workspace close readiness. Before this change, the workspace remains active with a “not merged” warning indefinitely. ## What Changed - Added the derived `deliveryState` workspace contract: `merged_via_pr`, `merged_by_ancestry`, `unmerged`, or `unknown`. - Extracted a shared GitHub pull-request merge classifier and reused it for merge confirmations and workspace delivery checks. - Suppressed false ancestry warnings when a terminal issue has ground-truth merged-PR evidence. - Added an idempotent terminality reaper with descendant-terminal, active-run, and delivered-work guards. - Restricted PR delivery evidence to the source issue, then required live merged state plus matching GitHub repository, head branch, and current workspace HEAD; persisted status, stale PRs, lexical mentions, inbound references, and descendant PRs cannot authorize cleanup. - Preserved workspaces with modified or untracked files even when their committed HEAD was delivered. - Bounded both long-lived pull-request state caches to 1,000 entries with oldest-entry eviction. - Routed eligible workspaces through existing runtime shutdown, lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival machinery with exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks plus non-forced removal. - Added regression coverage for delivery derivation, warning behavior, reaper guards, scheduler wiring, and squash/cross-branch delivery. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 63 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts --reporter=verbose` after review hardening — 43 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts --reporter=dot` on the final local head — 73 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 15 passed - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` — server 3,662 passed (4 skipped), UI 3,599 passed, CLI 327 passed, shared 415 passed, and skills catalog 20 passed; the aggregate DB stage ran both source and built copies of one unrelated embedded-Postgres migration test and both reached its 5-second timeout - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/status-card-migrations.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — isolated aggregate-timeout verification passed in 3.99 seconds - `NODE_ENV=production pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks The reaper intentionally fails closed when issue terminality, pull-request state, git ancestry, or checkout ownership cannot be proven. GitHub lookups can delay classification and cleanup but cannot cause an unproven workspace to be archived. Automated terminal archival holds exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks across validation and removal, skips configured destructive hooks, and uses non-forced removal so dirty writes fail closed. Reopening a source issue does not restore an archived workspace; it emits an audit event so a human or agent can re-provision explicitly. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. Reasoning, tool use, repository editing, test execution, and GitHub CLI access 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.805.0-canary.17 |
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5
|
c2b41bb7cd |
fix(issues): quiet missing-disposition warnings while a live continuation is running (#10899)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - When an agent run ends without recording a disposition, Paperclip
raises a "missing disposition" handoff so the work does not silently
stall
> - The server already tracks whether such an issue has a live
continuation (a running or queued run, or a queued wake) in
`successfulRunHandoff.hasLiveContinuation`
> - But no UI surface read that flag, so an issue that an agent was
actively working on still showed the "This task still needs a next step"
banner, a loud thread warning, and "Needs next step" badges
> - This pull request makes every missing-disposition complaint respect
liveness: warn only when no live agent is on the issue and it is really
stuck
> - The benefit is that users see the warning only when action is
needed, and the noise disappears while an agent is already handling the
issue
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. Description follows the
bug-report template:
**What happened?**
An issue that a live agent run was actively working on showed the
"missing disposition" warning banner, a loud thread notice, and "Needs
next step" badges at the same time. The API payload for that issue
showed `successfulRunHandoff.required: true` together with
`hasLiveContinuation: true` and a `liveRunId`, but the UI ignored the
liveness fields.
**Expected behavior**
The missing-disposition warning appears only when the issue has no live
run or queued wake. A live agent records a disposition when its run
ends. Paperclip complains only if the run ends and no disposition
exists.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Let a run finish on an in-progress issue without a disposition.
Paperclip raises the handoff and queues a corrective wake.
2. Open the issue page while the corrective run (or any new run) is
live.
