mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-01 15:35:12 +01:00
0e15c92073a09e50df99190a37f69a86286b989b
6
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
8bc051245f |
fix(server): wake stale GitHub review repair from committed changes (#17664)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/215/changes/paperclip/215 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub checks and task admission can finish in either order. > - A check can reject an old head before admission creates its review row. > - The chat maintenance loop repeatedly scans for that late review. > - Existing cancellation and delivery receipts already identify the repair. > - This pull request wakes repair from committed changes and leaves settled history quiet. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** GitHub chat maintenance repeatedly scans all review projections. Empty instances and retained history incur database work even when no repair is owed. **What did you expect?** A committed stale-head cancellation or admitted review should wake repair. Only the exact delivery's unassessed queued/running review should become superseded. When no repair remains, this duty should stop making database calls. **Steps to reproduce** Configure a GitHub chat endpoint and leave it idle after all reviews settle. The previous maintenance callback continues to call repairSupersededReviews. A rapid push can also cancel a check before admission inserts its review, which explains why recovery must remain. Refs #17662, the merged review-check publication parent. Related #17661 and #17656 migrate terminal responses and acknowledgements. This slice owns only late stale-head projection repair. ## What Changed - Move the repair predicate and execution into the GitHub provider owner. Match the original admitted delivery and cancellation receipt. Recheck state and assessment in the update. - Register a scoped worker with the existing coordinator. Use keyset pages and fair bounded dispatch. Keep retries only for unresolved repair or failed reconstruction. - Signal before cancellation, automatic receipt insertion, automatic-review binding, and check-driven review-state writes. Preserve existing transaction ownership and outer commit behavior. - Remove the periodic provider wrapper and publication-maintenance callback. Preserve explicit manual recovery and independent missed-webhook recovery. - Add two concurrent, idempotent partial indexes. Use a guarded delivery UUID lookup and a bounded exact-receipt lookup. Add no tables. - Add ten real-database lifecycle and producer cases. Document the producer audit, failure history, and remaining limits. - Keep YAML browser reads scoped to the editor after focus changes, with the original journey assertions and deadlines. ## Verification Current source: `0886a0229b1c4f68d2f582da86aa1f248e9124f3`. - At `dd6bca0485c3444d6e3d0ee10ec4aa651e801392`, **287 distinct cases pass**: 274 complete GitHub workflow cases and 13 startup cases. The GitHub command filters out 1,485 unrelated cases. The workflow suite uses a new, pre-migrated PostgreSQL database. - Coverage includes both orders of cancellation and admission, outer commit and rollback, restart, drain, standby, failed-update retry, concurrent assessment under an observed row lock, shutdown during that wait, more than one candidate page, manual history, and settled-history quiet. - Database build, server typecheck/build, module boundaries, and target migration order pass. - Canonical migration `0403_natural_cerise.sql` preserves both original index definitions and concurrent idempotent creation. All 401 parent migration receipts remain unchanged during upgrade. One new receipt is added. Replay adds none. Both indexes are ready and valid on fresh and upgraded databases. The five newest snapshots remain. - The normal parent merge preserved the prepared tree. The later browser fixture repair changes only its central read helper and verification note. Entire server, package, and UI trees remain identical to the accepted source. - [The owning audit](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/0886a0229b1c4f68d2f582da86aa1f248e9124f3/doc/plans/2026-10-25-github-review-projection-sleep-audit.md) records the exact evidence and earlier failures. Earlier query-plan measurements retain their historical revision scope. - Fresh current-head CI and Greptile review remain required. No deployed sleep, full repository-suite, or fleet-savings claim is made. Failure accounting: browser shard 7 failed twice on `1453a4447c0d4d33f713ae3e00734c7950f95426` because the YAML helper read whole-page clipboard text while main was focused. Three isolated unchanged local passes did not resolve that failure. A controlled native focus-loss probe reproduced the same error before the repair and passed after it. The helper now clears stale clipboard data, focuses the editor, and waits within the existing expectation budget for a fresh YAML copy. All six complete YAML journeys pass with zero retries in 50.9 seconds. Journey assertions and deadlines are unchanged. The temporary fault is removed. The exact CI focus-change trigger remains unknown. [Both CI