mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-27 19:35:13 +01:00
14151ff69f310871e98595f54ec05e5fc60701cf
184
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
1cc45086d3 |
feat: use the responsible person's GitHub for shared agent operations (#13005)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Several people can send instructions to the same agent and task. > - A fixed GitHub token in the provider process can keep the first person's access after another person's message is accepted. > - Task ownership cannot select credentials for each accepted instruction or preserve the identity of an operation already in progress. > - This pull request records ordered execution identity contexts and resolves credentials when managed Git, gh, or GitHub tools start. > - The benefit is automatic personal GitHub access for shared agents, with durable continuation rules and no teammate credential fallback. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: orchestration, connection grants, database, runtime adapters, native runners, and run details. **Problem or motivation** A shared agent must use the person whose instructions it has accepted. A queued message must retain its author. A retry or approval without new instructions must retain the originating identity. GitHub must remain optional for ordinary work. **Proposed solution** Persist execution identity separately from task ownership. Give new processes a run-scoped broker capability and token-free managed launchers. Capture identity at operation start. Keep an explicit dedicated-agent grant as an override. Show redacted diagnostics in run details. **Alternatives considered** Per-task ownership, fixed provider tokens, and mutable repository author configuration do not handle accepted steering or concurrent operations. A manual account-selection action would add unnecessary setup to each turn. **Roadmap alignment** This completes the existing Multiple Human Users, MCP Tool Gateway & Apps, Secrets Manager, and Self-healing Runs capabilities. The implementation follows the maintainer-approved plan. Related work: Refs #12843, Refs #12907. Existing proposals #4618 and #8945 cover per-agent or per-worktree author configuration. This change instead follows the accepted human instruction across runtime types. Refs #11831 for governed personal connection delegation; this change preserves connection audience checks and does not use standing delegation as a personal credential fallback. ## What Changed - Add durable, ordered identity contexts and active run references. Preserve message authors through consolidation, steering, retries, delegation, approvals, routines, and restart. - Add an authenticated operation-time GitHub credential broker and local/remote managed git and gh launchers. Keep personal tokens out of the long-lived provider process. - Resolve GitHub gateway and server-side Git operations through the same responsible-person or dedicated-grant selection rules. - Make absent and unavailable GitHub credentials non-blocking at generic startup. Clear host and prior-person credentials. Keep anonymous Git access where supported. - Add run-detail identity history and the dedicated-account warning. Keep task ownership and queue-versus-steer decisions unchanged. - Preserve personal OAuth declarations through connection edits. Retain exact selected grants in the gateway. - Fix continuation races found during real acceptance: verify a warm owner before credential rotation, and wait for bounded durable runner suspension before the next run starts. - Make migrations replay-safe. Retain identity through agent/run deletion, remove it with its company, and clean terminal launcher directories before releasing execution environments. Document coordinated release and rollback. ## Verification - Full workspace typecheck, build, and token gates passed. The complete local suite passed in its normal test groups: 17,120 passing tests, including all 143 serialized server suites. After integrating the newly merged runner API work, full local typecheck and build passed again, along with 890 focused integration tests. All 31 checks on the integrated revision passed, including build, browser E2E, release registry, canary dry run, typecheck, security and all test suites. Greptile is 5/5 with all review threads resolved. - Current focused checks passed: 142 native executor tests, 67 runtime lifecycle tests, 9 durable identity tests, 75 credential/routine tests, 19 low-trust/resumption tests, and the executable migration replay test. - Authenticated browser acceptance with two Paperclip users and two GitHub accounts on one shared native agent passed. Real commits and pushes followed A → B accepted steering → queued A continuation in the same saved conversation. GitHub commit author and committer identities matched all three operations. Both runs succeeded and task ownership stayed unchanged. - Real GitHub MCP calls switched from A to B after accepted steering. A delegated subtask retained its originating identity across a server restart. - Disabling B's GitHub connection left ordinary work successful. Managed gh was unauthenticated and the provider had no inherited GH_TOKEN or GITHUB_TOKEN. - The browser displayed run-detail diagnostics and the exact dedicated-account warning. A final controller-restart check followed by another-person continuation retained the conversation, selected the correct GitHub login and Git author, and removed each terminal launcher directory. - Company-lifetime migration and all five previously failing CI suites passed locally (167 tests). Same-token gateway A → B → A and six broker/launcher boundary tests passed. - Remote callback, launcher, sandbox, and runtime contract tests passed. Both native and legacy Codex completed actual Daytona executions on the integrated revision ([campaign results](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34155056509)). The remote package-manager shim staging regression also passed locally. ## Risks - Deploy the migrations, server broker, launchers, and runner artifacts together. Existing processes finish with their original contract. New managed processes need the broker endpoint for GitHub operations. - Finish or stop new managed executions before rolling application code back. Keep the additive schema and identity history during rollback. - Scripts that require a persistent raw GH_TOKEN must use managed git, gh, or GitHub gateway tools. Run capabilities authorize code executing within that run to acquire its current identity; this is not hostile-code isolation within one execution principal. Managed commands prevent automatic credential carryover; arbitrary code deliberately copying a credential is outside that boundary. - Uncertain steering acknowledgement deliberately holds new credential acquisition until reconciliation. Already-started operations retain their captured identity. - GitHub private access and provider outages can still fail the specific operation that needs them. Dedicated grant failure does not fall back to personal access. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted implementation, review, shell execution, and browser acceptance. The exact model variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Tool use included TypeScript and Rust tests, database integration tests, GitHub CLI, and authenticated browser control. ## 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
0c1e7504c0 |
fix(runner): persist warm Daytona workspaces across turns (#12904)
