98 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
scotttong	815e49bb7c	feat: make chat-style tasks the default experience (#11101)	2026-08-11 09:06:21 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	01b51dc0e5	fix(runtime): stop Live badge and Working shimmer after task teardown (#10985) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task list and the chat views show a Live badge and a Working shimmer for an issue that has an active run. > - A finished task kept the Live badge and the Working shimmer after the run ended and the sandbox stopped. > - The user interface reads run liveness from the `heartbeat_runs.status` row. The run finalizer writes the terminal status in a step that is separate from the agent `status=done` update. When the sandbox or the run process stops between the two steps, `heartbeat_runs.status` stays `running` forever. > - A run row that stays `running` makes a finished task look perpetually Live, and the user interface has no guard for an issue that already reached a terminal status. > - This pull request closes the invariant "environment lease released implies the run is terminal" on the server, and adds a user interface guard that suppresses live state for a terminal issue. > - The benefit is that a finished task stops showing Live and Working, both at the source (the run row) and at the surface (the badge and the shimmer). ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Bug description** - A completed task kept the Live badge and the Working shimmer after its run ended and the sandbox was torn down. **Steps to reproduce** - Run an agent task to completion. Let the sandbox tear down while the run finalizer is between the `status=done` update and the terminal run-status write. - Open the task list or the chat view for the finished task. **Expected behavior** - A finished task shows no Live badge and no Working shimmer. **Actual behavior (before this change)** - The finished task showed the Live badge and the Working shimmer because its `heartbeat_runs.status` row stayed `running`. This pull request supersedes the two separate pull requests #10954 (frontend) and #10955 (backend). It carries all of their changes for the same race. ## What Changed Server: - Run teardown terminalizes a still-running or still-queued run before it releases the environment lease. It writes `succeeded` when the issue already reached `done`, `cancelled` when the issue is `cancelled`, and `interrupted` otherwise. It never overwrites a status that another path already made terminal. - The recovery stale-lock sweep terminalizes an orphaned running run to `interrupted` after it confirms the process and the sandbox are both gone. It requires recorded process metadata, so it never terminalizes a live run, a queued run, or a scheduled retry. - Each terminal transition writes a run event. - The stale-lock sweep continues and clears the lock when the audit write fails. It logs the failure loudly. - New server tests cover both invariants. User interface: - A shared guard suppresses the Live badge and the Working shimmer when the issue status is terminal. - The guard keeps non-terminal `queued` and `running` issues live. - The guard prefers the newest issue live-status snapshot. - New user interface tests cover the guard and the snapshot preference. ## Verification Server: - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk ensure-build-deps && tsc --noEmit` in `server/` — 0 errors. - `pnpm --filter server test heartbeat-run-lease-release-terminalization.test.ts recovery-stale-issue-lock-sweep.test.ts` — 12 tests pass. User interface: - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — 0 errors. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/liveIssueIds.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts` — 40 tests pass. ## Risks - Low risk. The server change only forces a still-live run row to a terminal status when the lease releases or when the recovery sweep confirms the process is dead. It never overwrites an existing terminal status, and it guards the recovery path with process metadata to avoid terminalizing a live run. - The user interface change is additive. The guard only suppresses live state for a terminal issue and keeps queued and running issues live. - No database migration. No change to any external endpoint. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, 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) - [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>	2026-08-07 07:23:56 -07:00
3 people	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>	2026-08-06 10:29:07 -05:00
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 6ffe9df842). **Deployment mode** Self-hosted development instance. ## What Changed - `isSuccessfulRunHandoffRequired` (ui lib) returns `false` while a live continuation exists. This quiets the Kanban card badge and the issues-list badge. Exception: when the only continuation is a not-yet-promoted scheduled retry, the notice stays visible so the **Retry now** control stays reachable. - `IssueBlockedNotice` also checks the real-time live-run set (`liveIssueIds`). A run that starts after the issue payload was fetched hides the banner at once. - `IssueChatThread` derives an effective handoff state from the live runs it already tracks. The loud "Missing issue disposition" thread notice folds into the quiet collapsed row while a continuation is live, and unfolds if the run ends without a disposition. - Server: `hydrateSuccessfulRunHandoffLiveness` now hydrates escalated handoffs too. The blocked-inbox `missing_disposition` attention is suppressed for escalated handoffs with a live run or wake. This matches the existing required-state suppression. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx` — 106 tests pass, including 6 new tests for the live/stale/scheduled-retry matrix - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx src/components/KanbanBoard.test.tsx src/lib` — pass - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts` — pass, including new escalated-liveness cases - `pnpm typecheck` clean in `ui` and `server`; `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` clean - Manual check: a live issue's API payload showed `required: true` with `hasLiveContinuation: true` and a `liveRunId` while the banner was still on screen; with this change that state renders no complaint ## Risks - Behavioral shift only; no schema or migration changes. All complaints reappear as soon as the continuation stops without a disposition, so nothing can get lost permanently. - A queued wake counts as a live continuation. If a wake sits queued for a long time, the warning stays hidden for that time. The blocked-inbox path already behaved this way; the UI now matches it. - The scheduled-retry carve-out keeps the current Retry-now workflow intact. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic — agentic coding session with extended thinking and tool use (file edit, 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) - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-05 15:59:01 -05:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5	e8ae5286eb	feat(issues): explain cross-task agent writes with attribution, audit receipts, and actionable denials (#10843) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents write to tasks they do not own. They comment, they change fields, and the control plane now permits this by default for standard-trust agents on any task they can read > - This makes a task thread ambiguous. A reader sees a comment from an agent that is not the assignee, but no surface says whose authority that write rode > - The same gap applies to field edits. The activity stream named the verb, but it did not show the before value, the after value, or the reason the write was permitted > - The remaining refusals are also opaque. An agent that hits a wall receives a 403 with no boundary name, no actor who can act, and no sanctioned path. One real incident spent a full detour to find the workaround > - This pull request adds the three surfaces that make open cross-task writes legible: an attribution chip, a field-level audit receipt, and an actionable denial contract shared by the API and the UI > - The benefit is that a reader can answer "who did this, on whose authority, and was it allowed?" on the task itself, and a blocked writer is told what to do next ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this work, so the enhancement is described here. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Cross-task agent writes are permitted, but they are not explained. A task thread can hold comments from agents that are not the assignee, and the activity stream can hold field changes made by those agents. Neither surface names the responsible user behind the write. When a write is refused, the error text does not name the boundary or the way forward. **Subsystem affected** Issue detail UI (comment thread and activity stream), the issue write authorization responses in the server, and the shared copy contract that both consume. **Current behavior** - An agent comment on a task the agent does not own looks the same as an assignee comment. - An `issue.updated` activity row states the verb only. It does not show the field-level before and after values, the responsible user, or the authorization reason. - A refused write returns a short message such as an ownership error. The message does not state which rule fired, who is able to perform the action, or which alternative path is sanctioned. **Proposed behavior** - An agent comment on a task the agent does not own carries a chip that reads "for {user}". The chip names the responsible user. Its tooltip states that the author is not the assignee and cannot exceed that user's permissions. - Each `issue.updated` row shows a receipt: the changed fields with before and after values, the responsible user, and the authorization reason. This applies to board edits as well as agent edits. - Each refusal states three things: the boundary that fired, who is able to act, and the sanctioned path. The API error body and the in-app notice use the same words, because both read one shared contract. Related pull requests, found by searching this repository: - Refs #10837 — merged. It added the default-open cross-task write rule, the comment attribution data, and the per-run containment cap that this pull request makes visible. - Refs #10114 — open. It proposes a narrower authorization change in the same area. - Refs #7998 — open. It proposes append-only cross-assignee comments as an alternative to opening writes. ## What Changed - Adds `packages/shared/src/issue-write-denial.ts`. This is one copy contract for eight ways an issue write can be refused: not visible, responsible-user ceiling, responsible user unavailable, excluded actor class, assignee run lock, per-run cross-task cap, missing run context, and rejected attribution. Each entry names the boundary, who can act, and the sanctioned path. - Maps server authorization decisions onto that contract in `server/src/routes/issues.ts` and `server/src/services/cross-issue-influence-limit.ts`. The flattened `error` string carries all three obligations, and `details.code` lets the UI render the same words. The two cap codes keep the names they already ship under. - Adds `CommentAttributionChip`. It renders "for {user}" beside the author name on agent comments where the author is not the assignee. It renders nothing when no responsible user is recorded, so older rows stay clean. It is wired into both `IssueChatThread` and the flagged `TaskChatThread` redesign. - Adds `IssueFieldChangeReceipt`. It renders the change receipt under `issue.updated` rows in the activity stream. Ids resolve to agent and user names where the directory is loaded. Server-truncated text is labelled as a preview, so the receipt never implies that it shows a whole value. - Adds `IssueWriteDenialNotice`. It renders the shared copy in the app, keyed off the denial events the server logs on a task. - Adds a public `/ux-lab/cross-issue-collaboration` page. It renders all three surfaces and their edge cases for review without a seeded thread. This follows the existing `ux-lab` pages. ## Verification Automated, all green: ``` pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run src/issue-write-denial.test.ts # 17 tests pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueWriteDenialNotice.test.tsx \ src/components/IssueFieldChangeReceipt.test.tsx src/components/CommentAttributionChip.test.tsx \ src/lib/issue-change-receipt.test.ts src/lib/comment-attribution.test.ts # 46 tests pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cross-issue-influence-limit.test.ts \ src/__tests__/issue-comment-attribution-audit-routes.test.ts \ src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts \ src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts # 98 tests ``` `tsc --noEmit` passes for the shared, ui, and server packages. Manual, in a browser: 1. Start the UI only: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vite`. 2. Open `/ux-lab/cross-issue-collaboration`. No session is needed, because `ux-lab` routes are public. 3. All three surfaces were captured at 1440x900 in light mode and dark mode, and at 390x844. The page reported no errors. 4. The chip tooltip was opened by a hover and by a keyboard focus. Rendering the page found defects that the tests had missed. Three copy and contrast defects were fixed, and two of them are now pinned by a test. A design review then found three layout defects, which are also fixed: the denial notice orphaned its label when a value wrapped, the receipt icon wrapped onto its own line at narrow widths, and the chip tooltip was reachable by hover only. ## Risks Low risk, and additive. - Every new surface renders nothing when its data is absent. Comments without a recorded responsible user show no chip, and activity events without a receipt show no receipt, so existing rows do not change. - No migration is included. The data these surfaces read already ships. - The wire values of the two per-run cap denial codes are unchanged. Only the human-readable text changes, plus six codes that had no `details.code` before. - The denial copy is read by agents as well as people. If wording must change later, one shared module is the only place to change it. - Roadmap check: this extends the completed "Activity log & action attribution" area rather than duplicating planned core work. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-5[1m]`, 1M context window, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. It ran as an agent in Claude Code and drove a real browser to capture the review screenshots. ## 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 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-04 23:02:51 -05:00
3 people	9b9631b724	feat(ui): chat-style tasks polish — rich-text composer, attachment chips, live-turn interstitials, mobile layout (#10707) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators talk to their agents on the issue detail page. An experimental "Chat-Style Tasks" view (#10606) makes that page read as a conversation instead of a ticket form. > - The first release of that view shipped with a plain-text composer, no visible narration while an agent works, and a desktop-only layout. > - Users write formatted replies, paste screenshots, and follow long agent runs from their phones. The experimental view should support all of that before it can graduate. > - This pull request is the next iteration of the same experiment: a rich-text composer with attachments, live-turn narration on the status line, cleaner settled-turn history, and a mobile layout. > - The benefit is a chat view that feels alive while the agent works and stays readable after it finishes, on desktop and mobile, still fully behind the existing opt-in flag. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #49 (chat with agents is a much-wanted feature). Refs #10606 (the merged first release of the experimental chat-style task view; this PR iterates on it). Related PRs found in the dedup search: - #8228 — open PR that polishes the classic issue chat composer. It targets the flag-off legacy path; this PR only changes the flag-on experimental view. - #10466 — merged blockquote-recovery fix in the shared MarkdownEditor. This PR now reuses that editor inside the chat composer. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The experimental "Chat-Style Tasks" view on the issue detail page (Settings → Experimental, `enableTaskChatRedesign`, default off). **Subsystem affected** UI (issue detail page, chat-style task view). **Current behavior** With the experiment enabled, the composer is a plain textarea with no formatting, no attachment preview, and no mention support. While an agent runs, the status line shows only a static label, and the agent's narration text is hidden. Finished runs render one settled row per turn, so a run with many short turns produces a long list of near-duplicate "Worked" rows, and turns without a comment append at the bottom out of order. On mobile, the desktop bounded-height thread makes the page scroll poorly. **Proposed behavior** The composer uses the shared MarkdownEditor: markdown formatting, mentions, image paste with thumbnail previews, and non-image attachment chips. Sending posts on Cmd/Ctrl+Enter. While an agent runs, the status line rotates playful status words and surfaces the agent's own narration as short interstitial updates: each update holds for a minimum dwell, is replaced only when superseded, and slides through a one-line viewport with tokenized motion. Back-to-back settled turns coalesce into one "Worked" row with summed durations and re-derived tool counts, and comment-less settled turns insert chronologically at their run's start time. On mobile, the thread renders in the document flow with window auto-follow and a sticky safe-area composer; the desktop layout is unchanged. **Reason and benefit** The chat view is only convincing if it feels like a conversation with a working agent. Rich text and screenshots are table stakes for chat input. Live narration gives moment-to-moment feedback without opening transcripts. Coalesced history keeps long-running tasks readable. Mobile support lets operators follow runs away from their desks. **Breaking changes** None. Every change is gated behind the existing `enableTaskChatRedesign` flag, which is off by default. The flag-off page is unchanged. ## What Changed - `TaskChatComposer` swaps its textarea for the shared `MarkdownEditor`: markdown formatting, mentions, image paste with object-URL thumbnail previews (revoked on clear and unmount), and posting on Cmd/Ctrl+Enter. - Non-image attachments render as chips on a new shared `ui/attachment.tsx` primitive (adds the `@base-ui/react` dependency it builds on). - New `status-whimsy.ts`: deterministic rotation of playful status words on the live status line. - Live interstitial narration: the transcript adapter tags agent self-talk, and the live status line shows it as ephemeral one-line updates with a ~4s minimum dwell, hold-until-superseded replacement, and a slide transition driven by new `--motion-line-scroll` tokens (cataloged in `motion-tokens.ts`, which a test keeps 1:1 with `index.css`). Hover affordance applies only to the status line, with no leading icon. - Settled-turn history: `coalesceSettledTurns` merges back-to-back settled agent turns into one "Worked" row (summed per-run durations, tool counts re-derived from the merged turn); `assembleThreadItems` inserts comment-less settled turns chronologically at run start instead of appending them at the bottom; settled turns render tool rows only (the separate thinking block component is removed). - The "Worked" summary attaches to the reply timestamp row, and thread timestamps are always visible. - Mobile layout: the thread renders with `scroll={false}` in the page scroll, a new `useWindowAutoFollow` hook keeps the window pinned to new content, the composer is sticky with safe-area padding, and the editor uses 16px text so iOS does not zoom on focus. The desktop bounded chain is untouched. - New `TaskChatDescriptionBubble` renders the issue description as the first chat bubble, and `McpIcon` gives MCP tools a distinct icon. - `IssueDetail.test.tsx` stubs `TaskChatThread`: the composer's `@mdxeditor` dependency cannot load under jsdom's CSSOM, and the suite exercises the flag-off path. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 CLEAN. - `node scripts/check-task-chat-motion.mjs` — OK (30 files scanned, seams present). - `cd ui && npx tsc -b` — clean. - `cd ui && pnpm vitest run` — 3,482 of 3,483 tests pass locally. The one failure is the `IssueProperties.test.tsx` monitor-row time-formatting test, which is timezone-sensitive: it fails identically on unmodified `origin/master` in a non-UTC timezone and passes with `TZ=UTC`. It is not related to this change. - Manual: enable "Chat-Style Tasks" in Settings → Experimental and open an issue with an assigned agent. Comment to start a run: the status line rotates status words and shows the agent's narration as short held updates. After the run, consecutive turns fold into one "Worked" row under the reply timestamp. Paste an image into the composer to see a thumbnail chip; attach a non-image file to see a file chip; send with Cmd+Enter. Open the same issue in a narrow viewport to see the document-flow layout with the sticky composer. - Visual snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated: per `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`, "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". ## Risks - The composer now loads the shared MarkdownEditor inside the chat view. The editor is already used across the app (issue descriptions, comments), so its behavior is well exercised; composer-specific handling (paste, attachments, submit keys) is covered by new tests. - The transcript adapter changes how live narration and settled turns are derived from run logs. Malformed or legacy logs degrade to generic rows rather than crashing, and the adapter suites cover the merge and ordering rules. - Object URLs for paste previews are revoked on send-clear and unmount to avoid leaks; jsdom environments without `URL.createObjectURL` are guarded. - All changes are behind the default-off `enableTaskChatRedesign` flag. Overall risk with the flag off is low. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model id `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5), extended thinking enabled, agentic tool use (file editing, shell, test execution) via Claude Code / 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-03 16:25:31 -07:00