attempts](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40777754306) remain part of the verification record. Fresh new-head checks are required. Ponytail follow-up: the 4/5 review of `b3c81ba` was conditional on fixing a stale startup-test slice marker, so the merge was held. Boundary assertions reproduced the invalid -1 end index. The test now uses the existing timer declaration and checks both bounds; all 13 startup/hostname cases pass. The optional no-op coordinator cleanup is already in #17666. The six YAML journeys and all production code remain unchanged. Fresh review and CI are required for this corrected head. ## Risks - Missing a future producer signal could delay discovery until restart. Supported writers share the current database owner's process-local notification scope. Independent SQL writers and other server processes need their own integration. - The migration builds indexes concurrently. The existing migration runner handles interruption and invalid index recovery. - Direct GitHub missed-webhook discovery remains periodic. This change does not make the whole chat service idle. - Existing Cloud wake coverage and sleep blockers remain unchanged. These tests do not prove deployed host or database suspension. - Each remaining sleep slice needs its own review and CI checks before merge. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with reasoning and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window size were not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
65fa1cd617 |
fix(server): schedule GitHub review checks from committed changes (#17662)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/213/changes/paperclip/213 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review checks report the state of admitted agent work. > - The chat maintenance loop searches for check work even when none remains. > - Existing action rows already record unfinished publication and retry deadlines. > - Committed changes can wake those rows through the shared coordinator. > - An unresolved check must still detect a remote head change when a webhook is missed. > - This pull request schedules only outstanding checks and leaves settled history quiet. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The GitHub chat maintenance callback repeatedly queries review-check actions. Empty queues and completed history still incur database reads. Local state changes wait for the maintenance callback. **Expected behavior** Committed check creation, review binding, run changes, and publication-lease release wake the worker. Existing retry and remote-head deadlines apply only to unfinished checks. A settled worker makes no recurring database or provider calls. **Steps to reproduce** Configure a GitHub bot with no outstanding checks, or finish all of its checks. Leave the instance idle. The old maintenance callback continues to call the check service. Refs #17661, the merged terminal-response parent. Related #17656 migrates response acknowledgements. Related #16385 changes branch-policy admission; this PR preserves that separate policy boundary. Late stale-head projection repair remains a separate follow-up slice. ## What Changed - Move the existing check-state reader into the GitHub provider owner. Preserve current authority, run selection, assessment ownership, and check replacement behavior. - Register a scoped worker with the existing coordinator and scheduler. Existing received and retryable-failed actions remain durable truth. No new table is added. - Signal check enqueue, task review receipts, manual review insertion/binding, run lifecycle changes, and publication-lease release through existing transaction ownership. - Preserve the saved failure backoff, eight-attempt policy, and competing lease expiry. Keep five-second remote-head reconciliation only while a received check remains unresolved. - Check admission before each HTTP request. Shutdown leaves durable work recoverable without spending a provider failure attempt. - Remove check dispatch from the periodic GitHub callback. Keep the separate late-projection repair and the manual combined recovery method compatible. - Add an idempotent concurrent partial index for unfinished check selection. Retain the newest five generated snapshots. - Add eleven real-database worker cases and startup wiring coverage. Document producer coverage and the external reconciliation limit. ## Verification Current reviewed source: `2bba08403b195bf646eda48992b46d6f5cebf756`. - Normal merges preserve the complete review-check patch, the landed terminal-response parent, and current master changes. No landed SQL migration or journal entry changes. - At `6995f84b240a14a7b8660e1cf095b3aa1e1e3168`, **331 distinct tests pass**: 264 complete GitHub workflow cases, 30 completion cases, eight issue-tree producer cases, 16 login-cleanup cases, and 13 startup cases. The GitHub command filters out 1,485 unrelated cases. Login cleanup uses its real embedded PostgreSQL fixture. - Combined-master acceptance: **277 distinct tests pass** at `9c538aed1251fd7f7cecb829a0ecbce6110fb1ed`: 264 complete GitHub workflow cases and 13 startup cases. The GitHub command filters out 1,485 unrelated