## Thinking Path > - Daytona preserves a stopped sandbox filesystem, but deleting or replacing a sandbox removes its only remote copy. > - Warm reuse therefore improves latency but cannot be Paperclip's durability boundary. > - The host execution workspace must remain authoritative after every successful turn, while same-run recovery must avoid overwriting unexported remote work. > - Result proposal, workspace export/merge, and terminal completion need a durable, replayable ordering so a crash never starts a duplicate provider turn. > - A paid browser acceptance suite must exercise both legacy Codex and Runner Codex for three real turns on one continuously warm Daytona sandbox. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12901. Runner Codex did not previously export successful Daytona workspace changes back to the authoritative host workspace. That made warm reuse depend on Daytona's remote filesystem and left deleted/replacement sandboxes without a reliable reconstruction path. The existing paid fixture also lacked a focused three-turn continuity case for both Codex adapters. ## What Changed - Persist versioned, atomic native workspace-sync descriptors and durable seeds in `PAPERCLIP_HOME`, without credentials or a database migration. - Classify fresh, warm, replacement, and same-run-recovery workspace preparation explicitly; ambiguous lease/root/digest evidence fails closed. - Finalize native workspace export/merge after semantic result proposal and before run completion, with idempotent replay that never submits a second provider turn. - Surface legacy Codex workspace restoration failures instead of masking them, while preserving an earlier provider error when both fail. - Keep healthy reusable Daytona leases warm for legacy and native adapters, stamp finalized workspace generations, and retain existing cleanup behavior for per-turn or unhealthy leases. - Preserve Runner Codex's provider process/session across warm turns, including bounded post-terminal tail draining and exact authority rotation. - Add the exact paid `daytona-warm-continuity` matrix: - `legacy-codex × daytona × warm-three-turn` - `runner-codex × daytona × warm-three-turn` - Drive all three turns through the browser, verify ordered file continuity and stable lease/workspace/runtime identities, capture per-turn timings, and delete the sandbox immediately after assertions. - Document `pnpm test:e2e:runner -- --suite daytona-warm-continuity`; no package script was added. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` — passed, including migration safety (no migration added) - Focused server/runner Vitest coverage — 144 passed - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit` — 114 passed - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` — passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:codex` — 66 passed, 1 helper ignored - `native-session-executor.test.ts` — 139 passed, including safe fail-closed cleanup after remote runner identity capture failure - Paid local browser acceptance, exact post-rebase Linux/amd64 runner binary: - Runner Codex — passed in 1.7m; 3 runs; lease outcomes `created, resumed, resumed`; 10/10 matchers; cleanup passed - Legacy Codex — passed in 2.7m; 3 runs; lease outcomes `created, resumed, resumed`; 10/10 matchers; cleanup passed - [Protected paid GitHub Actions campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34026735033) against `7da42a91b95fa7fb2df126668ef7e37afb3b2b9d` — passed 2/2: - Runner Codex — 3 runs; lease outcomes `created, resumed, resumed`; evidence and cleanup passed - Legacy Codex — 3 runs; lease outcomes `created, resumed, resumed`; evidence and cleanup passed - Merge/enforcement, S3 history, and Pages publication jobs passed - Paid result artifacts were scanned for both provider credentials; neither secret was present. - Current PR checks — 31 passed, 1 expected Storybook skip; Greptile 5/5; Superagent security scan passed - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed - Confirmed no `package.json`, lockfile, migration, or SQL changes. ## Risks - Workspace synchronization now sits on the terminal-success path, so a remote export failure deliberately prevents false success. Retryable state retains its lease/seed; loss of the only unexported remote copy fails closed. - Warm provider reuse has strict identity and quiescence checks. Mismatched or ambiguous evidence blocks reuse rather than risking concurrent provider work. - The paid suite incurs Daytona and Codex cost only in the existing protected scheduled/manual workflow and explicitly destroys its sandbox after each cell. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 agentic reasoning, repository inspection, real browser E2E execution, Rust/TypeScript test execution, and GitHub Actions diagnostics. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked an existing issue or described the issue in-PR - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have documented the dedicated suite invocation without adding a package script - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the current revision - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on the current revision - [x] I will address all reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
|
505e7b40fc |
fix: guard listComments against non-UUID afterCommentId to prevent 500 errors (#8695)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is an open-source app for managing AI agents > - The issue history subsystem stores comments per issue, with cursor-based pagination via the `after` query parameter > - `GET /issues/:id/comments?after=<commentId>` looks up the anchor comment by UUID to get its created_at timestamp > - When agents store an incorrect or truncated comment ID (e.g. `670427ab` instead of `670427ab-e0ae-4a54-959e-2b13a2e33d14`), Postgres throws `invalid input syntax for type uuid` before the anchor-not-found guard can execute > - This surfaces as an unhandled 500 and causes agents to fail when doing incremental comment reads on any issue > - This pull request adds a UUID validation guard in `listComments` using the already-imported `isUuidLike` helper > - The benefit is that invalid cursors get a clean empty-array response instead of a 500, matching what already happens when a valid UUID simply isn't found ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #2612 (a different 500 on the same `after=` cursor path, fixed earlier; this PR covers the malformed-cursor case that remains). **What happened?** `GET /issues/:id/comments?after=<value>` returns a 500 when `after` is not a UUID. The route trims the query value and passes it straight to the anchor lookup, so Postgres raises `invalid input syntax for type uuid: "670427ab"` before the anchor-not-found guard can run. Any agent that stored a truncated or malformed comment ID as its pagination cursor gets stuck in a 500 loop on that issue. **Expected behavior** A cursor that cannot name a comment behaves like a cursor that names a missing comment: the endpoint returns `[]`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Pick any issue id on a running instance. 2. Call `GET /api/issues/<issue-id>/comments?after=670427ab` (8 hex characters instead of a full UUID). 3. Observe a 500 with `PostgresError: invalid input syntax for type uuid: "670427ab"`, where a full-but-unknown UUID such as `00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000` returns `[]`. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at the time this PR was opened (June 2026). The `listComments` anchor lookup in `server/src/services/issues.ts` is unchanged on current `master`, so the failure still reproduces there. **Deployment mode** Local dev (`pnpm dev`). Not deployment-specific: the failure is in the server's comment-listing service, so it reproduces in every mode. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/issues.ts` — added `if (!isUuidLike(afterCommentId)) return [];` guard in `listComments` before the DB anchor lookup, using the already-imported `isUuidLike` helper ## Verification ```bash # Start the dev server pnpm dev # Pass a truncated UUID — should return [] instead of 500 curl -s "http://localhost:3100/api/issues/<any-valid-issue-id>/comments?after=670427ab" # Expected: [] # Pass a valid full UUID that doesn't exist — should also return [] curl -s "http://localhost:3100/api/issues/<any-valid-issue-id>/comments?after=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000" # Expected: [] # Pass a valid full UUID that exists — should return comments after that cursor curl -s "http://localhost:3100/api/issues/<any-valid-issue-id>/comments?after=<real-comment-uuid>" # Expected: array of comments ``` ## Risks Low risk. The change only adds an early-return guard for values that are provably invalid UUIDs. The code path for valid UUIDs is unchanged. The existing behavior for anchor-not-found (returning `[]`) is preserved for invalid UUIDs, which is the correct semantic (cursor not found → no comments after it). ## Model Used Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`) via Paperclip CTO agent, tool use + code execution mode, 200K context window. ## 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 - [ ] 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 CTO <cto@paperclip.ai> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