scotttongandClaude Fable 5	c185e64b77	feat(ui): chat-style task view behind an experimental flag (#10606) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators spend most of their time on the issue detail page. They talk to the assigned agent there through comments. > - The current page reads as a ticket form. The thread sits below properties, the composer sits mid-page, and live agent activity renders as dense transcript logs. > - Talking to an agent is a conversation. A chat-first layout matches that mental model better than a ticket form. > - A layout change this large must not disrupt current users. It needs a safe opt-in path and full parity with the existing thread features. > - This pull request adds a chat-style task view behind a new "Chat-Style Tasks" experiment toggle. The flag is off by default and the existing page is unchanged when it is off. > - The benefit is a focused, readable conversation with the agent: live tool activity folds into compact summaries, the composer stays at the bottom, and properties, plan, and artifacts move into header tabs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #49 (chat with agents is a much-wanted feature). Related PRs found in the dedup search: - #4489 — an earlier, closed attempt to promote the conversation to the primary surface on issue detail. This PR is a fresh, flag-gated take on the same goal. - #8837 — an open PR that proposes a two-column task layout. It restructures the same page but keeps the ticket paradigm; this PR is orthogonal because it is opt-in and chat-first. **Subsystem affected** UI (issue detail page). **Problem or motivation** The issue detail page presents agent conversations as a ticket: properties first, thread below, composer in the middle of the page, and raw transcript noise during live runs. Users who mainly converse with their agents must scroll past chrome to follow the conversation, and live activity is hard to read. **Proposed solution** An opt-in chat-style view of the issue detail page, gated by a new "Chat-Style Tasks" experiment toggle in Settings → Experimental. With the flag on, the thread fills the center pane, the composer docks to the bottom of the viewport, Properties / Plan / Artifacts become header tabs, live turns show a status pill with the current tool action and elapsed time, and settled turns collapse to a "Worked · N tools" summary that expands into per-tool rows. With the flag off, nothing changes. **Alternatives considered** Restyling the existing layout in place (rejected: too disruptive without an opt-out), and a separate chat page beside the issue page (rejected: splits the task's single source of truth). A per-request lab page (`/task-chat-lab`, dev-only) was kept for design iteration instead. **Roadmap alignment** ROADMAP.md "CEO Chat" wants lighter conversations that still resolve to real work objects. This PR keeps the core task-and-comments model — it only changes presentation, opt-in — so it does not duplicate that planned work. ## What Changed - New `enableTaskChatRedesign` instance setting, exposed as a "Chat-Style Tasks" experiment card in Settings → Experimental (shared feature catalog, validators, server instance-settings service, and UI settings page). - New `ui/src/components/task-chat/` component family: chat thread with turn grouping, agent reply bubbles, live status pill, collapsible turn summaries with per-tool rows, plan tab with a sticky CTA action bar, inline interaction cards, per-request mode chips, and a bottom-docked composer. - A shared tool taxonomy (`tool-taxonomy.ts`) maps tool names to verbs and icons; the status pill, tool rows, and the classic transcript view all use it. - A transcript adapter converts stored run logs into chat turns; it dedupes tool-call updates by `toolUseId` so tool counts match the expanded rows, and it keeps a tool row's first real name when later generic updates arrive. - Composer: posts on Cmd/Ctrl+Enter, supports image paste with object-URL thumbnail previews (revoked on clear/unmount), and uploads through the issue attachments route. - `IssueDetail.tsx`: with the flag on, pane tabs move to the header bar, the header is not sticky, and the chat fills the center; with the flag off, the previous layout renders unchanged. - Motion tokens for the new animations live in `ui/src/index.css` with a `motion-tokens.ts` catalog and a test that keeps the two in sync (the catalog now also covers the shared enter/exit/swap tokens that the decision/quicklook block declares). - A dev-only `/task-chat-lab` page with fixtures and a tweak panel for motion tuning. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` — clean across the workspace. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 CLEAN. - `cd ui && pnpm vitest run` — 3,344 of 3,345 tests pass locally. The one failure is `IssueProperties.test.tsx` monitor-row time formatting, which is timezone-sensitive: it also fails on unmodified `origin/master` in a non-UTC timezone and passes with `TZ=UTC`. It is not related to this change. - `cd server && pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts` — 21/21 pass (covers the new setting). - Manual: start the dev server, open Settings → Experimental, enable "Chat-Style Tasks", and open any issue. The thread fills the page, the composer docks to the bottom, and Properties / Plan / Artifacts appear as header tabs. Assign an agent and comment to watch a live run: the status pill shows the current tool action with elapsed time, and the finished turn folds into a "Worked · N tools" summary. Disable the toggle and confirm the classic page is unchanged. - Visual snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated: per `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`, "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". ## Risks - The flag-off path goes through the same `IssueDetail.tsx` file, so a regression there would affect current users. Mitigation: the classic markup renders through the same components as before behind explicit flag conditionals, and the full UI suite passes. - The transcript adapter interprets stored run-log formats, including legacy entries without `toolUseId`. Malformed logs degrade to generic tool rows rather than crashing. - The new view changes no server behavior other than one additive instance setting; it is additive and default-off. Overall risk with the flag off is low. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model id `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5), extended thinking enabled, agentic tool use (file editing, shell, test execution) via Claude Code / 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 - [ ] 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>	2026-08-01 02:26:47 -07:00
3 people	b4a7a12985	feat: make recovery updates quieter (#10542) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The recovery subsystem restores work after an agent run stops or loses state > - Recovery notices currently use the same visual weight as normal work comments > - Recovery agents can also post long narratives that obscure the useful hand-off > - The server must identify recovery output because agents cannot set presentation controls > - This pull request adds compact recovery notices, structured action references, and brief recovery prompts > - The benefit is a quieter issue thread that still keeps recovery state inspectable ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and `packages/adapter-utils`. **Problem or motivation** Recovery notices and recovery-run comments can dominate an issue thread. Operators must scan routine recovery narration before they find the work hand-off. **Proposed solution** Give routine recovery output a compact system-notice presentation. Derive the presentation on the server so agents cannot hide arbitrary comments. Keep the successful missing-state summary fully visible because that comment is the recovery deliverable. **Alternatives considered** The UI could detect recovery text. That approach is fragile and does not provide structured action references. Agents could also set presentation directly, but that would weaken the current board-only security boundary. **Roadmap alignment** This change refines the completed “Self-healing runs & automatic recovery” and “Enforced Outcomes” roadmap areas. It does not add a competing roadmap capability. **Additional context** The scope covers shared comment validation, server recovery notices, agent-comment derivation, and recovery prompt text. No database migration is needed because presentation data already uses JSON. ## What Changed - Add the `compact` issue-comment presentation density to shared constants, types, and validation. - Give recovery escalation, waiting, and in-place notices compact titles and structured recovery-action metadata. - Use recovery-action metadata for notice deduplication, with the legacy text marker as a compatibility fallback. - Derive compact presentation for comments from recovery-scoped runs while preserving the board-only presentation boundary. - Keep successful missing-state recovery summaries fully visible. - Ask recovery participants to record outcomes in `resolutionNote` and keep source-issue comments brief. - Add shared, route, service, and prompt tests for the new behavior and exceptions. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - Focused Vitest coverage: 320 tests passed across shared validators, adapter prompts, issue comments, recovery actions, and heartbeat recovery. - Full server phase: 292 files passed, 3,094 tests passed, and 2 tests skipped. - Full UI phase: 386 files passed and 3,182 tests passed. - `pnpm build` - Known master baseline: `cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` expects `pass`, but the current implementation returns `warn` when strict secret mode is disabled for Postgres. This branch does not change CLI secrets code. ## Risks - Low migration risk. The presentation column is JSON and needs no database migration. - Recovery-run detection depends on the persisted run context snapshot. - Structured metadata becomes the primary deduplication key. The existing body marker remains as a fallback for older comments. > 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 with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The runtime did not expose the context-window size. The model used agentic 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-31 09:55:01 -07:00
3 people	f12bb27bcd	feat: make issue monitors visible across task surfaces (#9783) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to supervise AI-agent companies. > - Operators need task execution state to be visible where they read, reply to, and manage an issue. > - Scheduled monitor state was easy to miss because it lived in a description-area card and used inconsistent, mostly static time copy. > - The task page, composer, retry card, and properties panel therefore needed one shared monitor-state and countdown language. > - This pull request adds shared live-ticking time utilities, moves monitor status into a top-of-page banner and composer strip, and redesigns the properties row with complete read-only details. > - The benefit is that operators can immediately understand when an agent resumes, why it is waiting, and how to act without hunting across the page. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Issue monitors can schedule a future agent check, retry, or wake, but the UI did not present that state consistently or prominently. The existing description-area activity card competed with issue content, the composer did not explain that replying wakes the agent early, compact properties copy truncated important details, and relative times did not share a live two-unit formatter. This change makes scheduled monitor state visible and consistent across the issue header, reply composer, properties panel, and scheduled-retry card. Related prior server-side recovery visibility work: #9629 (distinct scope). ## What Changed - Added shared two-unit monitor ETA/offset formatters and a live-ticking countdown hook, including compact absolute-time rules for Today, weekday, and cross-year dates. - Replaced the description-area monitor activity card with a top-of-page status banner and added an inline composer strip that explains replies wake the agent before the scheduled check. - Redesigned the properties Monitor row as readable two-line copy with attempt state, due/overdue/cleared wording, click-to-edit behavior, and a hover/tap details tooltip. - Adopted the shared two-unit formatting in the scheduled-retry card and added focused coverage for monitor formatting, state transitions, visibility, and controls. - Added the approved wireframe package and published reference: https://pages.paperclip.ing/pap-14557-monitor-visibility/ ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-monitor.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueMonitorBanner.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 3 files, 74 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed with existing Vite optimization/chunk-size warnings. - UX review approved the rendered real components across desktop/mobile, light/dark, and the scheduled/retrying/due/overdue/cleared/none state matrix. - QA passed 6/6 criteria in Chromium, including a live countdown transition without refresh. Review evidence included the P2 banner state-matrix screenshot and the P3 properties-row and details-tooltip screenshots, plus a dark-mode capture. - `pnpm check:token-gates` currently reports five pre-existing `#9627` comment literals on `origin/master`; this branch introduces none of those literals or any new token violation. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate UI behavior risk: monitor copy and placement change across several issue surfaces, but all derive from one shared state builder and focused tests cover the state matrix. - Countdown rendering wakes once per minute while a visible monitor is scheduled; the hook is limited to active monitor surfaces and stops when hidden. - No database, API contract, migration, telemetry, or authorization behavior changes. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5.6-sol`; context-window metadata was unavailable in this runtime; reasoning, repository tool use, command execution, and test execution enabled. Earlier implementation commits were assisted by Claude Fable 5 and Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context), as credited in their 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/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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-18 14:39:37 -05:00
DottaandClaude Opus 4.8	3e348b96b9	perf(ui): cut live-updates churn that inflates tab memory (#9624) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Its web UI keeps live views (issue threads, run transcripts, dashboard) fresh via React Query polling plus a live-events websocket, coordinated across tabs with a `BroadcastChannel` layer > - Long-lived tabs viewing live agent runs grew to multi-GB memory footprints while their JS heap stayed ~60–200 MB — so the memory is off-heap (Blink/native + committed allocator arenas), not a classic JS leak > - Live profiling of a reproduced 2.7 GB / 66 MB tab showed 15–30% idle CPU, ~3 fetches/sec across overlapping poll loops, and ~8 `setInterval` create/clear cycles per second whose rate grew ~7× as the tab aged — relentless allocation churn that inflates committed memory the OS never reclaims, amplified across tabs by the cross-tab fan-out > - This pull request cuts that churn at its four largest sources (invalidation storm, per-instance 1 s timers, redundant polling, unbounded streamed-run set) > - The benefit is that idle tabs do far less periodic work, so their off-heap footprint stops ballooning over a long session ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists; describing inline per CONTRIBUTING.md → "Link Issues or Describe Them In-PR", following the bug report template. **What happened?** Browser tabs viewing live agent runs grew to 8–16 GB memory footprint over a long session (multiple tabs open), while each tab's "live" JS heap stayed only ~150–250 MB. Every idle tab also burned 15–30% CPU. Tabs eventually approached the ~4 GB V8 heap ceiling / OS pressure and could crash. **Expected behavior** Tabs viewing live runs should hold a bounded footprint and do minimal work while idle, regardless of how long they stay open or how many tabs are open. **Steps to reproduce** Open several issue/run tabs that have agents actively streaming and leave them open for a while. Watch Chrome's Task Manager: Memory Footprint climbs into the GBs while "JavaScript Memory" stays small, and CPU stays high on idle tabs. Reproduced in ~90 minutes: a tab reached 2.7 GB footprint on a 66 MB JS heap, and the per-second timer-churn rate was ~7× higher on a 90-minute-old tab than a fresh one. **Paperclip version or commit** Branch `fix/live-updates-churn`, off `master`. **Deployment mode** Local dev (`pnpm dev`), web UI. Not adapter-specific — core UI live-updates plumbing (observed with `claude_local` / `codex_local` runs). ## What Changed - **`ui/src/lib/query-invalidation-batcher.ts` (new)** — `createInvalidationBatcher` throttles + de-dupes React Query invalidations into one flush per ~300 ms, and `createCoalescingQueryClient` wraps the client via a `Proxy` so only `invalidateQueries` is batched (optimistic `setQueryData` writes stay immediate). Wired into `LiveUpdatesProvider`, which previously invalidated synchronously on every websocket event. - **`ui/src/hooks/useSecondTick.ts` (new)** — one shared, ref-counted, page-wide 1 s ticker. `useLiveElapsed` in `IssueChatThread` now uses it instead of a per-instance `setInterval` that forced a full-thread re-render every second per live element. - **`ui/src/components/transcript/useLiveRunTranscripts.ts`** — when the realtime websocket is enabled, the recurring log poll backs off to a 30 s safety-net cadence instead of polling every 2 s on top of the live stream. Added a marker for the durable poll→push rearchitecture. - **`ui/src/lib/issueChatTranscriptRuns.ts`** — `resolveIssueChatTranscriptRuns` now caps the streamed run set (live/active runs always kept; most-recent linked runs fill up to 20) so a large run history can't open a live-transcript poll per historical run. - **`ui/src/main.tsx`** — explicit `gcTime` so cross-tab-published cache entries for unobserved resources are collected promptly. - Tests for the batcher, shared ticker, and run cap. ## Verification - `vitest`: new suites `query-invalidation-batcher.test.ts` (batcher collapses 20 invalidations → 1 flush; keeps distinct keys/variants; dispose cancels; proxy passes non-invalidate methods through), `useSecondTick.test.tsx` (single ref-counted timer, stops when idle), `issueChatTranscriptRuns.test.ts` (cap keeps newest + live). All pass. - Existing affected suites pass: `LiveUpdatesProvider` (23), `IssueChatThread` (), `useLiveRunTranscripts`, `AgentDetail.instructions` — 109 tests across affected files. - `tsc -b` clean. - Behavior confirmed by live profiling before the change (2.7 GB / 66 MB tab, ~8 interval churns/sec growing 7× with age). Runtime churn reduction should be re-measured against a rebuilt bundle with the same instrumentation. ## Risks Low-to-moderate; all changes reduce work rather than add features. - **Invalidation batching** delays live-driven refetches by up to ~300 ms. Optimistic `setQueryData` writes (e.g. the visible issue's new comment) remain immediate, so foreground updates still feel instant; only the safety-net refetch is throttled. Non-live invalidations (user actions, mutations) are unaffected — they use the real client. - **Poll back-off** relies on the websocket as the live source when realtime is enabled; a 30 s fallback poll still covers gaps/reconnects (both the transcript hook and `LiveUpdatesProvider` also auto-reconnect). - **Run cap (20)** means an issue with a very large run history streams live transcripts only for its live/active + 20 most-recent runs; older runs still open normally via their run pages. - Downstream test fallout (timing-sensitive tests around invalidation/polling) may need adjustment — flagged intentionally for follow-up. Durable follow-up (out of scope, marked in code): replace transcript/run polling with server push (SSE/websocket deltas) so idle tabs do no periodic work at all. ## Model Used - **Provider:** Anthropic, via the Claude Code CLI. - **Model:** Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`). - **Reasoning mode:** Extended thinking enabled. - **Capabilities used:** tool use (shell, file editing), sub-agent fan-out for codebase analysis, and the Chrome DevTools MCP to reproduce and profile the memory/CPU churn on a live instance. ## 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 (a bug/perf fix, not planned core feature work) - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above (none found) - [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 considered and documented any risks above - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A — no user-facing docs; rationale documented inline) - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-15 14:17:37 -05:00
scotttongandClaude Fable 5	634ae1298f	fix(ui): consolidate live/running blues; stop inbox unread badge indenting the row (#9383) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The web UI leans on a shared design-token + component system so surfaces stay visually consistent as they grow > - Two small inconsistencies had crept in: several distinct blues were used to signal "live/running" agent state across the sidebar, task header, and chat thread; and in the Inbox an unread task's mark-read dot was pushing that row's status icon and title one column right of read rows > - Both read as "not quite aligned" in daily use and undercut the polish of the lists work that just landed > - This pull request consolidates the live/running blues onto one shared recipe and stops the unread dot from indenting the row > - The benefit is one consistent "live" blue everywhere and Inbox rows that line up whether read or unread ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work; describing inline per the bug-report template. - **Problem**: (1) the same concept — an agent actively working — rendered in three visibly different blues: the sidebar `N live` dot, the task-detail "Live" badge, and the chat-thread "RUNNING" badge each used a different token/recipe. (2) In the Inbox, unread rows carry a leading mark-read dot that occupies the chevron column, but a per-row spacer was still rendering in that same column — so on unread rows the status icon + title were shifted one column (~24px) further right than read rows. Most visible when grouped by workspace. - **Steps to reproduce**: open the Inbox with a mix of read and unread tasks (group by workspace). The unread rows' status icons sit further right than the read rows'. Separately, compare the blue of the sidebar `N live` dot, a task's "Live" header badge, and a chat "RUNNING" badge — they don't match. - **Expected behavior**: unread and read rows align on the same status column, with the unread dot centered on the workspace group chevron; and all three "live/running" affordances share one blue. ## What Changed - Added a shared `liveBlueBadge` recipe in `ui/src/lib/status-colors.ts` and pointed the task-detail **Live** badge (`IssueDetail.tsx`) and the chat-thread **RUNNING** badge (`IssueChatThread.tsx`) at it; removed the now-redundant `brandChipBadge` usage from the chat thread and a stray `🔵` breadcrumb prefix. - Changed the sidebar **`N live`** dot (`SidebarNavItem.tsx`) to the same `blue-600 / dark:blue-400` as its adjacent label text. - **Inbox** (`Inbox.tsx`): skip the per-row leading spacer when the unread mark-read dot is present, so the dot alone fills the chevron column. Unread rows' status icon + title now sit in the same column as read rows, and the dot centers on the workspace group chevron. - **Test** (`Inbox.test.tsx`): added a regression test asserting an unread leaf row renders the mark-read dot and drops the spacer, while a read row keeps the spacer. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` — clean (all packages) - `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 CLEAN - `cd ui && pnpm vitest run src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — 14/14 (includes the new regression test) - Full Storybook visual suite (514 stories, both themes) — green locally (CI cannot run this suite yet — the baseline-manifest archive is unpublished, a pre-existing condition from #9134) - Manual (workspace-grouped Inbox, 2× dark): measured the unread badge center at the same x as the workspace chevron (276 = 276) and the unread-row status icon at the same x as read-row status icons (292 = 292). Before/after screenshots in a PR comment below. ## Risks Low risk — presentation only. No data, routing, or state changes. The blue consolidation is a token/class swap; the Inbox change removes a redundant spacer element on unread rows only (read rows and non-grouped/mobile views are unaffected). The unread-row behavior is covered by the new unit test. ## Model Used Claude (Anthropic), Opus 4.8 — model id `claude-opus-4-8`; extended thinking + tool use, driving local verification (typecheck, token gates, vitest, Playwright visual suite + pixel measurements). ## 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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-13 08:53:03 -07:00