3. See the banner, the badges, and the loud thread notice — all visible
while the agent works.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Current `master` (reproduced at commit
canary/v2026.805.0-canary.16
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5
|
427509e6e0 |
fix(ui): show the synced company logo on the Cloud org switcher trigger (#10917)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - On Paperclip Cloud a tenant instance holds exactly one company, and the cloud control plane pushes the stack's uploaded workspace icon into that company's branding. > - The cloud-mode organization switcher trigger always rendered the deterministic monogram, so an uploaded organization logo never appeared in the app chrome. > - This pull request renders the trigger through the tenant company's logo and brand color, with the monogram as the fallback. > - The benefit is that the logo a customer uploads for their organization actually shows up inside their Paperclip app. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing public issue found (searched open/closed PRs and issues for "organization logo", "switcher logo", "company logo cloud" — closest related PR is #10850, which introduced the cloud-mode switcher). Describing in-PR: **Subsystem affected** Board UI: the sidebar organization switcher in Paperclip Cloud mode (`SidebarCompanyMenu`). **Problem or motivation** A Cloud customer uploads an organization logo when creating their workspace; the control plane syncs it into the tenant company's branding (`company.logoUrl`). But the cloud branch of the switcher trigger rendered `StackIcon` — monogram-only by design for stack rows — for the trigger too, ignoring `selectedCompany.logoUrl`. Result: the uploaded logo never appears in the app chrome; users see a letter tile instead. **Proposed solution** Add a `CurrentStackIcon` for the trigger that passes the selected company's `logoUrl`/`brandColor` into `CompanyPatternIcon`, seeded by the stack display name. Falls back to the exact previous monogram when no logo is set. Stack rows are unchanged: the portfolio payload deliberately carries no hot-linkable icon URL for other stacks. **Alternatives considered** Fetching per-stack icons for the rows was rejected: the cloud portfolio payload carries no icon URLs (embedding signed, expiring control-plane URLs would be wrong), and the defect is the current organization's chrome, which the already-synced company logo covers. ## What Changed - `ui/src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.tsx`: cloud-mode trigger renders the tenant company logo (fallback: monogram); stack rows untouched; self-hosted path untouched. - `ui/src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.test.tsx`: new regression test that the trigger carries the company logo while stack rows keep monograms; the `CompanyPatternIcon` mock now exposes `logoUrl`. ## Verification - `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.test.tsx`: 12/12 pass (11 existing + 1 new). - `pnpm --dir ui exec tsc --noEmit`: clean. ## Risks - Cloud-only rendering branch; self-hosted trigger rendering is untouched. - If the branding sync has not run yet, the trigger shows the same monogram as before — no regression, and it upgrades in place once `logoUrl` arrives. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic. The run used extended reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and GitHub integration. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>canary/v2026.805.0-canary.15 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5888cbf72a |
fix(issues): restore checkout after accepted confirmations (#10909)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue thread confirmations can pause an issue until a board user makes a decision > - Atomic checkout is the only supported transition into `in_progress` > - An accepted confirmation left a creator-owned issue in `in_review` while it started a continuation worker > - The worker could run without the normal checkout state transition > - This pull request returns that narrow review state to `todo` before it queues the continuation wake > - The benefit is that the worker can check out the issue and move it to `in_progress` through the normal atomic path ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue exists. The following pull requests are related but do not fix this case: - Refs #10376. It handles refusal paths for user-owned issues. - Refs #8516. It handles rejected confirmations for user-owned issues. - Refs #10274. It gives ownerless waking interactions an agent owner. **What happened?** An agent created a confirmation on an issue that was assigned to that same agent and had status `in_review`. A board user accepted the confirmation. Paperclip started a continuation worker, but the issue stayed `in_review`. The normal checkout fields stayed empty. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must return the issue to an actionable state before it wakes the continuation worker. The worker must then use atomic checkout to move the issue to `in_progress`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign an issue to an agent and set the issue status to `in_review`. 2. Let that agent create a `request_confirmation` with `wake_assignee_on_accept`. 3. Accept the confirmation as a board user. 4. Observe that the continuation worker starts while the issue remains `in_review`. **Paperclip version or commit** The bug reproduced on master before this pull request. This branch is based on `ffd62a4cbb`. **Deployment mode** Local development. The server logic is deployment-independent. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Codex exposed the bug, but the issue-thread continuation logic is adapter-independent. **Database mode** The regression test uses embedded PostgreSQL. The logic is database-mode independent. **Access context** An agent creates the confirmation. A board user accepts it. ## What Changed - Allow an accepted agent-authored confirmation to return an agent-owned issue only when the issue is `in_review` and the owner is the creating agent. - Keep active `in_progress` work unchanged so an accepted confirmation cannot reset a running worker to `todo`. - Add embedded-PostgreSQL regression coverage for user-owned review, creator-owned review, and creator-owned active work. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts` — 48 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all workspace projects. - `pnpm build` — passed for all workspace projects. - `pnpm test:run` — 3,411 passed. Three timing-sensitive assertions failed in the unchanged `heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` suite. - Isolated rerun of `heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` — 15 passed. ## Risks Low risk. The behavior change is limited to accepted confirmations on non-terminal `in_review` issues that the creating agent already owns. It does not change active work, blocked work, terminal issues, other agent owners, schemas, or public API contracts. > This is a focused bug fix. It does not add roadmap scope. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code editing, Git, and local test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.805.0-canary.14 |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
8ac2526811 |
chore(plugin-daytona): pin @daytonaio/sdk to 0.203.0 (#10907)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Daytona sandbox provider lives in `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona` > - That plugin depends on `@daytonaio/sdk` for session control and command execution > - The stable SDK version moved forward, but the plugin still used an older pin > - This pull request pins the SDK to the current stable release and keeps the package build and tests green > - The benefit is the plugin uses the current client surface with a very small change set ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Daytona plugin keeps an older `@daytonaio/sdk` pin than the current stable release. **Current behavior** The plugin depends on `^0.171.0`. **Proposed behavior** The plugin pins `@daytonaio/sdk` to `0.203.0`. **Reason and benefit** The plugin uses the current stable client. The build and the existing tests still pass with the real 0.203.0 types. The change keeps the tracked diff small. **Breaking changes** None. The package manifest changes only the SDK pin. The workspace package is excluded from the root lockfile. **Additional context** Refs #7333, which updated the same package to `0.183.0`. ## What Changed - Updated `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/package.json` to pin `@daytonaio/sdk` at `0.203.0`. - Kept the change limited to the plugin package manifest. ## Verification - `pnpm run build` in the plugin directory passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --config packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/vitest.config.ts` passed. - `git status` showed only the one-line manifest change before the PR open step. - `git fetch origin chore/daytona-sdk-0-203-0` returned `d2592644e80dfac2cfae6d9ccc2188267fe75758`. - `git diff --stat origin/master...HEAD` showed only the one manifest file change. ## Risks - Low risk. The change only updates a package pin. - The plugin build and tests already passed against the new SDK surface. - A future SDK release could need a follow-up pin update. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, 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 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 - [ ] 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>canary/v2026.805.0-canary.13 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
ffd62a4cbb |
fix(adapter-utils): carry the workspace origin remote into transported git workspaces (#10873)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - When an agent runs on a different host (sandbox or SSH), the adapter transport copies the local git execution workspace to that host and syncs changes back after the run > - The transport materializes the remote copy with `git init` plus a depth-1 or bundle fetch, so the copy has no `origin` remote and its head reads as a parentless snapshot commit > - An agent asked to publish its branch (push it, open a pull request) sees "no remote, root snapshot" and must hand the publish step back to a human operator, even when the branch base is a commit the upstream remote already holds > - This pull request carries the workspace's `origin` URL (credential-scrubbed) onto the transported copy as metadata > - The benefit is that branches produced in transported workspaces stay publishable by any actor with credentials, while the transport itself still never fetches or pushes ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. Description follows the enhancement template: **What existing behavior does this improve?