87d05e194b |
feat(work-products): add rich cards and run artifact inventory (#12717)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies. > - Agent outputs must remain visible after a run and easy to inspect from a task. > - The thread and artifact inventory need one consistent rich-card vocabulary. > - Run uploads also need durable artifact registration and producing-run context. > - Reviewers need deterministic examples for each rich-card kind and state. > - This pull request adds the shared presentation, registration, inventory, and Storybook review coverage. > - The benefit is a complete output path that reviewers can inspect without seeded data. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This change improves work-product presentation in task threads and the task Artifacts tab. **Subsystem affected** The change affects shared work-product contracts, the runner diff path, server attachment and work-product services, GitHub metadata refresh, the React board UI, and Storybook. **Current behavior** The thread used generic cards. Some files uploaded by a run existed only as message attachments. The Artifacts tab showed a flat list without run context or filters. Storybook showed only one resting card per kind. **Proposed behavior** The thread uses rich cards for supported work-product types. Each run-produced file registers one attachment-backed artifact work product. The Artifacts tab groups outputs by run and supports filters. Storybook shows every kind and requested state, PR lifecycle states, stats variants, truncation, mobile layout, and message-tail media. **Reason and benefit** Users can identify outputs quickly. Reviewers can inspect all card permutations without creating task data. **Breaking changes** None. The metadata fields and automatic artifact registration are additive. Existing attachments and work products keep their current behavior. ## What Changed - Added a shared rich work-product card with kind-specific content and a compact inventory variant. - Added pull-request and commit diff metadata plus bounded GitHub state refresh. - Added media strips and typed file chips to message-tail attachments. - Registered each run-produced attachment as an artifact work product in the same server transaction. - Grouped task artifacts by run with agent and timestamp headings. - Added type and run filters, image thumbnails, compact cards, and a company Artifacts link. - Added a Storybook kind-by-state matrix with stats variants for all eight visual kinds. - Added PR open, draft, merged, and closed examples, long-title truncation, an exact 375-pixel viewport, and message-tail overflow coverage. - Closed reconciled runtime work products when the linked runtime stops or disappears, so the card shows `Stopped` instead of `Unhealthy`. ### Screenshots Before: one resting card per kind.  After: the kind and state matrix.  After: message-tail media at 375 pixels.  [Open the Storybook evidence viewer](https://pages.paperclip.ing/rich-work-product-storybook-20260902/). The earlier artifact inventory comparison remains available in the [artifact inventory viewer](https://pages.paperclip.ing/rich-artifacts-inventory-proof-20260902/). ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - `pnpm build-storybook` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/work-product-runtime-reconciliation.test.ts` passed with 5 tests. - Chromium visual checks passed at desktop and 375-pixel widths. - All 30 latest-head GitHub checks passed. One unrelated annotation test was flaky and passed on its single retry. - Greptile passed at 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. ## Risks - Low risk. The Storybook change adds review fixtures only. The runtime fix changes read-time reconciliation without database writes. - The matrix is intentionally large so every permutation stays visible in one review surface. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This work does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 and GPT-5.6-sol across this pull request. Reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. The context-window size is not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My public branch name describes the change and contains no internal task id - [x] I have run tests locally and the changed-path tests 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 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> |
||
|
DottaandDev Agent
|
25cf079ec5 |
feat(runner): add Codex-native application integration (#12591)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner package is useful only when the application can start, observe, and recover a native Codex run safely. > - Existing direct adapters must keep their current execution and finalization paths. > - The application boundary therefore needs additive persistence, authorization, coordination, and recovery behind an explicit experimental adapter. > - This pull request adds that Codex-only boundary without activating generalized providers, remote environments, or the later task/SDK surfaces. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Shared contracts, database persistence, adapter utilities, server native-runtime services, and the experimental Paperclip Runner adapter. **Problem or motivation** The already-landed runner package has a qualified Codex path, but the application needs durable native-run state, guarded runtime selection, authenticated coordination, tool security, finalization, and recovery before the experimental adapter can be exercised safely. **Proposed solution** Add a Codex-only `paperclip_runner` application path behind the existing default-off native-runner setting. Bind native state and coordination to company/run identity, preserve persisted-run recovery, and leave every direct adapter on its existing legacy execution path. **Alternatives considered** The earlier stack boundary introduced a generalized executor and remote-environment lifecycle here. That made this PR depend on implementations in higher PRs and changed reusable sandbox behavior globally. Those pieces are now deferred together to #12592. **Roadmap alignment** ROADMAP.md does not list a conflicting native-runner integration project. This change adds the application boundary for the existing Runner architecture. ## What Changed - Added native run/result/finalization/provider-trace persistence, shared validators, and idempotent migration/replay coverage. - Added guarded Codex-only runtime selection, authenticated PRP coordination, recovery, finalization, and interaction services. - Added run/company-bound tool-gateway authorization, credential redaction, SSRF protections, and replay-safe behavior. - Added the explicit `paperclip_runner` adapter behind the default-off rollout setting. - Preserved legacy answered-question wake projection and direct-adapter execution/finalization paths. - Hardened cancellation so only owned in-memory child processes are signaled; persisted recycled PIDs/process groups are never trusted. - Retained the narrow Claude ACPX isolated-context security follow-up discovered after #12590. - Deferred the generalized executor, provider ingress, remote lifecycle, SDK/lab/eval work, release-process changes, and lockfile. ## Verification - Changed-file delta against `master`: 133 files. - GitHub Actions is the authoritative verification environment for this PR. - Full CI, security, and Greptile review will run on this lowest unmerged stack PR. - Local tests/build/typecheck were not run because this checkout is resource constrained. - Static diff/reference checks pass, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged. ## Risks - This touches central heartbeat and agent-route code, so legacy compatibility is the primary risk. - Runtime selection remains Codex-only and explicit; direct Codex, Claude, OpenCode, process, HTTP, and plugin adapters remain on their existing paths. - Fresh native starts fail closed while the rollout flag is off; persisted native records remain readable and recoverable. - Cancellation, company/run binding, tool calls, status decisions, and completion writes are guarded or replay-safe. > 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. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with repository tools, code execution, and parallel agent review. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — GitHub Actions is authoritative for this resource-constrained checkout - [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 risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI and security gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open actionable findings - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge ## Stack - Position: 3 of 5 overall; lowest of 3 currently unmerged - Base: `master` - Previous: [#12590](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12590), qualified Claude ACPX runtime — merged - Next: [#12592](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12592), generalized Codex executor, task experience, and developer SDKs --------- Co-authored-by: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
bc9ba7cd26 |
feat(runner): project native runs into task threads (#12321)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The experimental Paperclip Runner can execute a guarded Codex run and persist provider-neutral events. > - The task page still reads direct-adapter transcripts and cannot present those native events. > - Structured runner questions must also use the existing task interaction experience. > - Runtime selection must use the persisted run mode, not an adapter name or a current feature flag. > - This pull request projects native events and questions into the existing task thread. > - Direct adapters keep their existing transcript, composer, interaction, and finalization paths. > - The benefit is a complete native Codex task thread without a behavior change for existing adapters. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12202. This pull request replaces that stale implementation on current `master`. **What happened?** The server persists native runner events and structured input requests. The task page only consumes direct-adapter transcripts. A native run therefore cannot present a complete transcript, usage, or question flow through the normal task experience. **Expected behavior** Native runs project persisted provider-neutral events into the existing task thread. Native structured questions use the existing interaction card. Direct adapters retain their current behavior. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable the experimental runner. 2. Start a native Codex run that emits progress, usage, a structured question, and a final reply. 3. Open the task page. 4. Observe that the direct-adapter transcript path cannot project the native event records. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at `67f9867bc`. ## What Changed - Add the canonical structured-question validator and shared contract exports. - Materialize native input requests as existing task interactions. - Validate native answers and deliver them through the durable question-response receipt. - Resume the original PRP request with an idempotent `request.resolve` command. - Project native messages, tool activity, cumulative usage, and final replies into the existing transcript model. - Propagate persisted `runtimeMode` to the task page and select native handling only for `runtimeMode: "native"`. - Expire pending interactions through the shared issue service on every terminal transition, including decisions, stalled reviews, tree control, and pipeline retry cleanup. - Queue native run cancellation while a transaction is open and execute it only after the owning transaction commits. - Keep nonterminal and non-runner issue paths on their existing service call shapes and behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed, including the Rust runner release build and protocol/catalog drift gates. - Focused native-thread and lifecycle suites — 18 files and 481 tests passed during review. - `issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts` — 19/19 passed after the final transactional-queue expectation update. - `issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` — 87/87 passed in the final isolated compatibility rerun. - GitHub Actions — policy, build, canary, typecheck/release registry, 5 serialized server shards, 8 general-test shards, 3 browser shards, and both aggregate gates passed on `7793f3193`. - Security — Snyk, Socket Project Report, Socket PR Alerts, and Superagent passed. - Greptile — 5/5 on `7793f3193`; all actionable review threads resolved. - `git diff --check` — passed. - Diff against `master`: 44 files. ## Compatibility Boundary - Native transcript polling only runs when the persisted run reports `runtimeMode: "native"`. - Missing or legacy runtime modes continue through `useLiveRunTranscripts`. - Legacy questions keep the existing optional free-text choice. - Native closed select sets can suppress that legacy fallback. - Terminal cleanup uses the same issue service for native and legacy interactions; only a bound native question schedules a native run cancellation. - Native cancellation happens after transaction commit, so failed or rolled-back writes do not cancel a still-valid run. - The durable delivery service checks the original native request before it considers a continuation run. - This pull request adds no migration, dependency, workflow, manifest, or lockfile change. ## Risks The main risk is routing a direct-adapter task through native handling or changing terminal issue behavior. The implementation selects the native path only from persisted runtime facts, retains the existing nonterminal call shape, and schedules native cancellation only for a validated bound native question after commit. Focused and repository-wide tests cover both paths. Native requests remain bound to the company, issue, run, and agent; answers are validated, durable, and idempotent across reconnects. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The client does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the affected local tests and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated the compatibility notes for this change - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I addressed all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6244e4cf32 |
feat(apps): add Composio and Gmail connectors (#12342)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - App connections need both direct providers and managed provider hubs. > - The grant layer now defines safe credential ownership. > - Composio needs parent and child connection lifecycle rules, and Gmail needs governed setup. > - This pull request adds both connector families on the grant foundation. > - The benefit is broader app access without weakening credential isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 4 of 11. It depends on stack 3 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add Composio parent and child connection support. - Add Gmail connection setup and governance. - Preserve credential paths and remove duplicate binding declarations. - Cascade Composio pause and restore actions to child connections. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` - Result: 164 tests passed. - `pnpm build` ## Risks - Parent lifecycle changes can affect every Composio child. - The service restores only children whose provider accounts remain active. - Credential binding paths are normalized before secret resolution. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4d2af732ae |