3 people	36ec79c196	feat: add attention queue and Decisions surface (#9380) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, where operators need a reliable way to find and act on work awaiting their input. > - The attention and issue-thread interaction subsystems expose those decision points across server APIs and the board UI. > - The previous navigation and interaction presentation left these actions fragmented and did not offer a controlled rollout for the Decisions surface. > - This branch adds the attention feed, richer interaction cards, grouping, dismiss/snooze behavior, and a gated Decisions sidebar entry. > - It also keeps experimental settings and API contracts synchronized, with an idempotent migration for the new dismissal state. > - This pull request delivers the complete, tested attention/Decisions experience as one reviewable unit. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Adds an operator-focused attention queue and Decisions experience: grouped decision cards, semantic interaction actions, dismiss/snooze handling, resilient interaction states, and an experimental flag to control the Decisions navigation entry. ## Feature Context ### Problem or Motivation Operators currently have to hunt across approvals, interactions, failed runs, and budget alerts to find decisions that need their action. ### Proposed Solution Provide a gated Decisions attention queue that groups actionable items, supports direct resolution, and preserves operator control through dismiss and snooze actions. ### Alternatives Considered Keep separate, source-specific views only; this leaves cross-cutting operator decisions fragmented and harder to prioritize. ### Roadmap Alignment This improves the V1 control-plane operator workflow by making pending governed actions discoverable in one company-scoped surface. ## What Changed - Added server attention-feed services, routes, interaction handling, dismiss/snooze support, and an idempotent `0145` inbox-dismissal migration. - Added shared attention, inbox-dismissal, and experimental-settings contracts. - Added Decisions/attention UI, interaction-card states, sidebar badge/navigation integration, grouping, keyboard support, and Storybook coverage. - Added tests for attention behavior, thread interactions, settings normalization, dismissals, and API behavior. - Removed generated screenshots from the final PR diff and rebased the branch onto current `master`. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-dismissals.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — passed: 158 tests across 9 focused files. - GitHub Actions for `ad636f560`: build and typecheck/release-registry have passed; remaining general-server and Greptile checks are in progress. ## Risks - Moderate: this is a cross-layer attention/interaction feature with a new migration and navigation behavior. - The `enableDecisions` experimental setting defaults to off, limiting rollout impact. - Existing dismissal data is backfilled to `dismiss`; the migration is idempotent and uses guarded constraint creation. > ROADMAP.md was checked; no duplicate planned core feature was identified. Related open pull requests were searched before opening this PR. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with tool use and local code execution. Context-window size unavailable in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My public PR branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally; focused tests pass and the remaining unrelated AWS test failure is documented above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-10 17:09:57 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	1f07690184	fix(ui): keep issue threads from jumping to latest comment (#9354) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue and item detail pages use a shared issue chat thread to show comments, runs, activity, and interactions. > - That thread still defaulted to landing on the latest comment when messages first loaded. > - On long issue/item pages, that default can yank the operator away from the top of the page before they choose to inspect the newest message. > - Deep links to comment hashes can create the same kind of initial viewport jump when they are used as generic navigation targets. > - This pull request makes initial latest-comment and initial thread-hash scrolling opt-in instead of default behavior. > - The benefit is stable initial page position across issue-thread surfaces while keeping the explicit Jump to latest control available. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No exact public GitHub issue was found for this bug. Bug description: - What happened: opening a page with a shared issue conversation thread could automatically move the viewport toward the newest comment/thread target. - Expected behavior: ordinary page loads should keep the initial viewport stable unless the user explicitly clicks Jump to latest. - Steps to reproduce: open an issue or item detail page with a long conversation thread and observe whether the page jumps to the newest thread entry on initial load. - Paperclip version/commit: reproduced while working on the current `master` branch lineage. - Deployment mode: local trusted/dev UI. Related public thread/comment UX work: Refs #3916, Refs #7972, Refs #8800. ## What Changed - Changed `IssueChatThread` so initial latest-comment scrolling defaults to off. - Added a separate opt-in for initial thread-hash scrolling, also defaulting to off. - Preserved stale deleted-comment hash cleanup without scrolling the page. - Updated regression coverage so default initial load stays put, comment hashes do not scroll by default, and manual Jump to latest still scrolls. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed on the clean PR branch. - `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx -t "loads from the pending state into issue detail without changing hook order"` passed on the clean PR branch. - `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx` was attempted on the clean PR branch, but the file fails before changed assertions with the existing `TypeError: act is not a function` test-harness issue across 58 tests; 14 tests passed. - Static check: no `autoScrollToLatestOnInitialLoad={true}` or `autoScrollToHashOnInitialLoad={true}` call sites remain in `ui/src`. ## Risks Low risk. This only changes initial scroll defaults in the shared issue thread. The main behavioral shift is that direct comment/thread hashes no longer auto-scroll on first load unless a caller explicitly opts in; the Jump to latest button and post-submit scroll behavior are unchanged. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex coding-agent runtime; exact context window not exposed in this environment; tool-enabled repository inspection, editing, testing, git, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API usage. ## 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 - [ ] 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>	2026-07-10 11:59:53 -05:00
3 people	5c85ae64a0	Cases: experimental first-class case object (#9198) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board currently uses issues for execution, but longer-lived content work needs a separate object that can survive beyond a single task thread. > - The Cases subsystem adds an experimental, company-scoped record for content artifacts and their supporting metadata. > - The backend needs durable storage, API routes, revision history, issue linkage, and company-boundary enforcement before the UI can depend on Cases. > - The UI needs an opt-in navigation surface, list/detail views, reference chips, and issue-page context so operators can inspect Cases without making them the default workflow. > - The agent-facing skills need a contract for creating and updating Cases so automated content workflows can dogfood the feature. > - This pull request ships that experimental end-to-end path behind the `enableCases` flag. > - The benefit is a first-class place to collect content work, references, attachments, revisions, and related execution threads without polluting the core issue model. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this experimental feature. Feature request fields: ### Problem Content-oriented work such as release notes, announcements, docs, and campaigns can span many execution issues, which makes the final artifact hard to find and reason about after the execution thread moves on. ### Proposed solution Add an experimental Cases object that is company-scoped, linked to issues, queryable through the API, inspectable in the board UI, and writable by agent workflows through documented conventions. ### Alternatives considered Continue encoding content artifacts directly in issues or documents only. That keeps the data model smaller, but it does not give operators a stable artifact-centric view or a clean way to link related execution history. ### Roadmap alignment Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned core roadmap item. ## What Changed - Added the `cases` data model, migration, schema exports, and experimental `enableCases` instance setting. - Added company-scoped Cases API routes for list/detail/update, issue links, revisions, children, activity events, annotations, attachments, and idempotent agent-oriented upserts. - Scoped case and issue lookup helpers before access checks so inaccessible cross-company identifiers resolve as not found rather than leaking existence. - Fixed case PATCH timestamp handling so non-status updates cannot overwrite `completedAt` from a stale pre-transaction row snapshot. - Moved Cases list type/status/project filters into the server request before the server-side limit is applied, including multi-select filters and no-project filtering. - Added backend route coverage for creation, updates, idempotency, issue linking, attribution, company-boundary enforcement, OpenAPI registration, list filtering, timestamp patch behavior, and inaccessible lookup regressions. - Added the experimental Cases UI surface: sidebar entry, gated routes, list filters/grouping, detail overview, activity, revisions, children, attachments, and issue-page case rail. - Added case reference rendering and company-prefixed case href generation so case links resolve directly inside the active company route. - Added Paperclip skill documentation for agent workflows that create or update Cases. - Wired release-content skills to emit Cases for dogfooding. - Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the Cases migrations to `0143`/`0144` after the latest upstream migration sequence. ## Verification - Current PR head: `ecc13be0d`. - Rebased on current `master` (`606aa4f266`) and pushed to the existing PR branch. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed before the first update push; subsequent committed diffs were also checked with `git diff --check` before commit. - Guardrails checked: no `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes, no `.github/workflows` changes, and changed-file count is below the Greptile 100-file limit. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed, 3 files / 26 tests before review-fix commits. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts` — passed after each server-side Greptile fix, latest 1 file / 15 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed after the timestamp and lookup fixes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Cases.test.tsx src/pages/CaseDetail.test.tsx src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx src/App.cases-routing.test.tsx` — passed, 4 files / 30 tests before review-fix commits. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Cases.test.tsx` — passed after the list-filter fix, 1 file / 12 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after the list-filter fix. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed after UI changes. - Remote PR checks on head `ecc13be0d` are green: Paperclip CI, build, typecheck, test matrix, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, commit review, Superagent Security Scan, Socket, Snyk, and Greptile passed; Storybook visual regression is skipped and security-review is neutral. - Greptile Review: 5/5 confidence, zero unresolved Greptile threads. ## Risks - Medium feature risk because this introduces a new experimental domain object across database, server, shared contracts, skills, and UI. - The feature is gated behind `enableCases`, which limits default operator exposure while the model is exercised. - Case links now prefer company-prefixed hrefs; the unprefixed redirect remains for externally entered URLs. - Cases list filtering now sends multi-select filters to the server before limiting; the UI still applies the same local filters as a second pass for ancestor/context rows. - Migrations were renumbered on top of current master; the SQL uses guarded `IF NOT EXISTS` / `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` patterns where relevant for safer replay. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex in the Paperclip local coding environment was used for this PR curation, rebase verification, review-fix implementation, push, and PR description update. The runtime exposes tool use and shell execution; context-window size is not exposed by this Paperclip adapter. Several implementation commits also include AI co-author trailers recorded in git history. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I searched the GitHub PR list for similar PRs and confirmed this is not a duplicate - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-09 22:11:03 -05:00
3 people	f3ca4d24bc	fix: repair dirty/foreign-branch execution worktrees (#9297) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Execution workspaces are the bridge between Paperclip's control plane and a local agent's checked-out repository state. > - When a workspace is restored after a failed or interrupted run, the recorded branch can disagree with the branch currently checked out on disk. > - A clean branch mismatch can be reconciled safely, but a dirty mismatch needs a lossless path that does not discard uncommitted agent work. > - This pull request adds a quarantine-and-restore path that saves dirty work to a rescue branch, restores the recorded branch, and exposes the repair from the board UI and run page. > - The benefit is that operators can recover wedged execution workspaces without losing work or moving another live branch unexpectedly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this workspace-recovery failure, so this PR includes the bug report inline. **What happened** A git worktree-backed execution workspace could become wedged when Paperclip expected one branch but found a different checked-out branch with dirty tracked or untracked files. The existing safe repair path refused the restore, leaving the source task blocked with no lossless one-click recovery path. **Expected behavior** Paperclip should preserve dirty work before restoring the recorded workspace branch. If another live workspace claims the checked-out branch, or an attached runtime service is active, the repair should refuse with clear operator-facing evidence instead of risking work loss or file contention. **Steps to reproduce** Create a git worktree execution workspace whose persisted branch name differs from the checked-out branch, add dirty tracked or untracked files in that worktree, then trigger workspace validation or use the branch reconcile endpoint. Before this change, the dirty mismatch remained blocked because Paperclip had no quarantine restore mode. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed on the pre-fix workspace-recovery implementation. Verified on this PR head after rebasing onto current `master`. **Deployment mode** Local trusted development/worktree deployments using git worktree execution workspaces and optional workspace runtime services. ## What Changed - Added dirty-worktree quarantine repair that creates a rescue branch, commits dirty tracked and untracked files there, restores the recorded branch, writes audit comments/activity, and preserves the live foreign branch ref. - Added `quarantine_restore` branch reconcile API support, recovery-action resolution, source-task wake behavior, execution-review preservation, claimant refusal, runtime-service refusal, and coverage for the non-transactional git ordering. - Added board UI controls for the repair action in the recovery card plus a compact failed-run workspace recovery surface that uses the same reconcile handlers. - Hardened Greptile follow-up cases by best-effort restoring the recorded branch after a mid-sequence rescue commit failure and by refusing quarantine restore while attached runtime services are active. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts -t "quarantine_restore"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "workspace dirty quarantine branch repair"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts -t "repairs clean unrecorded branch drift|adopts unrecorded forward branch drift"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - Earlier PR verification covered the route, service, heartbeat, UI component, and run-page recovery surfaces; Cutter posted public preview screenshots for the repair popover and run-page panel at https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9297#issuecomment-4926934211. - GitHub PR checks are green on `dcac76b05f4cf6e1ee16544c2831d83c7857e475`. - Greptile is 5/5 with zero annotations and no unresolved review threads on `dcac76b05f4cf6e1ee16544c2831d83c7857e475`. ## Risks - Moderate risk because the change intentionally runs git commands against local worktrees; the implementation refuses dirty repair when another claimant or active runtime service is detected and records rescue refs for auditability. - Compatibility / release-note callout for self-hosted operators: existing instances that left `enableWorkspaceBranchReconcileForward` unset now get automatic forward branch reconciliation during heartbeat workspace recovery. Operators who want the previous advisory-only behavior can set `experimental.enableWorkspaceBranchReconcileForward` to `false`; dirty quarantine repair can likewise be disabled with `experimental.enableWorkspaceDirtyQuarantineRepair: false`. - If the git rescue succeeds but a later database write fails, the worktree may already be restored while the recovery action remains open; this ordering is documented in code because git side effects cannot participate in the database transaction. - UI risk is limited to the workspace recovery surfaces and covered by component tests plus the existing Cutter visual preview. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use, shell execution, and local test execution. Earlier preserved commits on this branch also show Claude Code / Claude Opus 4.8 assistance in their commit metadata. ## 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] Branch naming exception documented: this PR preserves the existing worktree branch requested for publication while keeping the PR title and body public-facing - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-09 18:19:49 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	1c75a46c10	feat(ui): add waiting-on-live-work blocked notice (#9298) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators rely on the issue detail thread to understand whether a task is blocked, live, or waiting on another task. > - A blocked issue can have a healthy blocker chain where downstream work is actively running and the parent will resume automatically. > - Showing that case with the same amber blocked notice as a stalled or attention-needed blocker makes the state look more severe than it is. > - The UI already receives blocker-attention state, blocker summaries, and company live-run ids, so this can be clarified without a new API shape. > - This pull request adds a blue "Waiting on live work" notice for covered blocker chains while preserving the existing amber notice for the other blocked states. > - The benefit is that operators can distinguish healthy queued work from blocked work that needs intervention. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #3820 Refs #8271 Related PR: #3877 Supersedes #9295 ## What Changed - Added a blue `IssueBlockedNotice` variant when `blockerAttention.state` is `covered` and the blocker chain has live work. - Rendered blocker-chain progress as done, running, and queued steps, including a "Now running" row for live terminal blockers. - Preserved the existing amber blocked notice for stalled, attention-needed, ordinary blocked, and successful-run handoff states. - Plumbed the existing `liveIssueIds`, `blockedBy`, and `blockerAttention` data from issue detail into the chat-thread blocked notice. - Added regression coverage around the covered live-work state, the no-confirmed-live fallback, numeric step ordering, and amber fallback states. - Hardened a low-trust server route test cleanup helper so CI deletes heartbeat run events before deleting heartbeat runs. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx` - GitHub PR workflow is green on head `52ab6d9076ce233c183bf7133fa666e8597b6765`. - Greptile check is green on head `52ab6d9076ce233c183bf7133fa666e8597b6765` with zero unresolved review threads. ## Risks Low runtime risk: the product change is frontend-only and uses data already returned to the issue detail page. The main risk is visual regression in the blocked notice; the change keeps non-covered states on the existing amber path and adds focused regression coverage. The server-side change is test-only cleanup for an existing CI shard failure. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex using GPT-5, tool-use enabled in a repository workspace. The runtime did not expose a more specific model build id or 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>	2026-07-09 10:59:18 -05:00