cases. A new PostgreSQL database receives all migrations through 0402.. - Migration `0402_ancient_malice.sql` preserves the original partial index definition and concurrent idempotent creation. All 400 prior migration receipts stay unchanged during upgrade. One new receipt is added. Replay adds no receipt. The index is ready and valid on fresh and upgraded PostgreSQL databases. The five newest snapshots are retained. - A rollback-only query probe adds 10,000 processed actions and one pending action. The actual parameterized candidate predicate selects the one pending row through the partial index, with two shared buffers and 0.007 ms execution time. This measures candidate discovery, not all lease or provenance reads. - Database build, server typecheck and build, module boundaries, migration safety and migration order pass. Audit: [GitHub review-check scheduling](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/2bba08403b195bf646eda48992b46d6f5cebf756/doc/plans/2026-10-25-github-review-check-sleep-audit.md). - Fresh checks and Greptile review are required for this head. Prior scores do not count. These checks do not prove deployed host suspension or fleet savings. ## Risks - Unresolved queued/running checks still make remote-head requests at the existing five-second deadline. GitHub webhook receipt does not prove future pushes cannot be missed. This PR does not claim active reviews become network-idle. - Run and configuration hints rebuild outstanding checks for the affected company. Enqueue, review, and lease hints narrow to the affected endpoint/repository/PR. Startup and scope reconstruction read existing pending rows; they are not constant-cost operations. - Delivery admission failures remain discoverable through the unresolved check's external reconciliation deadline. Not every shared delivery mutation gains a new immediate signal. - Notifications use the existing process-local database ownership contract. Independent SQL writers and other replicas need their own supported integration. - Provider markers, publication leases, and saved actions preserve recovery after uncertainty. This change does not expand Cloud alarm coverage or prove deployed host/database suspension. - Each remaining sleep slice needs its own review and CI checks before merge. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with reasoning and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window size were not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
a8e63f0e2a |
perf(server): avoid repeated delivery scans in GitHub review repair (#17669)
Resolve the exact delivery through its primary key before looking up stale-head cancellations. Backport the predicate from #17664 while preserving the current worker lifecycle and receipt checks. Verified 372 selected tests, workspace typechecking, the server build, green CI, and an Apex 5/5 review. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
35bd7f6059 |
Reduce encrypted event retries and GitHub run-query transfer (#17251)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its Cloud connector delivers encrypted GitHub events to an instance. > - One failed inner event currently rejects the whole authenticated batch. > - Healthy events then remain unacknowledged and are downloaded again. > - GitHub response and check reconciliation also reads full run records when it needs only ownership and status. > - This pull request isolates inner failures and narrows those run projections. > - Valid events can finish while failed events remain available for recovery. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An inner App event encrypted with an unavailable key causes `leaseEvents` to reject the complete batch. No sibling can finish or acknowledge. Repeated retries download the same encrypted payloads. Separately, GitHub response and check reads load prompts, runtime profiles, results, and log excerpts that their callers do not use. **Expected behavior** Authenticate the outer batch and lease before handling individual events. Process valid siblings independently. Retain failed events without acknowledging them. Read only the current run fields needed for response ownership and status checks. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Seal one event for an old instance key and another for the current key. 2. Put both events in a correctly authenticated outer lease. 3. Observe that the old client rejects the whole lease. 