** The workspace transport in `@paperclipai/adapter-utils` already copies a git workspace to the execution host and back. This change improves the fidelity of that copy: the transported repo keeps the workspace's `origin` remote instead of losing it. **Subsystem affected** Adapter utilities — the sandbox transport (`withShallowGitWorkspaceClone` in `packages/adapter-utils/src/git-workspace-sync.ts`) and the SSH transport (`importGitWorkspaceToSsh` in `packages/adapter-utils/src/ssh.ts`). **Current behavior** The transported copy is built with `git init` plus a depth-1 (sandbox) or bundle (SSH) fetch. It has no remotes. `git remote -v` is empty and the head commit reads as a root snapshot with no visible ancestry. Agents and operators inside the execution host cannot fetch real ancestry or push a branch, even when the branch base is a commit the upstream remote already holds. **Proposed behavior** The transport reads the source workspace's `origin` URL, scrubs credentials from it, and configures it on the transported copy. The sandbox path adds the remote to the fresh clone. The SSH path sets or adds the remote in the remote setup script, which also covers reused workspace directories. A workspace with no `origin` transports exactly as before. **Reason and benefit** A branch committed in a transported workspace becomes publishable in place: the shallow boundary commit already exists on the remote, so a push pack closes without full local ancestry (a new test locks in this property). Fetching real ancestry also becomes possible for whoever holds credentials. Without this, agents must describe their change in a handoff document and a human must reconstruct the branch by hand. **Breaking changes** None. The URL copy is best-effort and metadata-only. The transport never fetches from or pushes to the remote. The no-remote-git contract holds: sync-back through the local cwd stays the only cross-run persistence path, and `packages/adapters/AUTHORING.md` gains a paragraph that makes the carried-remote nuance explicit. ## What Changed - `packages/adapter-utils/src/git-workspace-sync.ts`: new `sanitizeGitRemoteUrl` (strips http(s) userinfo, where tokens can be embedded; scp-like/ssh forms and filesystem paths pass through) and `readSanitizedOriginRemoteUrl`; `withShallowGitWorkspaceClone` configures the scrubbed `origin` on the fresh clone, best-effort. - `packages/adapter-utils/src/ssh.ts`: `importGitWorkspaceToSsh` sets or adds the scrubbed `origin` in the remote setup script, non-fatal under `set -e`. - `packages/adapter-utils/src/git-workspace-sync.test.ts`: four new integration cases (remote copied, credentials scrubbed, no-origin unchanged, push from the shallow clone to an origin that holds the base commit) plus `sanitizeGitRemoteUrl` unit tests. - `packages/adapters/AUTHORING.md`: documents that a transported copy may carry a credential-scrubbed `origin` as metadata, and why this does not weaken the no-remote-git contract. ## Verification - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/git-workspace-sync.test.ts` — 12/12 pass (4 new integration cases + sanitizer unit tests). - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-managed-runtime.test.ts` — 24/24 pass. - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/ssh-fixture.test.ts` — 16/16 pass, including the `no-remote-git contract` case (a workspace without `origin` still round-trips with no remote introduced at any point). - `node scripts/check-no-git-push.mjs` — passes; this change adds no push or fetch to adapter/runtime code. - `pnpm typecheck` in `packages/adapter-utils` — clean. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is additive metadata on the transported copy only; failure to record the remote never fails the transport. - Credential exposure is the real hazard and is handled: http(s) userinfo is stripped before the URL leaves the host. Non-http forms (scp-like, `ssh://`) carry no secret in the URL and pass through. - A reused SSH workspace whose project `origin` changed now gets the current URL via `set-url` instead of keeping a stale one. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic — extended thinking, agentic tool use via Claude Code 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 mergecanary/v2026.805.0-canary.12 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1fa36be353 |
fix(ui): use HTTP-safe clipboard copy everywhere (#10875)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators often open self-hosted Paperclip over plain HTTP on a LAN or private network. > - Browser Clipboard API writes are not reliable in that insecure context. > - Paperclip already has one shared helper with a legacy copy fallback, but many current copy actions bypass it. > - This pull request routes every core UI copy action and the first-party workspace-diff plugin through the shared helper. > - The benefit is consistent copy behavior on HTTPS, localhost, and plain-HTTP private deployments. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #3529. This change supersedes the stale prior attempt in #3531. Current master has more copy surfaces and a first-party plugin UI bridge that the prior branch does not cover. ## What Changed - Replaced direct Clipboard API writes and duplicate fallback implementations across the current core UI with `copyTextToClipboard`. - Added an HTTP-safe clipboard function to the plugin UI SDK and wired the host bridge to the same implementation. - Migrated the first-party workspace-diff plugin to the plugin SDK clipboard function. - Added unit coverage for native rejection fallback and plugin host delegation. - Added a source-level regression test that rejects new direct clipboard writes outside the shared implementation. - Documented the plugin UI clipboard function. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ...` for 14 affected suites: 164 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run tests/ui-clipboard.test.ts` in `packages/plugins/sdk`: 1 test passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm -r typecheck`: passed for 31 workspace projects. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm test:run`: passed. - `NODE_ENV=production pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed with all gates clean. ## Risks Low risk. Secure contexts still use the modern Clipboard API. Plain HTTP and rejected modern writes use the existing `execCommand("copy")` fallback. That API is deprecated, but it is the compatibility path required for insecure contexts. The change has no schema, API, or visual design effect. > 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-5.6-sol`. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. Reasoning, tool use, repository editing, test execution, and GitHub CLI access 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 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
|
14d755824c |
Remove decision and review summaries from issue headers (#10891)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Operators use issue pages to read task state and control task work > - The issue header showed separate summaries for open decisions and review paths > - These summaries repeated state that belongs in the Decisions view > - The extra sections added noise before the issue description and thread > - This pull request removes both header summaries and keeps decision actions in the Decisions view > - The benefit is a simpler issue header with one place for decision work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The issue detail header shows separate pending-decision and review-path sections. **Subsystem affected** `ui/` — React and Vite board UI. **Current behavior** An issue header can show a decision strip and a larger review panel before the issue content. **Proposed behavior** The issue header does not show either decision section. Operators continue to manage decisions and stalled reviews in the Decisions view. **Reason and benefit** This removes duplicate decision state from the issue header and reduces visual noise. **Breaking changes** The issue page no longer provides these summaries or shortcuts. Decision data, review state, and the Decisions view do not change. ## What Changed - Removed the pending-decision strip and review-path panel from the issue detail header. - Deleted the two unused header components and the panel-specific test. - Kept stalled-review actions and their Storybook examples in the Decisions queue. - Added an issue-detail regression test that covers both removed sections. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` (46 tests passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build-storybook` - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Low risk. This change removes two issue-header surfaces. It does not change decision APIs or data. - Users must open the Decisions view to find pending decisions and stalled-review actions. > This change does not duplicate planned core work in `ROADMAP.md`. GitHub searches found no related open issue or pull request. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context window are not exposed. Tool use and 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 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>canary/v2026.805.0-canary.11 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6ffe9df842 |
fix(auth): clarify protected-agent assignment blocks (#10893)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task assignment policies control which agents can receive work. > - Protected-agent policy flags currently stop assignment. > - The existing error says that the assignment requires approval. > - Paperclip has no approval workflow for this policy. > - This pull request models the policy as a hard block and gives the operator an action that exists. > - The benefit is accurate API guidance without weakening the existing fail-closed behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #6386 **What happened?** A protected-agent assignment denial said that approval was required. No approval record or approval action existed for this policy, so the message sent agents and operators to a dead end. **Expected behavior** The authorization result must state that protected-agent policy blocks assignment. It must tell a company administrator to remove the block before retrying. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Set `authorizationPolicy.protectedAgent.requiresApproval` to `true` on a target agent. 2. Give another agent the `tasks:assign` permission. 3. Preview or attempt assignment to the protected agent. 4. Observe that the old response promises an approval step that does not exist. **Paperclip version or commit** `c54936e2e9` on `master`. **Deployment mode** Built from source. The behavior is in the core authorization service and is not deployment-specific. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. ## What Changed - Added canonical `protectedAgent.blockAssignment` and `protectedAgent.blockReason` policy fields. - Kept the legacy approval-named flags as fail-closed compatibility aliases. - Changed denial copy to name the hard block and the administrator action. - Added authorization and plugin-host regression coverage for canonical and legacy policy data. - Updated the V1 implementation contract with the protected-assignment rule. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts` — 2 files passed, 61 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` — passed. The repository-wide local wrappers exceeded the execution host resource limit before they printed a final summary. The PR check loop will use GitHub CI as the complete test and build authority. ## Risks - Low: assignment remains fail-closed. The change corrects the policy name and denial guidance. - Low: legacy fields remain supported, so existing plugin-owned policy data does not change behavior. - Low: the new policy schemas allow unknown keys for forward compatibility, as the existing authorization policy schema already does. > 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`, tool-enabled coding agent with reasoning, shell, Git, and GitHub CLI access. The runtime does not expose the context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ef33c1d9ed |
fix(decisions): retire completed-target decisions and link targets from the card (#10892)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The decisions desk shows pending decisions that need an operator response > - A strict decision cannot apply its effects after its target task changes > - A decision still remained pending when every target task finished after proposal > - The card also linked only the origin task, even when the decision acted on another task > - This pull request expires those moot decisions and links their target tasks > - The benefit is an accurate queue and a clear path to the work that each decision affects ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related PR: #10801 removes the issue-page decision strip, which makes clear queue provenance more important. **What happened?** A strict decision stayed pending until its time-to-live limit after every target task reached `done`. The decision card linked only the origin task. The origin task is where the agent proposed the decision, and it can differ from the task that the decision affects. An operator could therefore open a finished task with no visible decision and no explanation of the real target. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must expire a strict decision when all of its targets finish after the decision is proposed. The card must show and link every target task that differs from the origin task. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a strict decision that targets an active task from a different origin task. 2. Move the target task to `done` without resolving the decision. 3. Run the decision expiry sweep. 4. Observe that the old code keeps the decision open until its time-to-live limit. 5. Observe that the old card links only the origin task. **Paperclip version or commit** The bug reproduces on upstream `master` before this pull request. **Deployment mode** Local dev and self-hosted server modes are affected because the behavior is in the shared decision service and board UI. ## What Changed - Expire an open strict decision with reason `target_completed` when every strict target reached `done` after proposal. - Keep decisions that intentionally target an already-finished task. - Keep lenient-only decisions open. - Keep continuation delivery consistent with other expiry reasons. - Add target-task links to the decision card provenance line. - Use one shared target-ID helper across signing, execution, expiry, card provenance, and resolver preloading. - Add service and UI regression tests for primary, secondary, and target-completed cases. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/DecisionCard.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts` — 51 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. ## Risks - Low migration risk. This change does not alter the database schema. - The expiry sweep performs the existing strict-target query and adds a snapshot comparison before expiry. - A decision remains open if any strict target is active or if a target was already `done` at proposal time. > The roadmap lists work queues as planned. This pull request fixes the existing decisions desk. It does not add a new queue subsystem. ## Model Used - Implementation: Anthropic Claude through Claude Code. The runtime did not expose the exact model snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. - PR preparation: OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a dated model snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
c54936e2e9 |
fix(openclaw-gateway): use per-agent claimedApiKeyPath in wake text (#4668)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The `openclaw-gateway` adapter wakes a remote agent over a WebSocket gateway. It sends a wake prompt. That prompt tells the agent which environment variables to set and which file holds its Paperclip API key. > - Each agent stores its claimed key in its own JSON file. The adapter already exposes a `claimedApiKeyPath` config field for this. The field is documented in `src/index.ts`. It also has an input in the agent settings UI. > - `buildWakeText` ignored that field. It hardcoded the shared default path into the wake prompt text. > - Every agent therefore read the same key file at wake time. Agents authenticated as the wrong identity. The first API call failed. > - This pull request passes `ctx.config.claimedApiKeyPath` into `buildWakeText`. It uses the existing `resolveClaimedApiKeyPath` helper. That helper falls back to the documented default. > - The benefit is that each agent reads its own claimed-key file. Each agent authenticates as itself. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #10071 Fixes #4976 Fixes #3098 Fixes #8076 These four open issues report the same defect. Earlier duplicates are already closed: Refs #2561, Refs #2592, Refs #930. Related pull requests that address the same root problem (duplicate search): - #3396 — same core change, no tests - #3370 — heavier approach, injects `PAPERCLIP_CLAIMED_API_KEY_PATH` into the wake env and adds server onboarding defaults - #5970 — renames the config field to `paperclipApiKeyPath` - #8072 — same core change, bundled with an unrelated protocol-version change - #784 — adds shell quoting and preflight instructions - #3296 — bundled with an unrelated Claude hello-probe fix ## What Changed - `packages/adapters/openclaw-gateway/src/server/execute.ts` - `buildWakeText` now accepts `claimedApiKeyPath` as a parameter. It no longer hardcodes the path. - The `execute` call site passes `resolveClaimedApiKeyPath(ctx.config.claimedApiKeyPath)`. That helper returns the documented default `~/.openclaw/workspace/paperclip-claimed-api-key.json` when the agent sets no override. - `resolveClaimedApiKeyPath` is now exported so tests can call it. - `packages/adapters/openclaw-gateway/src/server/execute.test.ts` — adds `resolveClaimedApiKeyPath` cases: a configured value, an empty string, a whitespace-only string, `undefined`, `null`, and non-string input. - `packages/adapters/openclaw-gateway/vitest.config.ts` (new) — package-level vitest config. It matches the config used by sibling adapters such as `opencode-local`. - `vitest.config.ts` (root) — adds the adapter to the workspace project list. - `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs` — adds `@paperclipai/adapter-openclaw-gateway` to `nonServerProjects`. **Maintainer-added during rebase.** The CI test lanes do not run a bare `vitest`. They call `run-vitest-stable.mjs`, which invokes vitest with an explicit `--project` allowlist. Without this entry the CI lanes skip this package, and the root project-list entry alone has no effect on CI. ## Verification Run the package suite directly: ``` pnpm install --frozen-lockfile pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-openclaw-gateway ``` The suite covers `resolveSessionKey`, `buildAgentParams`, and the new `resolveClaimedApiKeyPath` cases. The first two already existed in this file but never executed in CI before this change. Typecheck the package: ``` pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-openclaw-gateway typecheck ``` Behavioural check, which no automated test covers: 1. Set `claimedApiKeyPath` to a per-agent value such as `~/.openclaw/workspace/paperclip-keys/<agent>.json` in the agent's gateway adapter settings. 2. Trigger a wake for that agent. 3. Confirm the rendered wake text names that file. It must not name the shared default. Maintainer note: this branch was rebased onto current `master` by a maintainer. The original branch was two months stale. Only two conflicts occurred, both additive: the import line and the tail of `execute.test.ts`, and the project list in the root `vitest.config.ts`. The `execute.ts` change applied without conflict. CI and Greptile re-run against the rebased head. ## Risks - Low for existing deployments. `resolveClaimedApiKeyPath` preserves the default path exactly. Any agent that never set `claimedApiKeyPath` receives the same wake text as before. - The behaviour changes only for agents that already set a per-agent path. Those agents previously received the wrong instruction. They now receive the correct one. - No database, schema, or API surface changes. - CI now runs this package's test file for the first time. That file includes the pre-existing `resolveSessionKey` and `buildAgentParams` tests, which were never executed before. - Five other adapters (`cursor-cloud`, `cursor-local`, `gemini-local`, `grok-local`, `pi-local`) sit in the root project list but remain absent from the CI allowlist. This pull request does not change them. That gap is tracked separately. ## Model Used - Contributor's change: Anthropic Claude, model ID `claude-opus-4-7`, approximately 200K context, extended thinking. Used for triage, patch authoring, and the original description. - Rebase, the `run-vitest-stable.mjs` entry, and this description: Anthropic Claude, model ID `claude-opus-5`, tool use enabled. Run by a Paperclip maintainer. ## 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 — the branch name carries an internal ticket id. A fork branch cannot be renamed without opening a new pull request, so this is left as-is. The internal reference has been removed from the description. - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — the contributor verified the pre-rebase branch. The rebased head is verified by CI on this pull request. - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — `claimedApiKeyPath` is already documented in `src/index.ts` and exposed in the agent settings UI, so no documentation change is needed - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green — pending the post-rebase run - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups — pending re-review of the rebased head - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Pieter (CTO) <pieter@openclaw.local> Co-authored-by: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com>canary/v2026.805.0-canary.8 |