scotttongandClaude Fable 5	c90e66bdd6	feat(ui): design-system component convergence — Card/Badge adoption, multiplicative radius ladder, unified list surfaces (#9240) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Its UI is governed by a design system (`DESIGN.md` + the token layer in `ui/src/index.css`, merged in #9134) whose first principle is "one way to say each thing" — one Card, one Badge, one nav row > - After the token extraction landed, ~35 files still hand-rolled card containers, ~45 files hand-rolled pill spans, the sidebar agents section duplicated the nav-row chrome, and the inbox and tasks lists rendered the same task rows two subtly different ways > - Each divergence is a place where a future design change (radius, hover language, status vocabulary) silently misses surfaces, defeating the "edit tokens + run checks" model the design system exists for > - This pull request converges those surfaces onto the shared primitives, codifies the radius scale as the modern multiplicative shadcn ladder, and unifies the row/hover/tree-guide language across the inbox and tasks lists — every visible delta was human-reviewed screen-by-screen against a live instance across nine feedback rounds > - The benefit is that the app's look is now steerable from single knobs (one `--radius` anchor, one Card, one Badge, one row component), and the visual regression suite covers the result (514 snapshots including a new AgentDetail page story) ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work; describing per the feature template: - **Problem**: after the design-token foundation (#9134), component-level drift remained — hand-rolled cards/pills, duplicated sidebar row chrome, and two different renderings of task rows (inbox vs tasks list) meant design changes had to be applied per-surface and frequently missed spots (e.g. status glyphs rendered 16px in the inbox but 20px in the tasks list because a slot override silently beat the component default). - **Proposed behavior**: all card-shaped containers render via `Card`, all label pills via `Badge`, sidebar rows via `SidebarNavItem`, and both task-list surfaces via one `IssueRow` configuration; the radius scale is a single multiplicative ladder anchored at `--radius: 0.5rem`. - **Alternatives considered**: converting interactive `<button>`/`<Link>` cards to `Card` divs (rejected — breaks semantics; documented inline with `design-allow` comments instead); keeping the legacy additive radius ladder (rejected in favor of the standard shadcn multiplicative mapping). ## What Changed - `Card` adoption across ~35 files (settings pages, auth/board flows, dashboards, list containers, KPI tiles); non-adoptable sites (interactive cards, `<li>` rows, class-string props, chart tooltip) carry documented `design-allow(card-pattern)` comments - `Card` gains an `interactive` prop — one quiet hover affordance for clickable cards (cursor, border darken, shadow lift, focus ring), applied to skills tiles, artifact cards, and the company selector; cards carry no resting shadow - `Badge` adoption for 113 hand-rolled pill spans across ~45 files; `PropertyChip` wraps `Badge` internally; `StatusBadge`, external-object chips, and match chips stay bespoke by documented decision (WCAG-tuned status mechanics) - Radius ladder becomes the multiplicative shadcn mapping (`sm/md/lg/xl/2xl/3xl/4xl = 0.6/0.8/1.0/1.4/1.8/2.2/2.6 × --radius`, anchor `0.5rem`); every card surface unifies on `rounded-lg`; the orphaned 8px literal token is deleted - Sidebar: agent rows render via `SidebarNavItem` (new additive props: `iconNode`, `active`, `trailing`, `liveAccessory`); live dots use `--status-agent-running`; one row rhythm and inset rounded pill highlight; right-aligned trailing badges; every labeled section is collapsible - Inbox + tasks lists unified: md status glyphs, `accent/50` rounded row hovers, vertical tree guides under parent rows (opaque underlay so dark-mode translucent borders don't stack), no horizontal dividers under expanded parents; the swipe-to-archive reveal layer shows only mid-swipe; board toggle uses the `SquareKanban` glyph - Kanban: every column carries a status-hued tint; lanes default expanded (including empty); compact mode collapses empty lanes to labeled rails (fixes a clipped, label-less empty-column state) - Storybook: new AgentDetail page story (realistic fixtures, light+dark) joins the visual suite; suite captures with `reducedMotion: 'reduce'` and the ux-lab reasoning ticker honors `prefers-reduced-motion`; a stale lexical alias in `storybook/main.ts` is fixed (build was broken since the lexical 0.46 bump) - Keyboard navigation, from live review of the unified lists: inbox navigation keys work on every tab (archive keys stay scoped to the archivable tab); keyboard-driven scrolling no longer hands the selection to whatever row lands under the stationary cursor (hover selects only after real pointer movement); the tasks list view gains the same j/k / arrows / Enter selection model as the inbox; and the `g` then `i` go-to-inbox chord works app-wide instead of only on the issue detail page - Token gates restored to 3/3 CLEAN (tokenized a post-#9134 regression in the recovery card); decisions recorded in `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` and `doc/design/COMPONENT-INVENTORY.md` (investigation verdicts: FileTree vs WorkspaceFileBrowser and the four entity pickers stay separate — evidence included) ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 CLEAN - `pnpm typecheck` → green (all packages) - `cd ui && npx vitest run` → 2106/2106 (assertions updated in lockstep where they documented superseded decisions; new tests for the global go-to-inbox chord) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` → exit 0 - `pnpm build-storybook` → succeeds (also fixes the lexical-alias break on master) - Visual regression: 514-snapshot Playwright suite green against the updated baseline (zero diffs from the keyboard-navigation round — those changes are purely behavioral). Note: baselines live outside git per the suite design and the baseline-manifest archive is not yet published, so CI cannot run this suite — it was run locally throughout; every visible delta was reviewed screen-by-screen in a live instance across nine review rounds. Review evidence (before/after triplets) intentionally kept out of the repo for size; available on request. - Manual: exercised dashboard, tasks (list + board), inbox, agents, skills, costs, settings, and artifact surfaces in light and dark themes ## Risks - Wide but shallow visual surface: most changes are class-string substitutions with behavior preserved (props, handlers, roles, test ids). The riskiest areas — dnd-kit card refs (React 19 ref-as-prop), inbox swipe-to-archive, and sidebar overlays — are covered by existing unit tests (all green) and were manually exercised. - Intentional visual deltas (rounded cards, tinted kanban columns, md status glyphs, unified hovers) are design decisions recorded in `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`; each maps to a re-baselined snapshot set locally. - The visual suite cannot yet run in CI (unpublished baseline archive — pre-existing condition from #9134); until that lands, snapshot coverage is local-only. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — agentic coding with tool use (file editing, test execution, Playwright screenshot verification); extended thinking 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 (will confirm once CI runs) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending first review) - [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>	2026-07-08 17:15:45 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	4f5abf6007	feat(recovery-card): W7 reconcile-forward + break-glass actions ... Adds the task-page recovery affordance for workspace branch divergence: reconcile-forward when ancestry is safe, and a break-glass override flow that requires explicit confirmation and a reason. Includes client wiring for the existing reconcile-branch endpoint, issue-detail refresh after successful reconciliation, runtime-management gating for break-glass, and tests for action visibility, payloads, permission gating, and workspace-target selection. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-07 15:17:16 -07:00
4 people	c07e650cd7	feat(ui): single-source design tokens, visual regression suite, and theme retune (#9134) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Its UI is the operator's daily surface: task lists, boards, budgets, agent status — all built on shadcn components and Tailwind > - Visual values (colors, spacing, type sizes, radii) were hardcoded at ~1,600 call sites: the same "small gray label" was 9/10/11px depending on the file, charts disagreed with chips about status colors, two toggle-switch implementations coexisted in two greens, and there was no visual regression coverage > - This made the UI drift-prone and made any restyle a hundreds-of-files project, which discourages design iteration > - This pull request extracts visual values into a single token layer in `ui/src/index.css`, adds a Storybook visual regression suite backed by external immutable baseline archives, and then applies a deliberate retune reviewed change-by-change on screenshot diffs > - The benefit is that Paperclip's look becomes a config surface: retheming is a token edit reviewed as a snapshot diff, drift is blocked by a token gate, and future UI PRs can prove exactly what changed visually without committing hundreds of PNGs ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing public issue covers this work (searched "design tokens", "visual regression", "design system" across issues and PRs). Related in spirit: Refs #8982 (theming a hardcoded panel — a one-off instance of the same problem class this PR addresses systematically). **Problem (feature-request form):** UI visual values are hardcoded per call site with no source of truth and no regression coverage; consistency depends on reviewer memory, and restyling requires mass file edits. **Proposed solution (this PR):** a single token layer + enforcement gate + externally stored visual snapshot suite, then an intentional restyle on top of that foundation. ## What Changed - **Token extraction (zero visual change, machine-verified during development):** committed codemods (`scripts/codemod-*.mjs`) moved ~1,600 hardcoded color/type/spacing/radius/shadow/misc values into named tokens in a non-inline `:root` block of `ui/src/index.css`. - **Visual regression suite:** `pnpm test:storybook-visual` covers 255 stories × light/dark = 510 Playwright screenshots at `maxDiffPixels: 0`, plus new primitive-coverage stories and deterministic-render fixes. - **External visual baselines:** committed PNG snapshots were removed. `tests/storybook-visual/baseline-manifest.json` pins an immutable archive URL/hash/size/count, and `scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs` handles `download`, `verify`, `pack`, and trusted maintainer `upload` flows. - **Opt-in visual CI artifacts:** added a `Storybook Visual` workflow that runs on manual dispatch or PRs labeled `storybook-visual`, downloads/verifies the baseline, runs Playwright, and uploads Playwright report/test-result artifacts for review. Normal PR runs do not mutate baseline objects. - **Token gate:** `pnpm check:token-gates` — zero hex literals, zero arbitrary bracket values, zero raw font-sizes in `ui/src/components/**` and `ui/src/pages/**`, with a documented inline allowlist for legitimate opt-outs. - **Theme retune (intentional, snapshot-reviewed):** new base theme values; radius ladder derived from a single `--radius` knob; micro-type cluster collapsed to a named ladder (`--text-nano/micro/compact` + Tailwind `text-xs`/`text-sm`); letter-spacing collapsed to named steps. - **One status-color vocabulary:** charts, quota/budget bar fills, RUNNING/live chips, and liveness indicators all use the canonical `--status-*` hues. Light-mode legibility fixes for red alert surfaces that used dark-tuned text classes. - **One switch:** `ToggleSwitch` restyled to the registry capsule form, second hand-rolled implementation removed, and all call sites unified. - **Docs:** `DESIGN.md` is the design contract; `doc/design/` holds audit reports, decision logs, and updated guidance for external baseline review/update workflows. - Dead code removed (`agentStatusBadge` duplicate map), byte-identical contrast constants consolidated, semantic renames (`--project-seed`/`--project-none`, `--liveness-blue`). ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 gates CLEAN during the design-system run - `pnpm typecheck` && `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — green during the design-system run - `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-visual-baseline.test.mjs` — pass after external-baseline rework - `pnpm exec tsc --noEmit --pretty false --module NodeNext --moduleResolution NodeNext --target ES2022 --types node,@playwright/test tests/storybook-visual/playwright.config.ts tests/storybook-visual/storybook-visual.spec.ts` — pass after external-baseline rework - `git diff --check origin/pr/9134..HEAD` — pass after external-baseline rework - `find tests/storybook-visual -type f -name '*.png' -print | wc -l` — `0` - `node scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs verify` — intentionally fails closed until the first trusted maintainer publishes the baseline archive and updates `baseline-manifest.json` ## Risks - **Large but shallow:** the PR still touches many UI files due to mechanical token extraction and retune work, but committed PNG snapshot churn has been removed from the branch. - **Baseline publication required before the visual suite can pass in clean clones:** the manifest currently has placeholder archive metadata. A trusted maintainer must publish the first immutable archive, then update `baseline-manifest.json`. - **Rendering platform variance:** the external baseline should be captured in the documented Linux/Chromium environment. Future CI runs verify against the pinned archive and fail closed on checksum/count mismatch. - **Visual CI is opt-in while stabilizing:** add the `storybook-visual` label or dispatch the workflow manually to produce downloadable Playwright report/test-result artifacts. - **Scheduled follow-ups, deliberately out of scope:** Tailwind palette classes map to semantic tokens in a dedicated pass; card/pill component consolidation; ESLint ratchet. Tracked in `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, `claude-fable-5`, Mythos-class tier) with extended thinking, running in Claude Code with tool use; mechanical phases delegated to Claude Sonnet subagents. Follow-up external-baseline rework assisted by OpenAI Codex (`gpt-5` coding agent with repository, terminal, and GitHub tool use). All bulk rewrites executed via deterministic, idempotent scripts committed in `scripts/`; intentional visual changes were human-reviewed on screenshot contact sheets. ## 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 targeted local verification and documented the intentional baseline-publication failure above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green *(pending new CI run after this rework)* - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups *(pending review)* - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) and OpenAI Codex --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-07 16:22:16 -05:00
3 people	696c694a58	feat(ui): recovery-card divergence diagnosis + one-click isolated re-issue ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents execute on isolated workspaces (git worktrees), each pinned to a specific branch and commit at checkout time > - When an agent's live checkout diverges from the recorded workspace branch — either through a branch rename, a stale worktree, or a concurrent git operation — Paperclip detects the mismatch and surfaces a recovery card to the operator > - But the existing recovery card showed a generic error with no diagnostic context: it didn't display *which* branch was expected vs. which was checked out, the commit SHAs involved, or whether the branches share ancestry > - Without that information operators cannot diagnose the root cause, and the only recovery path was fully manual re-issue > - This pull request extends `IssueRecoveryActionCard` for `workspace_validation` / `git_worktree_branch_incoherence` recovery kinds to render a divergence-diagnosis panel (expected branch, live branch, short SHAs, ancestry-verdict badge, plain-language reason) and adds a confirm-gated "Re-issue on isolated workspace" action that creates a new task with `executionWorkspacePreference: isolated_workspace` so the re-issued run cannot trip the same branch-mismatch gate > - The benefit is that operators can immediately see *why* a workspace was declined and recover with a single click instead of having to manually reconstruct the task ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #4757 (heartbeat re-wake doesn't reconcile working-tree HEAD against ticket's expected branch — this PR surfaces the resulting divergence to the operator and provides a one-click isolated re-issue path) Refs #8460 (workspace_validation_failed local-only project workspaces — this PR extends the recovery card UI for this case) **Subsystem affected:** ui/ — React + Vite board UI **Problem or motivation:** When Paperclip records a workspace branch for an agent run and the live checkout disagrees (diverged HEAD, renamed branch, stale worktree), the issue recovery card surfaces a generic `workspace_validation` error. The operator sees "run declined" but has no visibility into the expected vs. actual branch, the relevant commit SHAs, or whether the branches even share ancestry. There is no one-click path to re-issue the task on a clean isolated workspace — the operator must manually reconstruct the task from scratch. **Proposed solution:** Extend `IssueRecoveryActionCard` to: 1. Render a divergence-diagnosis panel from the `recoveryEvidence` field: expected branch, live branch, short SHAs for both, an ancestry-verdict badge (`forward-only` / `diverged` / `ancestry unknown`), and the server's `plainLanguageReason`. 2. Add Action 3 "Re-issue on isolated workspace" — a confirm-gated button that calls `issuesApi.create` with `executionWorkspacePreference: isolated_workspace` and `workspaceStrategy.baseRef` set to the live branch (SHA fallback when detached). The current workspace is never mutated. 3. Wire `onReissueIsolated` / `reissuePending` through `IssueChatThread` → `IssueDetail` so the operator sees an immediate success toast and is navigated to the new task. **Alternatives considered:** Showing divergence details only in a tooltip (rejected — too easy to miss). Providing a "force-reset the workspace" action (rejected — destructive, no audit trail, doesn't fix stale-branch root cause). Isolated re-issue via isolated workspace was the clearest safe path. ## What Changed - `IssueRecoveryActionCard.tsx` — Added `DiagnosisPanel` sub-component rendered for `workspace_validation` / `git_worktree_branch_incoherence` recovery kinds: displays expected vs. live branch, short SHAs, ancestry-verdict badge, and plain-language reason. Added Action 3 confirm-popover with `onReissueIsolated` callback and `reissuePending` loading state. Kept existing Action 1 and Action 2 unchanged. - `IssueChatThread.tsx` — Threaded `onReissueIsolated` and `reissuePending` props down to `IssueRecoveryActionCard`. - `IssueDetail.tsx` — Implemented `handleReissueIsolated`: calls `issuesApi.create` with `executionWorkspacePreference: isolated_workspace` + `workspaceStrategy.baseRef` derived from live branch / SHA; shows a success toast and navigates to the new task on completion. - `IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx` — Added 19 unit tests covering diagnosis-panel rendering, verdict label rendering, base-ref derivation (branch-first then detached-HEAD SHA fallback), and action gating. ## Verification ```bash # Unit tests — 19/19 pass pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx # Typecheck — 0 new errors pnpm typecheck ``` Manual browser validation deferred to QA — see Risks. ## Risks - **Re-issue creates a new task** — the original task remains unchanged. This is intentional (safe default), but operators should be aware both tasks exist after re-issue. - **Base-ref derivation falls back to the live HEAD SHA when detached.** SHA-based worktrees are valid for isolated re-issue but may surprise operators expecting a branch name. - **Browser-level end-to-end validation not included here.** Toast, navigation, and full create-flow are covered by integration QA in a follow-up pass. - **Low overall risk** — no new endpoints, no data mutations on existing records, no PII or telemetry changes. Composes the existing `issuesApi.create` endpoint; all new behavior is additive. ## Model Used Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`) — Anthropic. 200k context window, tool use, code execution. Extended thinking not used. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have 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 - [ ] 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> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-06 23:02:49 -07:00
3 people	ad961227f5	feat(secrets): add user-specific runtime secrets (#8825) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other environment-bound secrets. > - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not model values that should differ by human operator. > - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value. > - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped runtime checks deterministic and auditable. > - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime resolution gates. > - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required user secrets or active definitions are unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #224 Refs #6057 This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time. Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as #1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here. ## What Changed - Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values, keeping stored values out of access metadata. - Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to pick them alongside existing secret refs. - Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve against the human responsible for the run. - Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are inactive. - Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access. - Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be resolved. - Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures. - Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes. - Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127` migrations. - Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR contains code/docs/tests only. ## Verification - PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on `paperclipai/paperclip:master`. - PASS: `git diff --check` - PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg '^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true` produced no files. - PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130` with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`, `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`, `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`. - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests) - PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final Greptile cleanup fixes) - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests after the final rebase CI fix) - PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery, project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors, watchdog, and stale queue paths. - PASS: GitHub checks are green on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review. - PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5, and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated threads. ## Risks - Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs before adapter dispatch. - `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind explicitly. - External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side access for non-local vaults. - The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge. - The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream migrations; the branch migrations use guarded column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-05 05:58:20 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	c48feee190	Improve live agent feedback during sandboxed runs (#8915) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A core part of that experience is watching active agent runs without dropping into raw logs first > - Local and sandbox-backed adapters already record useful run output, progress, and tool activity > - But active issue threads could sit visually stale while the agent was syncing workspaces, tailing sandbox output, or emitting incremental tool-call updates > - Operators need timely, human-readable progress while preserving the raw transcript underneath > - This pull request streams sandbox run-log progress into runtime status, keeps visible issue threads refreshed, and folds repeated ACPX tool updates into stable transcript cards > - The benefit is that long-running agent work becomes easier to supervise without changing the task/comment control-plane model ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this exact change. Problem/motivation: - During long-running sandboxed agent work, the issue UI can appear idle even though the agent is actively syncing, running tools, or producing incremental output. - Operators need realtime feedback at the issue-thread layer, not only after opening raw logs or waiting for the final heartbeat result. - Related public context: #1808 previously added live-run status dots to Projects; #4362 touches heartbeat wakeup behavior but is not a duplicate of this runtime/UI feedback change. ## What Changed - Added sandbox run-log streaming support and defaulted sandbox-capable local adapters into the richer live-feedback path. - Surfaced environment/sandbox sync progress through heartbeat runtime status with bounded, redacted snippets. - Added live issue-thread cache patching so visible active runs update as progress events arrive. - Folded repeated ACPX `tool_call` updates into one transcript card instead of stacking duplicate cards. - Updated adapter docs and added focused regression coverage for sandbox log streaming, runtime status, ACPX parsing, live updates, transcript rendering, and issue chat messages. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/heartbeat-run-runtime-status.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-state.test.ts ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/execution-target-sandbox.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-managed-runtime.test.ts server/src/services/heartbeat-run-runtime-status.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-live-run-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-state.test.ts packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/ui/parse-stdout.test.ts ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts ui/src/components/transcript/RunTranscriptView.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx` - GitHub PR workflow on head `8397953e7b41ccd42e5d9457ee7e4dfb996e4ec5`: `verify`, build, typecheck/release-registry, e2e, general shards, serialized server shards, and canary dry run passed. - Greptile Review on head `8397953e7b41ccd42e5d9457ee7e4dfb996e4ec5`: Confidence Score 5/5, no unresolved review threads. ## Risks - Live issue-thread cache patching could miss an edge case for a route shape not covered by tests. - Surfacing active-run snippets needs continued care around redaction; this PR keeps snippets bounded and adds redaction-focused coverage. - More frequent active-run UI refreshes could expose performance issues on very large issue threads, though updates are scoped to visible run/query caches. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex, operating as a tool-enabled coding agent with shell, git, and repository-editing capabilities. Context window size is not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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>	2026-07-02 22:21:56 -07:00