4. With this change, the valid event processes, the failed ID is reported locally, and only completed events acknowledge. No public issue exists. The change does not add a provider integration or duplicate a roadmap feature. ## What Changed - Keep outer authentication, environment checks, and lease binding strict. - Isolate inner decryption and route-binding failures. Return their authenticated IDs only to the local poller and count them as failures. - Leave failed events unacknowledged in the broker. Continue processing and acknowledging healthy and duplicate siblings. - Read only run identity, status, and required request context for GitHub responses. Read only run ID and status for check reconciliation. - Cover stale keys, swapped routes, invalid outer bindings, all-failed batches, large unused run payloads, and cross-company/task refusals. ## Verification - Connector cryptography suite: 47 tests passed. - Final connector suite: 50 tests passed, including cryptography and three real PostgreSQL connection-event tests. These cover acknowledgment isolation, all-failed batches, and the exact safe warning fields. - GitHub workflow regression suite after the master refresh: 307 tests passed, including the large-payload/company/task test (1,084 unrelated tests skipped by the selection). - Server typecheck passed after the final source changes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed after the latest conflict-free master refresh. - The broad local `pnpm test:run` was stopped when the branch was refreshed; it has no complete passing result. All CI gates passed on the final commit, including general and serialized server suites, runner verification, build, typecheck, and end-to-end tests. Apex is 5/5 with all review comments resolved. The last change removes source comments and expands docs; both edited TypeScript files emit identical JavaScript before and after that change. - A read-only sample compared full run records with the new field sets: response data decreased by about 96%, and check data by over 99%. This is serialized query output, not a claim of realized billing savings or CPU reduction. - An initial database test setup failed because the local dependency install omitted native-library symlinks. The package's standard setup script repaired them. The unchanged test timeout then passed. - Added lines checked for credentials, customer data, private links, and internal issue references. ## Risks Failed inner events remain pending and retry under the broker's existing lease and retention policy. This change does not recover a lost original private key or introduce a dead-letter deletion path. Outer authentication failures still reject the complete batch. Run projections must retain request provenance and task binding fields. Existing predicates, ordering, identity validation, and publication authority remain unchanged. The change has no schema migration and adds no background timer or new provider call. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning and shell/GitHub CLI 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 - [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the bug report 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 ticket ID - [x] Focused local regressions and all CI gates pass - [x] I have added and updated tests - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have documented risks - [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
|
a8b652b085 |
fix(github): preserve review delivery through reconnect (#16259)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review bots turn authorized repository events into agent tasks and publish the result on the pull request. > - Cloud Apps send callbacks through a relay, but the direct callback recovery worker reported that URL as broken. > - Reconnecting the same App then prevented a new authorized publication from updating its existing working comment. > - Report-only runs could also produce an action-required check when no complete assessment was available. > - This pull request preserves comment identity across reconnects, verifies fresh signed delivery after repair, and keeps report-only results neutral. > - Users can receive the review without changing repository access or making an advisory bot block their pull request. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A review could be saved in Paperclip while GitHub kept showing “Working on this…”. A same-App reconnect changed the runtime generation and the existing response receipt then failed with “GitHub response binding changed”. Cloud callback recovery also compared the relay URL with a direct tenant URL. An incomplete or failed report-only run could produce an action-required check. **Expected behavior** A fresh authorized attempt updates the same App-owned comment after reconnect. Stale attempts and revoked people remain denied. Cloud relay delivery does not produce a direct-callback mismatch. Report-only checks remain neutral and explain incomplete work honestly. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Accept a GitHub request and publish its working comment. 2. Reconnect the same App before the agent publishes its result. 3. Submit the result and inspect the working comment and check. 4. Separately, let a report-only run end without an assessment and inspect its check conclusion. Related: #16138 addresses the separate classification of local authorization errors as provider credential failures. This change fixes the response binding and report-only paths themselves. ## What Changed - Bind durable response comments to the App and agent. Keep per-attempt runtime generation checks and provider comment ownership checks, including legacy receipts. - Exclude Cloud-managed Apps from the direct webhook recovery scan and its stale callback-mismatch warning. The Cloud inbox owns relay retries. - Let a fresh authenticated event from the bound installation verify webhook delivery after repair. Keep signature, runtime epoch, installation, and credential lease checks. - Keep report-only assessment and terminal-run checks neutral. Preserve incomplete/error text and gated-review behavior. - Add integration regressions for reconnect races, legacy comments, failed runs, Cloud recovery, and foreign or forged webhook traffic. Update connector documentation. - Correct the assigned-tool search guidance to name the actual input fields (`offset` and `schemaOffset`) and show valid arguments. The failed automatic review had an input-schema rejection before tool execution; this clarifies recovery without expanding tool access. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - GitHub policy and integration suite: 291 tests passed (`vitest run server/src/services/chat-github-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t 'GitHub|github'`). - The report-only policy regression failed before the fix and passed after it. - `pnpm build` passed. - Assigned tool discovery: 24 tests passed. Its guidance now maps returned pagination offsets to the correct input fields and tells the model to omit unused optional fields. - Full `pnpm test:run` is running. It encountered a 15-second timeout in the unrelated authenticated Workspace calendar-write test. That test passed on one isolated rerun. - After the review-requested module extraction, server typecheck and both direct/Cloud recovery activity integration checks passed. - All 55 non-skipped CI checks passed for `32e690279d847e44a6946b6c7cfb110fb11aff79`. Greptile scored that commit 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Live staging publication verification follows deployment. ## Risks - A durable response can now survive a same-App reconnect. Fresh authorization, runtime generation checks for each publication attempt, App ownership, and the publication lease still fence writes. - Report-only failures intentionally become neutral. The check still reports the failure; it does not claim a complete assessment. - Cloud-managed callbacks rely on their existing durable relay inbox. The direct callback recovery worker remains unchanged for direct installations. - No schema migration or permission expansion. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with code inspection, editing, test execution, and browser verification. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8813a50105 |
feat: run GitHub review bots through Paperclip agents (#13717)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work as tasks and runs. > - GitHub chat brings repository conversations into those tasks. > - A review bot needs the assigned agent, its authority, and governed provider tools. > - The existing channel connection did not supply that review workflow or a complete setup journey. > - This pull request adds GitHub App setup, account access, event prompts, task-bound review tools, and exact-commit checks. > - Operators can inspect each review through the same task, run, and activity systems. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** GitHub chat, governed connection tools, task execution, shared/database contracts, and connector setup UI. **Problem or motivation** Operators need a GitHub review bot that runs their assigned Paperclip agent. Mentions and PR events must preserve task ownership and requester authority. Provider publication must use the bot App identity and enforce the configured permissions. **Proposed solution** Extend the existing GitHub chat connector with resumable App onboarding, linked-member and sponsored-guest access, editable event prompts, and governed review operations. Validate structured assessments on the server and compute a stable Paperclip Review check for the exact head commit. **Alternatives considered** A separate review scheduler would duplicate Paperclip execution and permissions. Reusing personal GitHub credentials would change the bot identity and credential boundary. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing Connected Apps and governed-tool infrastructure. The project owner requested and approved this design. Related PR #8645 imports external Codex review feedback; this change runs an assigned Paperclip agent and publishes its results through the existing chat connector. ## What Changed - Include the current Paperclip instance origin in the copied setup prompt. Storybook uses its configured Paperclip origin; callback parameters and URL credentials are excluded. - Add a Claude/Codex copy button in the real setup and Storybook opening step. Its detailed prompt asks four setup questions and guides embedded-browser setup, verification, and optional required checks. Clipboard failure exposes selectable instructions. - Add a tutorial that explains why App installation, review scheduling, and required checks are separate choices. - Add manifest registration, an existing-App path, separate installation and repository selection, repository refresh, and explicit account confirmation. - Add low-trust agent guidance, effective capability verification, member selection, and explicit restricted guests with a sponsor. - Add configurable PR events, prompts, repository overrides, rating