feat(runner): add native persistence contracts (#12169)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs need durable records so Paperclip can explain results and final status changes. > - The current heartbeat tables support direct adapters, but they do not model native runner evidence. > - The runner transport and server coordinator must share a strict finalization contract before they write production data. > - This pull request adds that contract and its additive database boundary. > - It does not select the Paperclip Runner or change any existing adapter execution path. > - The benefit is a reviewable persistence layer that preserves all current behavior and supports later guarded integration. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11962 Refs #12129 ## What Changed - Add native run result, finalization, completion, assessment, status decision, and status effect tables. - Add inert native metadata to heartbeat runs and events. Keep `legacy` as the default runtime mode. - Bind each evidence relationship to one company, issue, run, contract, result, assessment, and decision with composite constraints. - Add a strict `paperclip.native_finalization.v1` shared type and validator. - Preserve database functions, triggers, and the unique indexes required by foreign keys in JavaScript backups. - Add migration, backup, mixed-owner denial, validator, and direct-adapter compatibility tests. - Document the new records and their ownership rules. ## Verification - Run `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Run `pnpm build`. - Run `pnpm db:generate`. The schema output and migration safety checks remain current. - Run `PAPERCLIP_PSQL_PATH=/Applications/Postgres.app/Contents/Versions/latest/bin/psql pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/native-finalization.test.ts packages/db/src/client.test.ts packages/db/src/backup-lib.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`. All 52 tests pass. - The full local `pnpm test:run` run completed 4,688 tests. It found 30 existing macOS test-environment failures. A serial rerun with the canonical `/private/tmp` path reduced those failures to six existing listener-diagnostics and skill-browser cases. None of those suites use files in this change. - The full Linux GitHub Actions matrix passes. This includes all general-server, serialized-server, workspace, browser, build, typecheck, canary, and aggregate verification jobs. - Greptile passes at 5/5. Contributor trust, Superagent, Socket, and Snyk pass with no finding from this change. - Storybook visual regression skips by path because this pull request has no UI or Storybook change. - Confirm that the diff contains 25 files. Confirm that it contains no workflow or `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes. ## Risks - The migration adds tables, columns, indexes, a function, a trigger, and ownership constraints. It does not remove or rename existing data. - Composite foreign keys reject mixed-company, mixed-issue, and mixed-run evidence even when each ID exists. - The status-version trigger runs only when an issue status changes. Backup tests confirm that restore retains this trigger and its dependencies. - Native source identifiers are unique when present. Legacy event rows remain unchanged. - This change does not add a unique run sequence constraint. The later native writer must allocate its sequence atomically before that invariant can be safe. - Existing adapters keep their current execution and finalization paths. New heartbeat runs default to `legacy` mode. > 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. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed. 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> |
||
|
zach-hermesandPaperclip
|
8db826d18a |
fix(issues): cycle-aware issue_blockers_resolved after terminal reset (#11979)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents resume blocked work through the `issue_blockers_resolved` wake when every durable blocker is `done` > - That wake is level-triggered: one ready state produces one wake, shared by the issue update route, workspace-finalize backstop, and periodic liveness backstop > - The ready-state key hashed only the dependent id and blocker set, so it ignored a later reset from a terminal status back into `blocked` > - After that reset, completing the same blockers found the previous cycle's completed wake and suppressed the new continuation > - This pull request folds the dependent's `blockedTransitionAt` into the ready-state key, with compatibility for old no-cycle keys > - The benefit is that a reset blocked issue receives exactly one new wake without watchdog status repair or a change to blocker edges ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/5985 Refs: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/6555 Related: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/8009 Related: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/11570 This change does not auto-flip `blocked` to `todo`. The wake is the continuation. It also does not treat cancelled blockers as resolved. **What happened?** A blocked assigned issue that was previously `done` or `cancelled`, then reset to `blocked` on the same blocker set, did not receive `issue_blockers_resolved` when those blockers later returned to `done`. A completed wake from the previous cycle reused the same level-triggered state key and suppressed the new wake. Route-time emit, workspace-finalize backstop, and periodic liveness backstop all used that helper. **Expected behavior** When every durable blocker is `done`, a currently `blocked` assigned issue must receive exactly one valid `issue_blockers_resolved` continuation for the current blocked cycle. A completed wake from an earlier cycle must not suppress it. Watchdog `blocked` → `todo` repair must not be required. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign issue B, block it on issue A, mark A `done`, and let B receive `issue_blockers_resolved`. 2. Mark B `done`. 3. Reset A to `todo` and reset B from `done` to `blocked` on the same A id. This refreshes `blockedTransitionAt`. 4. Mark A `done` again. 5. Observe that B stays `blocked` with no new `issue_blockers_resolved` wake. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at `cc42a67e7e9e8eb183097afc8ff4ebfa694fb3e0` **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server ## What Changed - Extend `buildIssueBlockersResolvedWakeStateKey` so the digest includes the dependent's `blockedTransitionAt` as UTC ISO-8601, or `none` - Thread `blockedTransitionAt` through `listWakeableBlockedDependents`, both route emit sites, and both backstop candidate selects - Keep compatibility: new cycle-aware keys suppress in idempotent statuses; old no-cycle state keys suppress when in-flight, or when completed and `requestedAt >= blockedTransitionAt` (or the cycle is null); legacy per-edge keys stay in-flight-only - Do not rewrite `blockedByIssueIds`, auto-flip `blocked` → `todo`, or delete historical wake rows - Add helper, route, restore, chained dependent, and backstop tests for the reset cycle ## Verification ``` pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run \ src/__tests__/issue-dependency-wakeups-routes.test.ts \ src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts \ src/services/issue-dependency-wakeups.ts \ src/services/issue-dependency-wakeups.test.ts ``` Local result: all named tests passed (helper 9, routes 8, liveness 26). ## Risks - Deploy overlap: in-flight and same-cycle completed wakes still exist under the old no-cycle key. The lookup keeps those as suppressors so this change does not enqueue a duplicate in the current cycle. - A completed old-key wake from before the current `blockedTransitionAt` no longer suppresses. That is the intended fix. - No schema migration. Rollback is revert of this PR. - This does not change cancelled-blocker semantics or watchdog `blocked` → `todo` repair. > 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 - Provider: xAI - Model: Grok 4.6 - Tool use and code execution: yes - Human-authored: no ## 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> |