Aron Prins	4a2447da3c	[codex] Fix markdown contrast on accent bubbles (#8689) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue/task chat subsystem renders board and agent comments as markdown inside chat bubbles. > - Human board comments use a saturated blue bubble so the message can be distinguished from agent output. > - The shared `.paperclip-markdown` rule forced `var(--foreground)` for body text and related markdown elements. > - On the blue bubble, that foreground color is too dark, so paragraphs, lists, links, and emphasis lose contrast. > - This pull request adds an explicit on-accent markdown treatment for blue/current-user message bubbles. > - The benefit is readable markdown without changing neutral markdown surfaces elsewhere in the app. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #8688 ## What Changed - Added a `paperclip-markdown-on-accent` class for markdown rendered on accent-colored message bubbles. - Updated current-user issue chat messages to use the accent-safe markdown class. - Added CSS overrides for body text, list markers, headings, emphasis, links, blockquotes, and inline code on accent backgrounds. - Added a regression test proving current-user blue-bubble markdown receives the accent-safe class. ## Before Screenshot: <img width="816" height="618" alt="Screenshot 2026-06-27 at 14 22 59" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2a982326-9ff3-40ce-9955-ceb081d8a2e0" /> ## After Screenshot: <img width="821" height="624" alt="Screenshot 2026-06-27 at 15 05 17" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4722a0db-9f6a-4775-a7eb-47328c2f71e0" /> ## Verification - `CI=true corepack pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx` - `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - GitHub Actions PR workflow passed on latest head `f645cca3fc9675071c201471c0df938880c0c351`, including Build, Typecheck + Release Registry, e2e, general test shards, serialized server shards, Canary Dry Run, and aggregate verify. - Greptile Review passed with Confidence Score 5/5 on latest head `f645cca3fc9675071c201471c0df938880c0c351`. ## Risks Low risk. The new color treatment is opt-in and only applied to current-user issue chat markdown on accent bubbles. Neutral comment, document, artifact, and skill markdown surfaces keep the existing `.paperclip-markdown` colors. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex in Codex desktop, with repository tool use and local command 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	2026-06-29 13:24:33 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	43b005b704	Add pipeline workflow primitives and operator UI (#7903) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The pipeline subsystem models repeatable work as items moving through stages, with agent automation, review gates, blockers, drift notices, and linked work. > - Operators need this to be usable as one coherent workflow surface, not just as backend primitives or disconnected route experiments. > - The branch now carries the pipeline data model, service/routes, CLI/tutorial path, aggregation feeds, operator UI, stage automation controls, liveness/retry handling, and follow-up polish that make the primitive reviewable end to end. > - This pull request is the single review target for that pipeline workflow primitive stack. > - The benefit is that reviewers can evaluate the full operator experience and server contract together against `master`. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work. The underlying feature request is described inline. ### Problem or motivation Paperclip needs a first-class way to model multi-stage agent/company workflows where upstream items can spawn downstream work, request review, carry fields across pipelines, surface drift, retry automation, and show operators where work is blocked or active. Without a unified pipeline primitive, these workflows spread across ad hoc issues, routines, and comments, making the state hard to inspect or operate. ### Proposed solution Add the pipeline workflow primitive stack: database schema and migrations, shared validators/types, server services and REST routes, aggregation and liveness helpers, CLI/tutorial smoke support, and the React operator UI for pipeline lists, boards, item detail, review/learnings views, settings, stage automation, secrets, carry-over fields, and retry/recovery flows. ### Alternatives considered - Keep workflows as loosely linked issues and routines: rejected because operators need a single board/detail/settings surface for repeated workflow patterns. - Ship backend primitives first and defer UI: rejected for this branch because the operator experience is the main way to validate the primitive. - Add a narrower one-off content workflow: rejected because the same primitives are useful across future company processes. ## What Changed - Added and evolved pipeline schema, migrations, shared contracts, server services, REST routes, route tests, and CLI/tutorial smoke support. - Added pipeline aggregation, health/liveness, drift acknowledgment, blocker/carry-over, automation retry, stage automation environment, and permission recovery behavior. - Added the operator UI for pipeline index/board/item detail/settings/review/learnings flows, including stage secrets, automation controls, markdown/item descriptions, linked issue assets, liveness banners, and source automation metadata. - Refactored issue document frame rendering through the shared `DocumentFrameHeader` component to keep document controls consistent with the pipeline document surfaces. - Kept this PR as the single base-branch review target for the current pipeline branch. ## Verification Current branch refresh: - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-service.test.ts` — 31 passed - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-routes.test.ts` — 19 passed - `pnpm --filter ./server typecheck` — passed - `pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck` — passed - Verified Pipelines remains gated by `enablePipelines === true`: sidebar item is hidden unless the flag is enabled, direct pipeline routes redirect to `/dashboard` when disabled, and the Experimental settings UI still has no Pipelines toggle. - GitHub status checks on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` — all complete with no failing conclusions, including Actions, Socket, Superagent/Security, and Greptile Review - Greptile summary on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` — Confidence Score 5/5 - GitHub review-thread sweep — 0 unresolved Greptile threads Previously recorded during branch development: - Server pipeline service/route and aggregation tests - Shared validator tests - UI pipeline page/settings/item-detail/learnings/liveness tests - Pipeline tutorial smoke path ## Risks - High review surface: this is a large feature branch spanning database, shared contracts, server behavior, CLI/docs, and UI. - Migration ordering and schema compatibility need reviewer attention because this branch has been kept current across multiple `master` syncs. - GitHub still reports merge state `BLOCKED` because the PR is awaiting normal human review/branch-protection completion; all current status checks are green. - Branch-name checklist exception: this PR uses the pre-existing requested branch name, which predates the current public-branch naming rule. The PR title/body avoid internal issue references. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use, shell execution, git/GitHub CLI operations, and local verification commands. Earlier commits in this branch were assisted by Paperclip agents and other AI coding agents as recorded in commit authorship. ## 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-26 12:02:44 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	8e21e31a1a	Fix UI detail regressions (#8613) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI needs to render issue details, comments, properties, and rich external object labels clearly during normal operator workflows. > - Three small UI regressions made those workflows harder to scan: rich object URLs could show weak labels, interrupting comments could briefly flash in the wrong state, and watchdog labels could overflow the properties panel. > - These are related quality fixes in the same UI surface, with focused regression coverage for each behavior. > - This pull request groups the fixes so they go through normal review instead of bypassing CI. > - The benefit is a quieter, more predictable issue detail experience for board operators. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for these regressions after searching related PRs and issues. ### Pre-submission checklist - Existing open and closed GitHub issues and PRs were searched for duplicates. - The fixes are based on current `master` behavior. - The regressions originate in Paperclip board UI code, not an adapter, API provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? In the board UI, three issue-detail regressions made normal review workflows harder to scan: - URL-rich external objects could fall back to a weak generic label instead of showing a useful URL label. - An interrupting issue comment could briefly flash through the wrong state while issue run data refreshed. - Long watchdog property instructions could truncate or overflow instead of wrapping inside the properties panel. ### Expected behavior - URL-rich external objects should surface a clear URL label. - Interrupting comments should stay visually stable while live run state refreshes. - Long watchdog property values should wrap within the available properties panel width. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Open an issue detail view that includes URL-rich external object metadata, an interrupting run/comment state, or long watchdog instructions. 2. Observe the rendered issue detail thread and properties panel. 3. Compare the rendered label, comment state, and watchdog row wrapping against the expected stable/readable behavior above. ### Paperclip version or commit Current `master`, fixed by this PR branch at `1c763001c9a16fa6cf3faad6f58a83c4b202c928`. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`) / board UI. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific (core board UI bug). ### Database mode Not database-related. ### Access context Board operator UI. ### Relevant logs or output Not applicable. ### Relevant config Not applicable. ### Additional context The PR includes focused regression tests for all three behaviors. Browser-visible before/after evidence for the watchdog wrapping change was posted in https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/8613#issuecomment-4794863305. ### Privacy checklist - All pasted output was reviewed for sensitive data; this PR body contains no private config, logs, or internal instance links. ## What Changed - Prefer direct URLs as rich object labels when rendering external object metadata. - Keep interrupting issue comments from flashing through the wrong thread state while issue chat data is refreshing. - Allow watchdog property labels to wrap cleanly inside the issue properties panel. - Added focused regression coverage for the external object helper, issue detail interrupt behavior, and watchdog property wrapping. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` ## Risks Low risk. The changes are scoped to UI rendering/state handling and add regression coverage for the touched behavior. No database, API, workflow, lockfile, or migration changes are included. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex using GPT-5 (`gpt-5`) with repository shell/tool access. The changes were prepared by an AI coding agent with local command execution for git inspection and focused Vitest verification. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have 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>	2026-06-25 21:55:03 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	841742fc1a	[codex] Graduate experimental conference room defaults (#8628) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The board UI has been graduating experimental conference-room task experiences into the default issue and onboarding flows > - Several task UI improvements were still coupled to the Conference Room Chat experimental flag even though they are useful outside chat itself > - That coupling meant disabling chat also reverted unrelated defaults such as work-mode labels, task status colors, team creation copy, and the graduated issue thread > - This pull request keeps chat-specific gating scoped to chat while making the graduated task UI the default experience > - The benefit is that operators can use the newer task workflows without needing to enable the separate chat experiment ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this exact change. ### Problem or motivation The Conference Room Chat experimental flag was controlling unrelated task UI defaults, which made non-chat workflows regress when chat was disabled. ### Proposed solution Remove that flag from task-thread, work-mode, onboarding, status, and team-creation presentation paths while leaving chat-specific behavior separately gated. ### Alternatives considered Keeping the flag as a broad umbrella until chat graduates would avoid a behavior change, but it keeps unrelated UI improvements hidden behind the wrong capability switch. ### Roadmap alignment Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is focused graduation/polish for existing UI surfaces rather than a new roadmap-level core feature. Related search: - Searched open PRs and issues for `conference room chat experimental flag`: no matches. - Searched open PRs and issues for `graduated issue thread`: no matches. ## What Changed - Removes Conference Room Chat flag branching from task-thread rendering, work-mode labels, task status colors, and team creation copy. - Makes the onboarding completion path create/reuse an onboarding project, create the first assigned task, and send the user to the dashboard instead of chat. - Deletes the legacy onboarding wizard and classic task-thread files now that the graduated flow is the default. - Updates focused UI tests and affected E2E specs for the default task experience. - Adds a user-visible onboarding error if restored state is missing the company or agent required for launch. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/OnboardingWizardVariant.test.tsx ui/src/components/RunChatSurface.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.test.tsx ui/src/components/StatusBadge.test.tsx ui/src/lib/agent-order.test.ts ui/src/lib/onboarding-launch.test.ts ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts --list tests/e2e/conference-room-typing-intro.spec.ts tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts` - Attempted targeted Playwright execution locally, but this host is missing Chromium system libraries (`libatk1.0-0t64`, `libatspi2.0-0t64`, `libxcomposite1`, `libxdamage1`, `libxfixes3`, `libxrandr2`, `libgbm1`, `libasound2t64`). CI runs the specs in the proper Actions environment. ## Risks - Medium UI behavior risk: this intentionally changes the default experience for users who have not enabled Conference Room Chat. - Medium onboarding risk: completion now creates/reuses a project and creates the first task instead of only navigating. - Low migration risk: no database schema or migration changes are included. - The PR avoids `pnpm-lock.yaml` and `.github/workflows` changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding model, tool-enabled local repository workflow with shell, git, 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>	2026-06-25 11:52:36 -05:00
3 people	800dab1c64	Render sandbox runtime status in issue threads (#8594) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue thread is where operators watch active agent work and decide whether a run is healthy. > - Backend runtime-progress plumbing can expose a concise current status, but users only benefit if the issue UI renders it in context. > - The UI should show that current status as part of the active run surface without turning it into durable transcript content. > - This pull request adds the issue-thread rendering and message formatting needed for sandbox runtime status. > - The benefit is that active sandbox setup phases are visible from the normal issue detail view. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #248 No exact public GitHub issue was found for this UI rendering work. The underlying problem is that active sandboxed runs can have backend progress state without any concise issue-thread display, leaving users to infer whether setup is still moving. This PR adds the UI layer on top of the runtime-status API branch. GitHub search performed for related or duplicate work: `sandbox runtime status`, `sandbox restore index`, and `runtime progress`. No direct duplicate PR was found. ## What Changed - Included current runtime status in the heartbeat API client shape. - Rendered active run status text in the issue chat thread when available. - Updated issue-chat message formatting helpers for runtime status display. - Added focused component and formatting tests for the new active-run status behavior. ## Verification - Local PII scan before push: high-confidence secret patterns, internal issue links, local user paths, and private URL patterns checked across all three split diffs; no real secrets or internal links found. - `git diff --check feat/sandbox-runtime-status..feat/sandbox-status-ui` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts` — 2 files, 91 tests passed. - `pnpm run typecheck` passed on `feat/sandbox-status-ui`. - `pnpm run build` passed on `feat/sandbox-status-ui`; Vite reported existing CSS `::highlight` and chunk-size warnings. - Visual evidence (desktop + mobile) is attached to the tracking issue rather than committed to the repo. ## Risks - This PR is stacked on the runtime-status API branch and depends on that response/event shape. - The status line is intentionally concise; long or sensitive status content should continue to be bounded/redacted by the backend. - The visual change is limited to active issue-thread runs with current runtime status data. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex coding agent, with shell/tool execution in a local worktree. Exact context-window metadata is not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip CTO <cto@paperclip.local> Co-authored-by: Paperclip CTO <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-24 23:17:55 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	e68188c438	fix: upstream deployed document-comment, routine-annotation, workspace & board-polling fixes (#8536) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - This change touches several already-shipped subsystems — document-comment annotations, the selected-agent Conference Room chat surface, routine description annotations, workspace-operation tracking, and the board polling/inbox UI > - A batch of incremental fixes and two small backend additions had accumulated on a local mainline and were deployed to a live instance, but never landed upstream — so each `origin/master` sync kept re-diverging > - Leaving them un-upstreamed means the same delta has to be re-merged on every sync and risks being lost or silently reverted > - This pull request rebases that delta cleanly on top of current `origin/master` (preserving recent upstream work such as reusable sandbox leases and the relation-list collapse controls) and brings it up for review > - The benefit is that mainline and the deployed instance converge, and these fixes/additions get normal review + CI + Greptile coverage ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No single GitHub issue tracks this; it is a bundle of bug fixes and two small feature additions. Following the issue-template fields: **Bug fixes (what was wrong → what this does):** - Document comments rendered out of document order, didn't live-update across clients, swallowed save failures, and lost the markdown text selection on re-render. Now: doc-order sort, live updates, surfaced save-failure state, stable selection across re-renders. - The board polling hot path returned oversized payloads on every poll. Now: an opt-in `summary` projection trims the heartbeat-run list payload. - Assorted UI fixes: sidebar nav peek/streamlining edge cases, markdown file-viewer re-mount/line-height issues on iOS Safari, inbox badge/skill deep-link tab selection, and `⌘.` work-mode cycling on iOS. **Feature additions:** - `workspace_operations.issue_id` — associate a workspace operation with the issue that triggered it (new migration `0106`, schema, service, shared type). - Routine **description annotations** — comment threads on a routine's description document, mirroring issue document annotations (new migration `0107`, `routine_documents` schema, routes/service, editable-sections UI). - Selected-agent **Conference Room chat** surface wiring and live issue-thread updates. **Related PR:** #8229 (`feat(control-plane): add annotation and workspace controls`, draft) covers overlapping annotation/workspace-control territory — flagging it so a reviewer can reconcile the two rather than double-merging. ## What Changed - `feat(workspace)`: `workspace_operations.issue_id` migration + schema/service/type; issue workspace property controls reconciled with upstream's evolved "Service" row. - `feat(routines)`: routine description annotations — `routine_documents` schema, migration `0107`, routes/service, `editable-sections` UI. - `fix(document-comments)`: doc-order sort, live updates, save-failure surfacing, stable markdown selection (+ storybook story, rerender test). - `feat(chat)`: selected-agent Conference Room chat surface and live issue-thread updates (`LiveUpdatesProvider`, `issue-chat-messages`, interactions service). - `perf(board)`: opt-in `summary` projection for the board polling/heartbeat-run list payload, plus assorted sidebar / file-viewer / inbox / IssueProperties UI fixes. Organized into 5 logical commits. Migrations are numbered incrementally after upstream's latest (`0105`) — `0106` then `0107`, no journal collision. ## Verification - Built by 3-way merging the deployed delta onto current `origin/master`; the only merge conflict (`IssueProperties.test.tsx`, two adjacent test blocks) was resolved in favor of upstream's evolved "green service link above the workspace row" layout, which matches the merged component's rendered output. - Confirmed recent upstream work is preserved post-merge: reusable sandbox lease teardown (`#8513`), the IssueProperties relation-list collapse controls, and the sidebar streamlined-nav default. - Confirmed the net diff vs `origin/master` is exactly the intended feature delta (65 files) and that overlapping server files (`issues.ts`, `agents.ts`, `heartbeat.ts`) only add feature code without disturbing upstream logic. - This delta is already running on a live deployed instance. - Full typecheck/test suite + Greptile to run in CI (see checklist). ## Risks - Two new migrations (`0106`, `0107`). Both are additive (new table / new nullable column) and ordered after upstream's `0105`; no data backfill, low risk. If another migration-bearing PR merges first, renumber before merge. - Largest blast radius is in the merged overlapping UI/service files; covered by the existing test suites for those files plus CI. - Overlaps thematically with draft PR #8229 — reviewers should reconcile rather than merge both blindly. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, with tool use (git, shell). Agentic coding workflow. ## 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) - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-23 09:00:14 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2dbaf4a7fa	External object references across issue surfaces (#8512) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI agents, issues, approvals, comments, and work products. > - The involved subsystem is issue context: markdown links, issue properties, related work, lists, filters, inbox/sidebar status, and plugin-provided external context. > - The gap is that URLs to external systems currently remain mostly plain links, so humans and agents must manually open them to understand status, identity, and liveness. > - This matters because external work objects such as GitHub issues and pull requests are part of the operational state of a Paperclip company. > - The implementation keeps core provider-neutral: shared contracts, storage, sync, routes, and UI surfaces live in core while providers can contribute detection and status resolution. > - This pull request adds the external object reference foundation, GitHub provider support, issue-surface rendering, filters, sidebar/list/inbox signals, and test/story coverage. > - The benefit is that linked external work becomes inspectable Paperclip context without hardcoding every provider directly into the UI. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work. Feature request: - Problem: URLs in Paperclip issues, comments, documents, and related surfaces do not expose provider status or object identity inline. - Proposed behavior: detect supported external object URLs, persist normalized references, refresh provider status, and render concise status-aware links across issue surfaces. - Users affected: board users, agents, and maintainers who triage issues containing external work links. - Acceptance: external object references are company-scoped, provider-extensible, visible in key issue surfaces, filterable where relevant, and covered by focused shared/server/UI tests. Related PR search: - No open duplicate PRs found for `external object references`. - Closed related prior attempt: #4556. ## What Changed - Added shared external-object contracts, validators, status/liveness helpers, and plugin protocol declarations. - Added database schema and additive migrations for external objects, source mentions, and display metadata. - Added server services/routes for detecting, syncing, summarizing, refreshing, and resolving external objects across issues, documents, comments, projects, and plugins. - Added a GitHub external-object provider plus plugin SDK authoring docs. - Wired UI presentation across markdown links, comments, issue chat, documents, properties, related work, issue rows, filters, inbox/sidebar badges, and Storybook stories. - Rebasing cleanup: moved the branch onto current `master`, repaired stale worktree provision config, hardened environment-sensitive tests/mocks, and removed committed screenshot artifacts from the PR branch to keep the reviewable file set below tool limits. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/external-objects.test.ts server/src/__tests__/external-object-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts ui/src/components/ExternalObjectPill.test.tsx ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts` passed after rebasing: 5 files, 56 tests. - Historical branch verification before this PR creation included `pnpm test:run`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`; this PR body does not claim those were rerun after the final rebase. ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new cross-surface sync path on issue/document/comment writes. The implementation uses safe sync wrappers so external-object failures warn instead of blocking core mutations. - Medium: the migrations introduce new tables and indexes. They are additive and company-scoped. - Medium: provider-specific URL parsing can miss or misclassify edge cases. Shared canonicalization tests and provider tests cover current GitHub shapes. - Low: UI badge/filter behavior could add visual noise for object-heavy issues; component tests and Storybook stories cover the intended surfaces. > Roadmap checked: `ROADMAP.md` references the plugin system as the current extension path and does not list a duplicate core feature. Related long-range docs discuss external references, work products, preview URLs, and plugin extension points; this PR implements the scoped external-object reference foundation. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding-agent runtime, with shell and GitHub CLI tool use. Reasoning mode: medium. Exact deployed runtime model ID and context window were not exposed in 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>	2026-06-23 08:27:19 -05:00
Dotta	1ca3331c33	[codex] Fix mobile issue chat spacing (#8493) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue page is one of the main surfaces where operators read agent updates and manage task relationships. > - On narrow mobile viewports, agent chat bubbles kept the desktop `max-w-[85%]` cap, leaving the right side overly indented. > - The same issue sidebar can also become noisy when many blockers or sub-tasks are attached to a task. > - This pull request adjusts the mobile chat bubble width while preserving the existing desktop cap. > - It also limits long issue-relation previews until the operator expands them, then allows collapsing them again. > - The benefit is a denser, more readable mobile issue page without changing the underlying issue data model. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this internal report. Bug report: - On mobile issue pages, agent chat bubbles are unnecessarily narrow because the desktop max-width applies at all breakpoints. - Long blocked-by and sub-task relation lists can dominate the issue properties area before the operator needs the full list. - Related prior work: #4861 improved issue-thread scale and markdown polish, but did not address this mobile bubble width regression. ## What Changed - Added a responsive agent-comment bubble width class so mobile bubbles use `max-w-[calc(100%-0.5rem)]` and desktop keeps `sm:max-w-[85%]`. - Added test coverage for the responsive agent bubble classes. - Added a five-item preview limit for blocked-by and sub-task relation pills in issue properties. - Added an inline `and N more...` / `show less` toggle for long blocked-by and sub-task relation lists. - Reset relation preview expansion when the `IssueProperties` panel receives a different `issue.id`. - Added component test coverage for collapsed, expanded, re-collapsed, and issue-switch reset states. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` (`27 passed`). - Attempted: `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx`. - Result: failed before reaching the changed assertion because the existing suite imports `act` from `react`, which resolves to a non-function in this local Vitest environment. - Scope: 50 render tests fail with `TypeError: act is not a function`; 8 non-render tests pass. - Attempted: `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx` with the same `act is not a function` result. - Passed: Greptile rerun reported Confidence Score 5/5 on commit `e0f9c40b7faedcfb877d4f4b0e9f2c77a6593c16`. - Passed: all latest-head PR checks/statuses are green, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary dry run, policy, security review, Socket, Snyk, and Greptile. ## Risks Low risk: - The chat change only alters max-width classes on agent comment bubbles and preserves the desktop cap. - The relation-list change is presentational; hidden blockers and sub-tasks remain in memory and can expand/collapse in place. - Expansion state now resets when navigating between issues in a reused panel instance. - Main residual risk is visual polish on real mobile devices because local browser screenshot verification was not run in this heartbeat; screenshots were not added because the source task explicitly requested not adding screenshots/images unless specifically part of the work. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use, shell execution, GitHub connector access, local Vitest verification, Greptile follow-up, and PR check monitoring. ## 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) - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-06-22 15:57:03 -05:00
DottaandClaude Opus 4.8	ef0ccf6959	[codex] Fix issue chat mention warning spacing (#8486) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board issue thread composer is the subsystem involved here. > - The composer can show both the mention coaching warning and the handoff preview row near the send controls. > - The handoff preview row sat flush against nearby composer UI, making the warning and send-control area feel crowded. > - This pull request adds vertical spacing around the visible handoff preview row and avoids rendering a spacer when there is no preview. > - The benefit is a cleaner, less cramped composer layout without changing handoff behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: PAP-11281 Refs: PAP-11598 No public GitHub issue exists for this Paperclip task, so the issue is described inline using the bug report template fields. ### What happened? In the issue chat composer, the handoff preview row could render flush against the mention coach warning above it and the send controls below it. ### Expected behavior When the handoff preview is visible, it should have a small amount of vertical breathing room. When there is no preview, no empty wrapper should add phantom margin. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Open an issue thread. 2. Type a reply that produces an active handoff preview near the mention warning/send controls. 3. Inspect the composer spacing around the handoff preview row. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on the PAP-11281 work branch before this fix. ### Deployment mode Local dev worktree. ## What Changed - Added a `my-2` wrapper around `ComposerHandoffPreviewRow` in `IssueChatThread`. - Guarded the wrapper behind a named `shouldRenderComposerHandoffPreview` helper so empty previews do not add phantom vertical margin. - Added a focused UI unit test covering the empty-preview and visible-preview spacing guard. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatComposerHandoffPreview.test.ts` passed locally. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed locally. - `git diff --check` passed before the follow-up commit. - Reviewed the one-file UI diff and focused test diff. Screenshots: intentionally omitted for this tiny spacing-only branch because PAP-11598 explicitly says not to add design screenshots or images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the work. No screenshot or wireframe image files are committed. ## Risks Low risk. This is a narrowly scoped layout-only change in the composer. The main risk is slightly different vertical rhythm around the handoff preview row. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5-class model in tool-use/code-execution mode. Exact hosted deployment identifier and context window were not exposed in the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Notes for draft status: remote CI and Greptile are re-running after the follow-up push. The checklist records the required PR-ready criteria; this PR should remain draft until GitHub reports those checks green. --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-22 10:50:31 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7069053a1f	[codex] Add ask issue work mode (#8334) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue work mode controls how a task starts and how the conversation composer frames the operator's intent. > - Paperclip already supports standard agent execution and planning mode, but there is no lightweight mode for asking a question without immediately implying execution or plan drafting. > - That gap makes low-commitment clarification workflows look like normal task execution. > - This pull request adds an explicit Ask mode and threads it through shared contracts, server heartbeat context, and the issue composer UI. > - The benefit is that operators can create or switch a task into a question-oriented mode while preserving existing agent and planning flows. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline feature request follows the repository feature request template. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `packages/shared`, `server/`, and `ui/`. ### Problem or motivation Issue conversations currently distinguish standard agent work from planning work, but question-first conversations do not have a clear public mode in the shared contract or UI. Operators who want to ask an agent a focused question have to use standard mode, which can imply normal task execution, or planning mode, which asks for a plan rather than an answer. ### Proposed solution Add Ask as a first-class issue work mode. It should be selectable from issue creation and issue chat, cycle alongside Standard and Planning from the keyboard shortcut/menu, appear distinctly in composer styling, and be included in heartbeat context so agents know to answer directly instead of executing or drafting a plan. ### Alternatives considered - Keep using standard mode for questions: rejected because it does not communicate answer-only intent to the agent or the UI. - Reuse planning mode for questions: rejected because planning mode asks for a plan and is semantically different from asking a question. - Add only local UI copy: rejected because the mode needs to be represented in the shared contract and server heartbeat context to be reliable. ### Roadmap alignment This is a focused issue-workflow improvement. `ROADMAP.md` was checked and no duplicate planned core work was found. ### Additional context Related public searches performed before opening this PR: - GitHub PR search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip` - GitHub issue search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip` - GitHub PR search for `"work mode" "ask" repo:paperclipai/paperclip` No duplicate PR was found. ## What Changed - Added `ask` to the shared issue work-mode contract and validation coverage. - Included issue work mode in heartbeat context summaries so agents can see standard, planning, and ask state. - Added Ask mode metadata, styling, composer tone handling, and selection/cycling behavior in the issue chat/new issue UI. - Updated focused tests for shared validators, heartbeat context, and affected UI work-mode flows. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` The broader targeted command passed 8 test files / 245 tests. Visual reference for Standard/Planning/Ask composer states: https://gist.github.com/cryppadotta/714d8590bac55500a65e7e16de5bb4b8 It emitted an expected warning from an existing server test fixture about a missing run-log fixture while verifying derived issue comment metadata. ## Risks Low to moderate risk. This adds a new enum value that crosses shared, server, and UI contracts. Existing standard and planning modes are preserved, but any downstream code assuming only two non-terminal work modes may need to handle `ask`. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent in Paperclip CodexCoder mode, with shell, git, GitHub connector, and local test execution tools. Context window and exact hosted model snapshot are not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`, `feat/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-19 13:06:04 -05:00
3 people	6756ae8289	fix(ui): restore issue copy buttons on HTTP (#8212) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane operators use to run AI-agent companies, so board actions like copying task state need to work reliably on the live board UI. > - The affected surface is the issue detail and issue chat UI, where operators copy task descriptions and comment text during triage and handoff. > - On self-hosted HTTP deployments, the async Clipboard API can exist but fail, which breaks these copy buttons silently. > - The internal FMAI reproduction pointed specifically at task description copy and task comment copy in the issue view. > - There is already an overlapping upstream PR, [#6353](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/6353), but it is currently `CONFLICTING` and does not provide a mergeable path. > - This pull request adds a shared clipboard helper with a fallback path, wires the task-detail and task-thread copy actions through it, and locks the behavior in with targeted tests. > - The benefit is that copy buttons keep working on HTTP self-hosted boards without changing behavior for secure deployments. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Fixes #3529 - Refs #6353 ## What Changed - Added `ui/src/lib/clipboard.ts` with a shared `copyTextToClipboard()` helper that tries the async Clipboard API first and falls back to `document.execCommand("copy")` when that path is blocked. - Updated `IssueDetail.tsx` so the task-level "Copy task as markdown" action uses the shared helper. - Updated both `IssueChatThread.tsx` and `IssueChatThreadClassic.tsx` so task comment copy actions, code-block copy actions, and system-notice copy actions use the shared helper. - Added focused regression coverage in `IssueDetail.test.tsx` and `IssueChatThread.test.tsx` for insecure-context fallback behavior. ## Verification - `corepack pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx` - `corepack pnpm exec tsc -p ui/tsconfig.json --noEmit` - Manual reviewer check: - Run Paperclip over HTTP. - Open an issue detail page. - Use `Copy task as markdown` and a comment `Copy message` action. - Confirm both copy successfully instead of silently failing. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is scoped to clipboard helpers and the specific issue-detail / issue-thread copy actions. - The fallback relies on `document.execCommand("copy")`, which is legacy browser behavior, but it is only used when the modern clipboard path is unavailable or blocked. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Codex local adapter, tool-enabled coding workflow with terminal, git, and file-editing support. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [ ] 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: FMAI Agents <joegalbert-ai@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-18 23:43:57 -07:00
3 people	6f9801a46b	feat(ui): NUX rework behind enableConferenceRoomChat experimental flag — capsule onboarding, conference-room chat, unified composer (#8000) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The first-run experience (onboarding wizard) and the chat surfaces (conference-room/board chat, task threads, composers) are the product's front door — they decide whether a new operator understands "hire agents, give them work, review results" in the first five minutes > - Today those surfaces feel ticket-y and form-like: the wizard is a static multi-step form that ends in an anticlimactic "Launch" screen, the task composer and board chat behave differently from each other, and agent-feed issue quicklooks misbehave (multiple flyouts open at once, cards jump on hover) > - We wanted to iterate toward a conversational, team-centric NUX — but without risking the workflows of everyone already running Paperclip > - This PR reworks the NUX behind a new default-OFF `enableConferenceRoomChat` experimental flag: a capsule-motif onboarding wizard that builds your team as you answer, a conference-room chat surface, one shared ChatComposer across surfaces, brand-accurate status chips, and feed-quicklook fixes — with the pre-existing UI fork-and-frozen as `*Classic` components that flag-OFF users keep > - The benefit is a complete, testable modern NUX that anyone can opt into from Settings → Experimental, with zero default behavior change and a clean path to either graduate or drop the experiment ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No pre-existing GitHub issue — feature description per `feature_request.yml`: - **Problem / motivation:** Paperclip's onboarding wizard and chat surfaces grew up as separate ticket-centric forms. New users get a form-filling experience rather than the feeling of standing up a team; the board chat and task threads use different composers with different affordances; the agent feed's issue quicklook can stack multiple popovers and shifts cards on hover. - **Proposed solution:** A coherent NUX experiment behind one experimental flag (`enableConferenceRoomChat`, Settings → Experimental, default OFF): capsule onboarding wizard with an evolving team capsule, conference-room chat, unified `ChatComposer`, team-centric copy, brand status chips, quicklook single-flight fix. Flag-OFF users get the exact pre-experiment UI via frozen `*Classic` forks, verified by an on/off parity test matrix. - **Alternatives considered:** (a) incremental unflagged restyling — rejected: the changes interlock across surfaces and would drip risk into every release; (b) a separate app shell / route for the new NUX — rejected: too much divergence, the flag + classic-fork pattern keeps the diff reviewable and reversible. - **Roadmap alignment:** `ROADMAP.md` lists **CEO Chat** ("a lighter-weight way to talk to leadership agents... should still resolve to real work objects"). This experiment is groundwork in that direction (conference-room chat resolves to issues/tasks via the same composer used in task threads) and does not change the core task-and-comments model. Related PRs found in the dedup search (same area, none duplicate this work — they target the classic wizard, which this PR intentionally leaves intact and mergeable): - #5385 — Coach-driven onboarding: conversational entry + agent-companies package import - #5378 — Onboarding wizard: reusable adapter picker + probe card - #6636 — ui(onboarding): friendly error surface + retry for the wizard - #7005 — fix(onboarding): explicitly await first-task wake - #2616 — fix: restore workspace directory config in onboarding wizard ## What Changed - **Experimental flag plumbing** — `enableConferenceRoomChat` in shared types/validators, server instance-settings service + API, Settings → Experimental card with explicit enable/disable copy - **Onboarding wizard** — classic wizard forked and frozen (`OnboardingWizardClassic`); flag-ON variant is a 5-step capsule wizard with a persistent evolving `AgentCapsule` (gradient/glow motif), team-centric reframed copy, and a typing-dots intro (hardened with fake-timer tests) - **Conference-room chat** — flag-ON board-chat surface with agent bubble name/icon headers and copy/vote/timestamp action rows (`AgentBubbleActionRow`) - **Unified composer** — shared `ChatComposer` adopted across surfaces; translucent