thresholds, and separate formal-review permissions. - Give the assigned agent governed App tools to read PRs, comment, begin an assessment, submit findings, and optionally submit a formal review. - Bind review history, root PR events, and inline replies to ordinary tasks. Deduplicate deliveries/findings and reject stale publication. - Link check Details to the underlying task on the current trusted hostname, or to Reviews before task creation. - Add schema migration 0283, API contracts, production UI, and 49 interactive Storybook states. - Repair local lease recovery. Keep the Cloud Dockerfile identical to master; no provider-pack layer or runtime-default environment variable is added. - Retry only rolled-back wake-admission transactions after transient endpoint-lock contention. A deterministic held-lock regression proves one accepted wake. ## Verification - Current head: `7ba761fe007bb798400d3e62346fa964f607f0f8`, rebased on master `d9b3a5653e41f2ee5a1345b97c86a238f7a5c8e9`. Dockerfile has zero diff against master. Final workspace typecheck and build passed. The new PostgreSQL migration regression passed and preserves existing relation and constraint identities after replay. - Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5. There are zero unresolved review threads and no merge conflicts. - All current-head checks are green: 54 passed and two conditional Storybook jobs skipped. This includes complete server/workspace test suites, build, typechecks, policy checks, Runner suites, browser suites, and security status. One timing-sensitive callback-ordering test passed in isolation and its CI shard passed one retry. The duplicate local full-suite run was stopped after CI completed; it is not counted as a local full-suite pass. - Before the final Slack rebase and migration renumbering, 186 focused GitHub tests, 14 native bootstrap cases, token gates, and Storybook build passed. The final rebase retained the new Slack communication guidance. - The embedded-browser setup test copied the full detailed prompt, including the configured Paperclip instance URL. Desktop and narrow layouts were checked. Component tests cover successful copying and clipboard failure with selectable text and retry. - Live local and hosted GitHub acceptance evidence refers to application revision `cb703ac959876a07ebf3d7a295847f9f351eb6fc`. Real agent tasks exercised issue mentions, automatic PR reviews, inline findings, repeated mentions, task continuation, and failing-to-passing checks after a push. The Storybook agent generated, built, and browser-rendered pages; missing acceptance text failed, matching text passed, and broken JSX produced an incomplete result. - Live cases also covered independently disabled push events, prompt injection, duplicate signed deliveries, rapid pushes, stale-result rejection, finding deduplication, and restart recovery. Formal reviews were denied while disabled and published only after explicit enablement. Check Details links pointed to the underlying task on the trusted hostname. - Those hosted native Claude runs used the provider-pack layer now removed from this PR. They do not prove native Claude works on the standard Cloud image. A replacement hosted native Codex run is not yet verified: the disposable QA tenant has only an Anthropic AI connection. No new staging or production deployment was made for the packaging removal. - Required-check merge enforcement could not be tested because the private disposable repository's GitHub plan rejected the rules configuration. Published success/failure/incomplete check states were verified directly. ## Risks - Latest master allocated migration 0282 to Slack. The GitHub migration is regenerated as 0283 with replay-safe table/index/constraint creation; a PostgreSQL regression verifies existing relations and constraints are preserved. Existing preview tenants remain subject to the fleet migration-history compatibility preflight; no bypass is introduced. - Migration 0283 adds company-scoped configuration, registration, review, and publication records. Existing connections retain their behavior until reviews/tools are enabled. - Signed webhooks and expiring registration state remain required. Hosted installations also need the companion narrow Cloud gateway exemptions. - Agent assessments can be incomplete or wrong. The server enforces coverage/result structure, current-head publication, rating policy, and separate formal-review permission; it does not replace code-review judgment. - No Cloud image packaging changes are included. Remote native ACPX/Claude and OpenCode retain their existing operator-supplied provider-pack prerequisite. Native Codex and Codex with managed MCP tools do not require that pack. Earlier staging deployment evidence refers to its stated revision, not this packaging-removal head. Production rollout and merging remain outside this change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository, code execution, API, and embedded-browser tools. The exact serving model ID and context-window size were not exposed by the environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My 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> |