||
|
|
417336f8be |
fix(workspaces): attach PR preparation to existing branches (#11703)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Execution workspaces isolate an agent task from the primary checkout. > - Pull request preparation can need a branch that already contains completed work. > - The workspace policy could not require an exact existing branch. > - Workspace cleanup also treated worktree creation as branch ownership. > - This pull request adds an exact existing-branch policy and separate branch ownership metadata. > - The benefit is safe pull request preparation that preserves every existing commit and operator-owned branch. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A pull request preparation run could not pin its execution workspace to an exact existing branch. Workspace reuse and cleanup could also confuse worktree creation with branch ownership. **Expected behavior** The run must attach only to the requested branch in an isolated Git worktree. It must fail if the branch is missing, busy, or inconsistent. Cleanup must not delete a branch that Paperclip does not own. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a branch that contains completed work. 2. Configure a pull request preparation task to use that branch. 3. Start the task and observe that the prior policy cannot require the exact branch. **Paperclip version or commit** This behavior reproduces on the base revision before this pull request. **Deployment mode** Local development with isolated Git worktrees. ## What Changed - Add `existingBranch` to the execution workspace policy and shared validation contracts. - Require `existingBranch` to use an isolated Git worktree and reject conflicting branch templates. - Attach to the exact branch without creating, renaming, resetting, or deleting it. - Track branch ownership separately from worktree creation and use that ownership during cleanup. - Return HTTP 422 for invalid existing-branch settings on every issue-producing route. - Add a bounded repair script for existing pull request preparation tasks. - Add focused policy, route, heartbeat, runtime, and ready-comment tests. - Document the exact-branch behavior and safety rules. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-existing-branch-validation-status.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts server/src/services/workspace-runtime-exposure.test.ts server/src/services/workspace-runtime-ready-comment.test.ts` passed 335 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed for all workspace projects. - `pnpm test:run` passed 4,431 tests. Two unrelated embedded-Postgres setup hooks timed out under aggregate load. Their isolated rerun passed 74 tests. - `pnpm build` passed for all workspace projects. - The two review regressions passed with 139 unrelated tests skipped. - All latest-head CI gates passed after one unrelated timing-sensitive test passed on rerun. - Greptile scored the latest head 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks - Invalid workspace settings now return HTTP 422 instead of a generic validation response. - The exact branch must already exist and must not be checked out by another worktree. - The new policy fails closed when it cannot prove branch identity or ownership. - This change has no database migration. > 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 from the GPT-5 family assisted with this change. The runtime did not expose its exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used high-reasoning mode, repository tools, shell execution, 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
cb0009b097 |
fix: preserve recovery retries across restarts (#11817)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The control plane must keep each active issue on a clear execution or recovery path. > - A missing issue disposition can require more than one bounded repair attempt. > - A server restart could lose that repair path or move source ownership to the recovery owner. > - A parked or expired retry could also make the user interface show a false healthy state. > - Concurrent recovery loops must not schedule the same repair attempt twice. > - This pull request keeps retry state durable, makes scheduling atomic, and keeps source ownership stable. > - The benefit is that recovery continues after a restart and operators see the correct state. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A run that ended without a valid issue disposition could lose its repair path after a server restart. Manager recovery could also change the source owner. In addition, a parked or expired retry could make the issue look healthy when no active work existed. Concurrent reconciliation could also schedule the same repair attempt twice. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must keep bounded source and manager repair attempts across restarts. Recovery ownership must stay separate from source issue ownership. The server and user interface must report only a live retry as active work. Each repair attempt must be scheduled at most once per company. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start an agent run on an issue. 2. End the run without a valid issue disposition. 3. Let the first repair attempt schedule a retry. 4. Restart the server, let the retry time pass without a live run, or start two reconciliation loops together. 5. Observe that the repair path can stop, the issue can show a false healthy state, or duplicate retries can be created. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem existed on `master` before candidate head `d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`. **Deployment mode** The problem affects self-hosted servers and local builds that use automatic recovery. ## What Changed - Persist bounded source-owner and manager repair lineages with stable fingerprints and retry limits. - Resume incomplete disposition repairs after a server restart. - Keep recovery ownership separate from source issue ownership and enforce source mutation authority. - Project live retry evidence into issue and blocker summaries. - Show recovery owner, return owner, attempt count, and retry state in the board user interface. - Treat expired or parked retries as attention states unless a queued or running attempt exists. - Atomically deduplicate disposition-repair wake requests with a company-scoped partial unique index. - Reuse the winning run when concurrent reconciliation loses the uniqueness race, without duplicate scheduling activity. - Honor disabled on-demand wake policy before recovery scheduling and again before delayed retry promotion. - Keep the new index migration safe for lagging seeded databases that already contain the index. - Add server and user interface tests for recovery, restart, ownership, retry, concurrency, and blocker states. - Update the implementation and execution semantics documents. ## Verification - Focused server recovery and ownership suites: 282 tests passed on the repaired base candidate. - Focused user interface recovery suites: 128 tests passed on the repaired base candidate. - Atomic-deduplication schema and recovery suites: 111 tests passed on the first Greptile repair. - Recovery and scheduled-retry wake-policy suites: 126 tests passed at `d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`. - The exact lagging-source migration-order test passed after the index migration became idempotent: 1 test passed and 62 unrelated tests were skipped. - `@paperclipai/db` and `@paperclipai/server` typechecks passed at the current head. - Migration generation and migration safety checks passed for migration `0226_tan_colossus.sql`. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed on the repaired base candidate. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the repaired base candidate. - `pnpm build` passed on the repaired base candidate. - `pnpm test:run` passed 4,540 tests on the repaired base candidate. Four fixed-port cases met listeners that already existed on the host. - The two unchanged fixed-port files passed in an isolated network namespace: 129 tests passed and 27 tests were skipped. - Independent Security and QA reviews approved `63c0423aab54c66f2293a20b0fb3f3b013ee3ba8`; exact-head re-review is required after automated checks settle on `d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`. ## Risks - Recovery orchestration affects issue liveness and ownership. The new paths use bounded attempts, stable fingerprints, row locks, authority checks, and database uniqueness. - A conservative attention state can show more warnings when a scheduled retry has no queued or running attempt. It does not hide stopped work. - Migration `0226_tan_colossus.sql` creates a partial unique index on a known-large table. Migrations run transactionally, so `CONCURRENTLY` is unavailable. The matching disposition-repair key namespace is introduced by this release, so deployed databases have no matching rows before the index is added. > 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 from the GPT-5 model family used agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime did not expose the exact model ID or context window. - Anthropic Claude Opus 5 used a 1M context window, tool use, and code execution for part of the user interface repair, as recorded in the commit 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 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 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
SamandSami Rusani
|
14fd8aee36 |
fix(server): flag truncated issue descriptions (#4771)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - The issue list API is one of the surfaces API consumers use to synchronize issue metadata. > - The list endpoint intentionally returns a bounded `description` preview so large descriptions do not bloat list responses. > - Before this change, that preview looked like a complete field value because the response did not say whether it had been shortened. > - That made round-trip clients vulnerable to accidentally PATCHing a preview back over the full description. > - This pull request keeps the existing preview behavior but adds an explicit `descriptionTruncated` flag. > - The benefit is backwards-compatible visibility into truncated issue descriptions, so clients can avoid data-loss workflows. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #4758. Related PR: #4792 also targets #4758, but it includes unrelated logger changes and currently has separate review/security concerns. This PR keeps the fix scoped to the issue-list description truncation API behavior. ## What Changed - Added `descriptionTruncated` to the issue list projection when `description` exceeds the existing 1200-character preview limit. - Exposed `descriptionTruncated?: boolean` on the shared `Issue` type. - Added service tests for truncated descriptions, exact-limit descriptions, null descriptions, and multibyte-safe preview truncation. ## Verification June 18, 2026 refresh after rebasing onto current `origin/master`: - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm typecheck` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` - GitHub PR checks are green on head `12e828e6`. Earlier pre-review verification also included `pnpm test`. ## Risks - Low risk. This is an additive API response field; existing clients can ignore it. - The list endpoint still returns the same bounded `description` preview. Clients that need full text should continue fetching the issue detail, but can now detect when that is necessary. - No database migration or UI behavior change. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5, via Codex desktop on April 29, June 15, and June 18, 2026. Used tool-assisted repository inspection, code editing, local test execution, GitHub CLI workflows, and PR review follow-up. Exact context window size is not surfaced by the tool. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A: no UI change) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A: additive API field covered by tests) - [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: Sami Rusani <sr@samirusani> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
10d0555189 |
fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. **What happened?** Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. **Expected behavior** Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9e9f744f58 |
Show blocker links in the task chat (#11456)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps operators supervise agent work through tasks and task threads. > - The redesigned task thread shows the current work and its state. > - A blocked task did not show the dependency that prevented progress. > - Operators had to leave the thread to find the direct and final blockers. > - This pull request adds compact blocker links at the top and bottom of the task thread. > - The benefit is that operators can identify and open the relevant tasks without adding a large notice to the thread. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The redesigned task thread did not show which task directly blocked the current task or which task ultimately blocked its dependency chain. **Subsystem affected** `server/`, `packages/shared/`, and `ui/` task-blocker presentation. **Current behavior** A blocked task can open in the redesigned thread without a visible dependency link at the top or bottom of the conversation. **Proposed behavior** Show one compact amber row for the direct blocker. Show a second row for the selected final blocker when one exists. Render the rows at both ends of the thread. **Reason and benefit** Operators can see the reason for the blocked state and open the relevant task from the conversation. The compact rows preserve thread density. **Breaking changes** None. The new blocker-attention fields are optional. Existing clients remain compatible. ## What Changed - Added a compact task-chat component for direct and selected final blocker links. - Added the blocker rows to the top and bottom of populated and empty task threads. - Added link-ready blocker-attention details so an intermediate selected task stays on its correct direct chain. - Included blocker-link changes in the thread content key so pinned threads follow a newly added bottom row. - Added component, scrolling, server contract, and Storybook coverage for the new states. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts` (38 tests passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks - Low risk. The rows only render while the task status is `blocked` and an unresolved blocker is available. - Long titles are truncated to keep each blocker on one line. The full task label remains available in the link title. - Older server payloads keep the original leaf-selection behavior because the new sampled details are optional. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The run used tool-enabled reasoning and code execution. The context-window size was not exposed to the run. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandCodex
|
991f40bb2e |
fix(server): serialize review policy verdict authorization