surface + scroll-mask removal; "Agent mode"/"Plan mode" relabels; no-assignee confirmation `AlertDialog` (new `ui/alert-dialog.tsx` primitive); `@task` reference picker + linkification in mentions - **Agent feed** — single-flight issue-quicklook store (one popover at a time), flyouts open to the left, removed hover translate-y jitter - **Status chips** — brand-accurate task status chips behind the flag (light/dark, 1px borders per paperclip.ing/brand) - **Tests** — flag on/off parity matrix across IssueDetail, NewIssueDialog, Sidebar, wizard, gate components; component tests for all new pieces - **Merge with `master`** — one conflict in `ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.tsx`, resolved by keeping master's new `AssigneeChip`/`HandoffWakeRow`/`RunStatusBadge` components inside the flag-gated metadata-row chrome (details in commit `21a5642a`); post-merge fixes: vitest 4 mock typing in `MarkdownEditor.test.tsx`, flag hook made safe for provider-less mounts (master's new isolated component tests) - **Branch hygiene** — internal design wireframes/mockups stripped before the PR (they live in the Paperclip issue threads) - No user-facing documentation changes required: the flag is intentionally experimental and self-described in the Settings card; no existing docs reference the affected surfaces ## Verification - `pnpm run typecheck` — green across the workspace (ui, server, shared, plugins) - Full UI suite (`vitest run` in `ui/`, clean worktree at this HEAD): **1593/1595 passing, 223/224 files** — the 2 remaining failures are in `src/components/artifacts/ArtifactCard.test.tsx` and **fail identically on pristine `origin/master`** (pre-existing upstream, unrelated to this branch) - Full server suite (`vitest run` in `server/`, same clean worktree): results in PR checks; flag plumbing covered by instance-settings tests - Targeted post-merge resolution check: `IssueChatThread`, `IssueChatThreadSystemNotice`, `IssueDetail`, `Sidebar`, `ConferenceRoomChatGate`, `OnboardingWizardVariant`, `NewIssueDialog`, `InstanceExperimentalSettings`, `MarkdownEditor` — 172/172 passing - Manual walkthrough: flag OFF (default) → onboarding wizard, task thread, board chat, composer all render the classic UI; flag ON via Settings → Experimental → capsule wizard, conference-room chat, unified composer, status chips active - Screenshots: see below **Flag on/off screenshots** (committed on this branch under `screenshots/PR-8000-*`): | Surface | Flag OFF (classic, default) | Flag ON (experimental) | | --- | --- | --- | | Settings → Experimental |  |  | | Task thread |  |  | | Home / nav |  |  | | Conference Room (flag-ON only surface) | — |  | Capsule onboarding wizard walkthrough screenshots (flag ON) are attached to the Paperclip design/implementation threads; the wizard requires a fresh instance so it is captured via the e2e harness (`tests/e2e/nux-phase4-screenshots.spec.ts`). ## Risks - **Large surface, but gated:** all new behavior sits behind `enableConferenceRoomChat`, default OFF; flag-OFF rendering is locked by frozen `*Classic` forks plus an on/off parity test suite - **Classic forks are frozen at the fork point (`e3aada1d`):** master features added to the live thread component after that point (assignee handoff chips, run status badge, composer mention coach) render in the flag-ON path; the flag-OFF task thread keeps the fork-point behavior until the experiment graduates (forks deleted) or is dropped (forks restored as canonical). Called out for reviewer attention. - **Merge-conflict resolution in `IssueChatThread.tsx`** (commit `21a5642a`) deserves reviewer eyes: master's new handoff/run-status components were kept; the base toast-style no-assignee flow remains replaced by the AlertDialog flow introduced on this branch - Schema/server changes are additive (one optional boolean instance setting); no migrations of existing data ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic) via Claude Code running in the Paperclip agent harness (agent: ClaudeCoder) - Branch implemented across multiple agent sessions on Claude Opus-class models with extended thinking + tool use (file edits, shell, Playwright screenshots); merge/PR session model ID as reported by the harness: `claude-fable-5` (Claude Code CLI) - All code was agent-authored and board-reviewed through Paperclip issue threads (plans, wireframes, confirmations) before merging ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (none required — experimental flag, self-documenting Settings card; noted above) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green (run 3 on `8af3041a`: all 16 gates SUCCESS, incl. e2e and all 4 serialized-suite shards) - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (re-review verdict: Confidence 5/5, “Safe to merge”; all 4 round-1 findings fixed + confirmed resolved; both summary notes addressed in `8af3041a`) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-11 16:32:55 -05:00
3 people	67b22d872f	[codex] Clarify interrupt handoffs and scoped wake semantics (#7855) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue thread is the operator surface where comments, assignee changes, pauses, resumes, and wakeups turn human intent into agent execution. > - Interrupting a live run and handing work to another assignee needs clear semantics so the product does not accidentally keep work alive, wake the wrong participant, or hide why an agent stopped. > - Comment-driven wakes also need strict boundaries so closed, blocked, and dependency-driven work only resumes when there is real actionable input. > - This pull request codifies the interrupt handoff contract, implements backend scheduling behavior, and gives the UI clearer handoff/pause language. > - The benefit is a more inspectable and predictable task lifecycle for both operators and agents. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Paperclip issue: `PAP-10664` / `PAP-10751`. Problem: interrupting or reassigning live agent work could be ambiguous in the UI and backend. Operators needed clearer feedback about whether a handoff wakes an agent, what pause/cancel affects, and when comments should revive execution. The backend also needed stronger tests around comment wake boundaries, retry supersession, and structured agent mention dispatch. Related GitHub PR search found broad workflow-adjacent PRs #5082, #6359, and #4083, but no exact duplicate for this head branch or interrupt-handoff scope. ## What Changed - Added an interrupt handoff semantics document covering destination behavior, wake expectations, and live-run interruption states. - Implemented backend interrupt handoff behavior and comment wake/reopen handling in issue routes/services and heartbeat scheduling. - Hardened structured agent mention dispatch so mentions resolve through the intended dispatch path. - Added UI helpers and components for handoff chips, wake rows, interrupt banners, pause-affects summaries, and composer guidance. - Updated the issue properties assignee picker and issue chat/composer surfaces to make interrupt/reassign behavior clearer. - Added backend, UI utility, component, and Storybook coverage for the new behavior. - Stabilized the new UI component tests with a local `flushSync`-backed act helper matching existing repo practice in this dependency set. - Addressed Greptile feedback by threading historical run `errorCode` through issue-run data and operator-interrupted chat labels. - Addressed Greptile's cancel ordering concern by terminating/deleting in-memory heartbeat processes before cancellation status persistence, with regression coverage for DB update failure. ## Verification - `git diff --check $(git merge-base HEAD origin/master)..HEAD` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/interrupt-handoff.test.ts src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/interrupt-handoff/InterruptHandoffViews.test.tsx --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 4 files / 91 tests passed before the Greptile follow-ups. - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 6 files / 191 tests passed before the Greptile follow-ups. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 1 file / 24 tests passed after the historical `errorCode` follow-up. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 2 files / 11 tests passed after the historical `errorCode` follow-up. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 1 file / 52 tests passed after the cancel ordering follow-up. - Greptile is green for head `272647636287d034bab8d981eaf5305865aa0f96`; the old inline P2 is resolved/outdated. - GitHub Actions, Socket, security-review, and Greptile checks are green for head `272647636287d034bab8d981eaf5305865aa0f96`. The external `security/snyk (cryppadotta)` status was still pending at `https://app.snyk.io/org/cryppadotta/pr-checks/85b3e8f4-04e1-4f8e-9362-899c8148c23c` after a bounded wait. ## Risks - Medium: changes touch issue comments, wake scheduling, and live-run interruption semantics, so regressions could affect when agents resume or stay stopped. - Medium: UI copy and state grouping for assignee changes may need reviewer tuning after product review. - Low migration risk: no database schema migration is included. - The branch was created before the latest `origin/master` commits; reviewers should confirm CI merge-base behavior and resolve any merge conflicts if GitHub reports them. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool use and local command execution enabled. Exact hosted model build and context window were not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Screenshot note: this PR includes Storybook coverage for the new interrupt handoff UI states rather than captured before/after browser screenshots in this PR-creation heartbeat. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-09 21:57:21 -05:00
3 people	468edd8b22	Add workspace file viewer and artifact links (#7681) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is issue-centered, and reviewers often need to inspect files, artifacts, and path references produced during that work. > - Before this branch, workspace-relative paths and artifact file references were not first-class inspectable objects in the board UI. > - Safe file viewing needs shared resource contracts, server-side workspace boundary checks, and UI that opens files without exposing arbitrary host paths. > - The workspace file viewer branch needed to stay as one active PR and be rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` for review. > - This pull request adds the workspace file resource API, issue-page file viewer and browser, markdown file-reference links, and artifact file chips. > - The benefit is that board users can inspect relevant files from issue context while preserving workspace boundaries and auditability. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. Internal Paperclip issues: `PAP-1953`, `PAP-10539`, `PAP-10733`. Problem / motivation: - Board users need to open workspace-relative files mentioned by agents or attached as work-product metadata without switching to a terminal. - The UI needs to support both direct file-path opening and workspace browsing/searching from an issue page. - The server must enforce company access, workspace boundaries, size limits, rate limits, and safe audit logging. Related PR: - Prior closed attempt: #4442 - Single active PR for this branch: #7681 ## What Changed - Added shared workspace file resource types, validators, and workspace-file `resourceRef` metadata validation for work products. - Added server routes/services for resolving, listing, and previewing workspace-relative files with access checks, scan caps, list-specific limits, and audit logging. - Added the issue file viewer provider, sheet, workspace browser, command-palette action, markdown workspace-file autolinks, and artifact file chips. - Updated issue workspace UI and stories/tests for file browsing and workspace file opening. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and updated the existing single PR branch. - Addressed current-head Greptile follow-ups by applying `offset` consistently across search/recent/changed file listings, restoring stopped-service port ownership checks before auto-port reuse, and stabilizing the workspace browser pagination test. ## Verification Current local verification after rebase to `public/master`: - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/work-product.test.ts server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.test.tsx ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.copy.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/context/FileViewerContext.test.ts ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts ui/src/lib/workspace-file-parser.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueWorkspaceCard.test.tsx` - 13 files passed, 197 tests passed. - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx` - 1 file passed, 25 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` - 2 files passed, 90 tests passed. - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed. - Confirmed branch is `0` behind and `46` ahead of current `public/master` after rebase and follow-up commits. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `.github/workflows` changes. - Searched GitHub for duplicate or related workspace file viewer PRs/issues; #4442 is the prior closed attempt and this PR is the single active PR for the branch. - No screenshots were committed; the task explicitly asked not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work. Current remote verification on head `a698a7bc10137baf7d25bd5722e1d6e0343387c1`: - Greptile Review - success, 64 files reviewed, 0 comments added, no unresolved Greptile review threads. - PR workflow `verify` - success. - Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, workspace test shards, serialized server suites, Build, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Socket, and Snyk - success. - `security-review` - neutral, with output saying a draft advisory was filed for maintainer review and is not a merge block. - `commitperclip PR Review / review` - cancelled after the security gate detected flags and timed out while creating/reviewing the advisory. I reran it once and it cancelled the same way; no actionable code/test failure was exposed in the job logs. ## Risks - This is a broad UI/server feature PR, so review needs to pay attention to route authorization, workspace boundary handling, and markdown autolink false positives. - Workspace browsing intentionally caps list results and scan depth; very large workspaces may require users to refine search terms. - Remote workspace preview remains unavailable until remote file-access support is implemented. - The neutral commitperclip security-review advisory needs maintainer review, but the check output says it is not a merge block. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected - check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a Paperclip/Codex local tool-use environment, medium reasoning, with shell/GitHub CLI tool use for branch inspection, verification, rebase, PR update, Greptile review, and CI inspection. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-09 17:17:43 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	35c31ca63f	[codex] Add live-run stop finalization actions (#7679) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators supervise live agent runs from the issue detail chat surface. > - The existing run menu can pause/stop work, but operators sometimes need to stop the active run and immediately finalize the task outcome. > - Doing those as separate actions is slower and easier to leave half-finished. > - This pull request adds explicit live-run finalization actions to the issue chat run menu. > - The benefit is a clearer operator path for stopping a live run and marking the task done or cancelled in one ordered flow. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this internal Paperclip task. Internal task: PAP-10535. ## Subsystem affected ui/ — React + Vite board UI. ## Problem or motivation Operators can stop an active run from the issue detail chat, but finalizing the issue outcome requires a separate status action after the run is stopped. That extra step makes live-run finalization slower and easier to leave incomplete. ## Proposed solution Add explicit issue chat run-menu actions for `Stop and cancel` and `Stop and done`, where each action cancels the active heartbeat run before updating the issue status. ## Alternatives considered Keep the existing two-step flow of cancelling the run first and then changing issue status separately. That preserves current behavior but does not solve the operator workflow gap. ## Roadmap alignment This is a small targeted UI control-plane improvement for supervising live agent work. It does not duplicate a planned core roadmap item found in `ROADMAP.md`. This PR was split from the local `master` branch on June 7, 2026. It covers the UI-only live-run finalization action. I searched GitHub for duplicate/related PRs; the results were broader run-control PRs, not this exact issue-detail menu action. ## What Changed - Added optional `runFinalizationActions` support to `IssueChatThread` assistant message run menus. - Added `Stop and cancel` and `Stop and done` actions on the issue detail chat tab. - Each action cancels the active heartbeat run before updating the issue status. - Added focused UI coverage to assert cancellation happens before the status update. - Addressed Greptile feedback for partial-failure messaging and duplicate run-state invalidation. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` - `git diff --check` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - Storybook screenshot capture for the live-run menu before and after the finalization actions. ## Screenshots Before: existing live-run menu only offered the normal stop action.  After: the live-run menu includes `Stop and cancel` and `Stop and done`.  ## Risks - Medium UI behavior risk: the new actions expose faster finalization controls from the live-run menu. They are gated through the existing issue detail management surface and still use the existing run cancel and issue update APIs. - Low migration risk: no schema, API contract, or dependency changes. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell, git, GitHub CLI, local test execution, and Playwright browser screenshot capture. Exact hosted model variant and context-window size were not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-07 06:26:17 -05:00
4 people	2e74d32871	PAP-10430: split Issue-to-Task copy migration (#7651) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI is the operator surface where users create, assign, monitor, and review work items. > - The product language is moving toward "tasks" for user-facing work items while the internal API and database still use "issues". > - PR #7543 bundled this copy migration with broader information-architecture work, which made the branch too large for Greptile review. > - This pull request peels the Issue-to-Task copy migration into a smaller, independently reviewable change. > - The benefit is clearer user-facing terminology, less agent confusion via the Paperclip skill note, and a smaller PR that Greptile can review. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #7645 Refs #7543 Refs PAP-10430 This PR was split out of #7543 so the Issue-to-Task copy migration can be reviewed separately and the remaining IA PR can fall under Greptile's file limit. ## What Changed - Preserves Scott Tong's original `PAP-57` copy-only commit, with author and co-author credit intact, to rename user-facing "Issues" copy to "Tasks" across the UI while keeping routes/API/internal symbols as `issue`. - Updates onboarding and release-smoke browser selectors from `Create & Open Issue` to `Create & Open Task`. - Adds a terminology note to `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md` clarifying that task and issue refer to the same Paperclip work item. - Resolves the only cherry-pick conflict by keeping current search artifacts support and changing visible search copy to "tasks". ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` passed: 4 files, 66 tests. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - Diff is 80 files, below Greptile's 100-file limit. - Before/after UI copy examples: "Issues" -> "Tasks", "New Issue" -> "New Task", "Create & Open Issue" -> "Create & Open Task". ## Risks - Medium copy-risk: this intentionally changes user-facing terminology broadly while keeping internal issue identifiers and routes unchanged. - Some docs and APIs still say `issue`; the skill note clarifies this so agents do not treat task and issue as separate entities. - Browser-level visual validation is expected from CI because this local container is missing usable browser dependencies. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used Scott Tong authored the original `PAP-57` copy migration, assisted by Claude Opus 4.8 and Paperclip agents per the preserved commit metadata. Codex / GPT-5-class coding agent with shell, GitHub CLI, and repository access performed the PR split, conflict resolution, skill note, and verification. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: scotttong <scott.tong@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-06 10:10:01 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4d5322c821	[codex] Add checkbox confirmation issue interactions (#7649) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is coordinated through issues, comments, interactions, and approval-style handoffs. > - Existing issue-thread interactions could ask questions, suggest tasks, and request confirmation, but they did not support a structured checkbox confirmation payload for choosing one or more options. > - That gap made board/user confirmations harder to validate consistently across API callers, plugin helpers, CLI tooling, and the UI. > - This pull request adds the shared checkbox confirmation contract, server handling, client helpers, and issue-thread UI needed to render and submit structured selections. > - The benefit is that agents can request bounded multi-select confirmations in the same audited issue-thread flow as other Paperclip interactions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No public GitHub issue found for this exact branch. Internal Paperclip issue: PAP-10415 / PAP-10441 requested creating this PR for the checkbox confirmation issue-thread UI component work. - GitHub duplicate search performed for checkbox confirmation / issue-thread interaction PRs; no matching open PR was found. - Related issue search result `#7497` was unrelated company file cleanup work, so it is not linked as a related issue. ## What Changed - Added shared types, validators, constants, and tests for `request_checkbox_confirmation` interactions. - Extended server issue-thread interaction service and routes for checkbox confirmation creation, validation, expiration, and response handling. - Added CLI, MCP, and plugin SDK helper coverage so external callers can create the new interaction shape consistently. - Updated the issue-thread interaction UI to render checkbox confirmations with min/max bounds, selection summaries, stale-target states, and accept/decline flows. - Documented the checkbox confirmation interaction contract in the Paperclip skill/API reference. ## Verification - Rebased cleanly on `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` fetched into `public-gh/master` at `a4fa0eaf5`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Ran focused tests with `NODE_ENV=test`: ```sh NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/issue-subresources.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/project-goal.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts ``` Result: 8 test files passed, 78 tests passed. - CI on latest head `63b9e55` is green. - Greptile Review passed on latest head; GraphQL review-thread check shows all Greptile threads resolved. ## Risks - Medium surface area because the interaction contract touches shared validators, server routes/services, UI rendering, CLI, MCP, plugin SDK helpers, and docs. - No database migrations are included. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repository lockfile policy. - UI screenshots are not attached because the task explicitly requested not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work; component tests cover the new rendering and interaction states. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository file access, shell command execution, git/GitHub CLI tooling, and Paperclip control-plane API access. Exact hosted model ID/context-window metadata is not exposed inside this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-06 08:48:43 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	dbebf30c89	Add low-trust review containment (#7530) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract. > - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads. > - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context, which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer assigned to hostile content. > - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging, route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations. > - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection, preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion, documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks, enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic. > - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot surfaces. Fixes #7531. ## What Changed - Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work products. - Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context. - Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime containment, and quarantine redaction. - Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views. - Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review contract plan under `doc/plans/`. - Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered migration are not broken by the renumbered migration. ## Verification - Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata. - Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not broken. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` - `git diff --check` - GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify, policy/review, Socket, and Snyk. - Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved Greptile review threads. - No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata, and UI preset controls. - Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions. - Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover the current known routes but future integrations must route through the same containment layer. - The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is 5/5. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell and GitHub CLI workflow. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically required - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-05 16:48:02 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	1afa337841	Address Greptile deleted-comment feedback ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-05 03:43:12 +00:00
Dotta	7f70759e61	Redact deleted issue comments	2026-06-05 03:20:46 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	38c185fb8b	[codex] Add agent permissions and controls plan (#6386) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies by keeping task ownership, approvals, and operator control inside one control plane. > - Agent permissions and plugin-hosted company settings sit on the boundary between autonomy and governance. > - V1 needs scoped task assignment rules, plugin extension points, and clearer company access surfaces without weakening company boundaries. > - The branch builds the core authorization service, plugin SDK/host APIs, and UI simplifications needed to support those controls. > - Paperclip EE plugin surfaces were intentionally moved out of this core PR per review direction, so this PR now carries only the public core/plugin infrastructure work. > - The latest updates preserve the PAP-9937 branch changes that belong in this PR, remove the `design/` artifacts, and exclude the experimental `plugin-briefs` package. > - Greptile feedback was applied through the authorization/audit paths and the final cleanup commit was re-reviewed at 5/5 with no unresolved Greptile threads. > - The benefit is safer assignment control with extension hooks for richer permission products while preserving simple defaults for normal operators. ## What Changed - Added scoped task-assignment authorization decisions and routed issue/agent assignment mutations through the authorization service. - Added plugin SDK and host APIs for company settings slots, authorization policy/grant management, assignment previews, and bridge invocation scope propagation. - Simplified core company access UI and moved advanced controls behind plugin-provided settings surfaces. - Added retry-now affordances for blocked issue next-step notices. - Added protected-assignment enforcement for persisted agent/project/issue policies, including explicit-grant fallback behavior. - Added incremental principal-access compatibility backfill for active agent memberships and role-default human permission grants. - Added the Markdown code block wrap action fix from the latest branch changes. - Removed `design/` artifacts from the PR and removed `packages/plugins/plugin-briefs` from the final diff. - Addressed Greptile feedback for plugin actor sanitization, legacy membership handling, audit pagination, unknown grant-scope metadata, and startup test mocks. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 2 files passed, 54 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 3 files passed, 62 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` -> 3 files passed, 28 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` -> passed. - `git diff --check` -> passed. - `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` -> passed. - `CI=true pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` -> passed with no lockfile update. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.interaction.test.tsx` -> 1 test passed. - `git ls-files design packages/plugins/plugin-briefs | wc -l` -> 0. - GitHub CI on `40cd83b53` -> all checks passed, merge state `CLEAN`. - Greptile on `40cd83b53` -> 5/5, 102 files reviewed, 0 comments/annotations added, 0 unresolved review threads. - Confirmed the PR diff contains no `design/`, `packages/plugins/plugin-briefs`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, or `.github/workflows` changes. ## Risks - Medium: task assignment authorization paths are behaviorally stricter for protected/private policy data, so existing plugin-authored policies may block assignment until explicit grants or approval flows are configured. - Medium: plugin-host authorization APIs expand the surface area available to trusted plugins and need careful review for company scoping. - Low: startup now performs a principal-access compatibility backfill, but the migration and runtime backfill use conflict-tolerant inserts. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled workflow with shell, git, 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-22 08:12:52 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	012a738729	Add ordered sub-issue navigation (#5938) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through company-scoped issues, comments, and execution context. > - The issue detail page is the board surface where operators and agents inspect a task in its parent/child workflow. > - Ordered sub-issues need a low-friction way to move through work without returning to the parent list after every issue. > - Existing issue detail navigation only covered sibling transitions and did not continue into a parent issue's first ordered child. > - This pull request adds ordered previous/next navigation for issue detail views and extends it to continue from a parent or last sibling into the first direct child. > - The benefit is a smoother review/execution path through hierarchical work while preserving hidden issue filtering and dependency-aware ordering. ## What Changed - Added `IssueSiblingNavigation` and route-state handling so issue detail footers can link to previous/next ordered issues. - Extended sub-issue ordering helpers to build navigation from siblings plus direct children, including root-parent and last-sibling-to-first-child cases. - Added page, component, and library tests for ordered sibling navigation, child fallback navigation, hidden issues, and link rendering. - Fixed the quicklook blur/click race Greptile found by deferring close until after portaled link clicks can complete, with a regression test. - Polished the navigation landmark label so it remains accurate when the next target is a direct child rather than a sibling. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueLinkQuicklook.test.tsx src/lib/issue-detail-subissues.test.ts src/components/IssueSiblingNavigation.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx --config vitest.config.ts` from `ui/` - 31 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed. - `git diff --check` - passed. - GitHub PR checks on latest head `34046be2` - passed: Greptile Review, verify, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, Snyk, and serialized server shards. - Screenshots: not captured in this heartbeat; this PR is a draft and the changed states are covered by focused component/page tests. ## Risks - Low risk; this is a UI navigation addition with no database or API contract changes. - The main behavioral risk is navigation ordering drift if `workflowSort` expectations change later. - The IssueDetail navigation now waits for child issue loading, which avoids stale child fallback links but can delay footer navigation briefly while data loads. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected - check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with repository tool use and shell 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-13 15:43:51 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	0808b388ee	[codex] Add source-scoped recovery actions (#5599) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where work must end with a clear disposition rather than ambiguous agent liveness. > - Recovery currently detects stalled or missing-next-step issues, but source issue recovery can become split across child recovery issues, blockers, and comments. > - That makes it harder for operators and agents to see who owns recovery and what exact action is needed on the original issue. > - Source-scoped recovery actions give the original issue a first-class active recovery state with owner, evidence, wake policy, and resolution outcome. > - This pull request adds the recovery-action data model, backend reconciliation and resolution APIs, and board UI indicators/actions. > - The benefit is clearer stalled-work recovery without losing source issue context or relying on comments as the liveness path. ## What Changed - Added the `issue_recovery_actions` schema, shared types/constants/validators, and an idempotent `0084_issue_recovery_actions` migration ordered after current `master` migrations. - Updated stranded/missing-disposition recovery to create source-scoped recovery actions, wake the recovery owner on the source issue, and avoid locking the source issue for recovery-action wakes. - Added API support for reading active recovery actions on issue detail/list surfaces and resolving them with restored, blocked, cancelled, or false-positive outcomes. - Require blocked recovery resolutions to have an unresolved first-class blocker, and removed the UI shortcut that could mark recovery blocked without a blocker selection path. - Surfaced recovery indicators/actions in the issue UI, blocker notices, active run panels, issue rows, and Storybook coverage. - Updated docs and focused tests for recovery semantics, ownership, races, stale comments, and UI behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 5 files, 72 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering check. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up verification after blocker-resolution guard: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 3 files, 27 tests passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - UI states are available in `ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`; screenshot capture helper is `scripts/screenshot-recovery-card.cjs`. ## Risks - Medium: recovery behavior changes from child recovery issue ownership toward source-scoped actions, so operators may see stalled-work state in new places. - Migration risk is mitigated by using the next migration slot after `master` and making the table/constraints/index creation idempotent for anyone who previously applied the old branch-local `0082_dizzy_master_mold` migration. - Existing child recovery issue paths are still guarded for already-created recovery issues, but new source-scoped flows should be watched in CI and Greptile review. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use enabled for shell, Git, GitHub, and local test execution. Context window not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-12 09:37:15 -05:00
Devin Foley	0e1a582831	Revert "Add experimental newest-first issue thread" (#5460) ... This is actually bad. Glad it was under experiments.	2026-05-07 16:50:31 -07:00
Devin Foley	a904effb96	Add experimental newest-first issue thread (#5455) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so issue threads are a core operator surface for reviewing work. > - The issue detail page is the place where humans read agent messages, user comments, and execution context together. > - That thread originally rendered oldest-first, which made recent activity harder to see during active review. > - Reversing the thread order changes navigation expectations, timestamp placement, and the "Jump to latest" affordance, so the UI behavior needed to move as a coherent set. > - Because this is a visible core-product behavior shift, it also needed a safe rollout path instead of becoming the default immediately. > - This pull request adds the newest-first issue thread behavior behind an Experimental setting, updates the thread UI to match that mode, and keeps the legacy oldest-first experience unchanged by default. > - The benefit is that reviewers can opt into a more recent-first issue workflow without forcing a global behavior change on every Paperclip instance. ## What Changed - Reversed issue thread rendering so the newest comments and messages appear first when the experiment is enabled. - Moved the plain comment timestamp into the card header in newest-first mode and kept the legacy timestamp placement for oldest-first mode. - Moved the `Jump to latest` control to the bottom of the thread in newest-first mode while leaving the existing top placement for the legacy mode. - Added the `Enable Newest-First Issue Thread` experimental instance setting and wired issue detail to read that toggle. - Added regression coverage for thread order, timestamp placement, jump-button placement, and the issue-detail experiment toggle behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` - Focused checks that also passed during issue review: - `pnpm vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` in `ui/` - `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts` in `server/` - Manual review path: - Enable `Instance Settings > Experimental > Enable Newest-First Issue Thread` - Open an issue with comments/messages and confirm newest activity renders first, timestamps move into the header, and `Jump to latest` sits below the thread - Disable the experiment and confirm the legacy oldest-first behavior returns ## Risks - Low risk: the behavioral change is gated behind an instance-level experimental toggle and defaults off. - The main regression risk is thread navigation drift between the two modes, especially around anchor scrolling and the `Jump to latest` affordance. - There is some UI coupling between issue-detail query state and experimental settings fetches, so future changes in that area should keep both modes covered. - Screenshots are not attached in this PR body; verification is described with automated coverage and manual steps instead. > I checked [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md). This is a scoped issue-thread UX improvement and rollout gate, not a duplicate of a roadmap-level planned core feature. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via the local `codex_local` Paperclip adapter, GPT-5-based coding agent with terminal tool use and local code execution in this repository worktree. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-05-07 16:45:12 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	e400315cbf	Guard assigned backlog liveness (#5428) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The issue graph and liveness recovery system decide whether assigned work is executable or parked > - Assigned issues created without an explicit status could silently land in backlog, making parents look blocked with no productive wake path > - The server, shared validators, recovery analysis, and UI all need to agree on that execution semantic > - This pull request makes assigned issue creation default to `todo`, flags assigned backlog blockers, and surfaces the state in the board > - The benefit is that parked assigned work becomes intentional and visible instead of creating silent liveness stalls ## What Changed - Adds contract tests for assigned issue creation defaults. - Defaults assigned issue creation to `todo` when status is omitted while preserving explicit `backlog` parking. - Exposes `resolveCreateIssueStatusDefault` through shared validators. - Teaches liveness/blocker attention paths to distinguish assigned backlog blockers. - Adds UI notices, row/header badges, and issue detail safeguards for assigned backlog blockers. - Adds Storybook fixtures and execution-semantics documentation for the assigned-backlog behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-assigned-backlog-contract-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueAssignedBacklogNotice.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx` — 50 passed, 23 skipped. - Skipped tests were embedded Postgres suites on this host with the repo skip message: `Postgres init script exited with code null. Please check the logs for extra info. The data directory might already exist.` - Pairwise merge check against the issue-controls PR branch completed without conflicts via `git merge --no-commit --no-ff` in a temporary worktree. - Screenshots for assigned-backlog UI states: [light](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-light.png), [dark](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-dark.png). - Follow-up checks: `pnpm --filter /ui typecheck`; `pnpm --filter /mcp-server build`; `pnpm --filter /mcp-server test`; `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`; focused UI component tests. - Remote PR checks on head `6300b3c`: policy, verify, serialized server shards 1/4-4/4, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Greptile Review, and Snyk all passed. ## Risks - Medium: changes status defaulting for assigned issue creation when the caller omits status. Explicit `backlog` remains supported, and server/shared tests cover both paths. - Medium: liveness classification changes can affect blocker attention labels; focused service and UI tests cover the new assigned-backlog state. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool-enabled Paperclip heartbeat environment. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-07 12:25:26 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d0e9cc76f2	Show workspace changes and stale notices in issue threads (#5356) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The issue thread is the operator's durable audit trail for what changed and why > - Workspace changes and stale disposition notices need to be visible in that same timeline without noisy or misleading rendering > - The local branch already contained backend activity details, timeline conversion, and UI rendering work for those events > - This pull request isolates the issue-thread activity work into a standalone branch against `origin/master` > - The benefit is a focused audit-trail PR that can merge independently of the sidebar/operator UI polish branch ## What Changed - Adds readable workspace-change activity details to issue update activity events. - Surfaces workspace-change events in issue chat/timeline rendering. - Makes the existing issue comment migration idempotent. - Folds and renders stale disposition notices inline so they match activity-log styling and spacing. - Adds focused route, timeline, and issue-thread system notice coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-timeline-events.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx` — 3 files passed, 22 tests passed. - Confirmed the PR changes 9 files and does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-closed-workspace-routes.test.ts` — 1 file passed, 4 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-timeline-events.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` — 5 files passed, 54 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` after adding the Storybook screenshot fixture. - Captured Storybook screenshots for the new UI rendering paths: - Collapsed stale notice + workspace-change row: `docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5356/issue-thread-notices-collapsed.png` - Expanded stale notice details: `docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5356/issue-thread-notices-expanded.png` ### Screenshots Collapsed stale notice with workspace-change row:  Expanded stale notice details:  ## Risks - Moderate risk: this touches issue activity serialization and issue-thread rendering, both of which are central operator surfaces. - Migration risk is low: the only migration change makes an existing migration idempotent. - No new migrations are introduced, so there is no cross-PR migration ordering requirement. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, shell/tool-use enabled, used to split the existing branch, verify the isolated PR branch, and create this PR. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-06 09:00:54 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	a1b30c9f35	Add planning mode for issue work (#5353) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board users and agents coordinate execution. > - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead of immediate implementation work. > - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution comments from planning-oriented issue work. > - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI affordances for standard vs planning mode. > - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed, discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing the normal issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB, shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and adapter heartbeat payloads. - Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for `issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations. - Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested follow-up issues. - Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles. - Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual verification spec for planning-mode surfaces. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts` ## Screenshots Desktop planning detail:  Desktop planning row:  Desktop staged standard toggle:  Mobile planning detail:  Mobile planning row:  ## Risks - Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final numbered migration safely. - Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by defaulting missing values to `standard`. - UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning display and toggle behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with shell/tool use. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-06 07:01:28 -05:00