Recheck terminal verdict and policy mutations under a row lock, and scope interaction verdict enforcement to the review confirmation itself. Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
44694328a3 |
fix(issues): make DELETE /api/issues/:id succeed for issues with dependents (#11331)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server provides issue APIs and the database stores issue child rows > - The issue delete endpoint removes the parent issue before dependent rows > - Several issue foreign keys had no delete policy, so PostgreSQL returned a foreign-key error > - This pull request adds safe cascade and set-null policies and a clear conflict response > - The benefit is reliable issue deletion with a useful error when a restricted audit row still blocks deletion ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #7728 Fixes #4660 Fixes #7991 Fixes #4627 Fixes #5086 **What happened?** `DELETE /api/issues/:id` returned HTTP 500 when dependent comments, thread interactions, read states, inbox archives, feedback votes, or ledger rows referenced the issue. The database raised SQLSTATE 23503 because several foreign keys had no delete policy. **Expected behavior** The endpoint must remove dependent rows that have no meaning without the issue. It must keep ledger rows with a null issue reference. It must return HTTP 409 when a restricted decision audit row still references the issue. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an issue. 2. Add a comment or thread interaction that references the issue. 3. Send `DELETE /api/issues/:id`. 4. Observe the HTTP 500 response. **Paperclip version or commit** Commit `1f8f456f8340823fe2bd891ae8933d942f190b7b`. **Deployment mode** Local dev with embedded PGlite or external PostgreSQL. ## What Changed - Add `CASCADE` to five issue child foreign keys. - Add `SET NULL` to the finance and cost event issue foreign keys. - Keep decision audit references restricted. - Map SQLSTATE 23503 from the issue delete service to HTTP 409. - Add migration 0217 for the seven changed tables. - Add regression tests for cascade deletion and restricted decision references. ## Verification - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`. - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`. - Run `npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-remove-cascade.test.ts` from `server/`. - The regression test applies migration 0217 to a fresh embedded PostgreSQL database. ## Risks - Migration 0217 changes only seven foreign keys that reference `issues.id`. - Cascade deletion removes child rows that cannot exist without the parent issue. - Set-null preserves finance and cost ledger rows. - Decision audit rows remain protected, so the endpoint can return HTTP 409. ## Model Used Codex, based on GPT-5, with tool use and code-review support. The implementation author used an AI coding agent. This PR handoff uses the same model family to validate the commit and manage the pull request. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dmndbrp-ossandCoder
|
0db8480b19 |
fix(SAG-2595): land updatedSince issues-list filter on master (#9050)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issues-list REST endpoint (`GET /api/companies/:companyId/issues`) backs the digester and other pollers that ask "what changed since last time". > - The service layer supports rich filters, but there was no `updatedSince` filter — so every routine fire re-read the full backlog instead of just the delta. > - A prior commit added this filter, but it was never merged to `master`; it only ran in production because a feature branch happened to be the live checkout, and the behavior vanished when that directory was repurposed. > - This pull request re-lands just the `updatedSince` filter (route param parse + validation, service `IssueFilters` field, and the `updatedAt` predicate) as a single-purpose change. > - The benefit is that pollers can request only issues updated after a timestamp, and the fix now lives durably on `master` instead of a transient checkout. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists; describing inline per the bug report template. **What happened** `GET /api/companies/:companyId/issues` ignores an `updatedSince` query parameter, so consumers (e.g. the digester and other pollers) cannot request only the delta since a prior poll and must re-read the whole backlog on every fire. **Expected behavior** Passing `updatedSince=<ISO 8601 timestamp>` returns only issues whose `updatedAt` is strictly after that timestamp; a malformed value returns `400`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Call `GET /api/companies/:companyId/issues?updatedSince=<a future ISO 8601 timestamp>`. 2. Observe the endpoint returns the full backlog instead of an empty list (the parameter is silently ignored). ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: parse the `updatedSince` query param, return `400` for a non-parseable timestamp, and pass it into `svc.list()`. - `server/src/services/issues.ts`: add `updatedSince?: string` to `IssueFilters` and, when present and valid, add a `gt(issues.updatedAt, since)` condition to the list query. - `server/src/__tests__/issue-list-updatedsince-filter-routes.test.ts`: new route+service coverage — future timestamp returns 0 issues, a past timestamp returns only the delta, and a malformed timestamp returns 400. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/issue-list-updatedsince-filter-routes.test.ts` — 3/3 pass. - `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts` — 5/5 pass (regression check on the sibling filter path). - `tsc --noEmit` on `server/` — no new errors introduced (pre-existing unrelated `plugin-sdk` build errors on `master` are untouched). ## Risks Low risk. Purely additive: the new filter only takes effect when `updatedSince` is supplied, so existing callers that omit it are unaffected. Invalid timestamps fail fast with `400` rather than silently returning all rows. ## Model Used Claude — `claude-sonnet-4-6` (implementation) with `claude-opus-4-8` review/merge-gate; tool use + code execution 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] 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 (N/A — no UI change) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (in progress) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (in progress) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Coder (Claude) <coder-claude@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
b847e8b6f6 |
perf(server): reduce issue detail request overhead (#10414)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent work > - Opening an issue fans out into several authenticated issue-detail reads, so repeated work on that path directly affects perceived latency > - Those reads repeated issue and authorization lookups, returned full private JSON even when unchanged, and performed non-critical bookkeeping writes on the request path > - Interaction reads also performed lifecycle writes even though `GET` must be read-only > - This pull request adds request-scoped reuse, private conditional responses, read-only interaction access, and bounded write debouncing without crossing actor, request, or company boundaries > - The result is less database, serialization, logging, and response-body work while preserving authorization and interaction lifecycle invariants ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This is the server-only latency phase. Related work is tracked separately in #10415 (aggregate view), #10416 (warm navigation, merged into the base), and #10463 (bundle split). This pull request intentionally excludes those scopes. **What happened?** Opening an issue detail view caused avoidable server costs: repeated issue and authorization reads within one request, full private JSON responses when a representation was unchanged, writes during interaction-list reads, production debug transport setup, and immediate bookkeeping writes for cloud tenant activity and board-key usage. **Expected behavior** All successful JSON `GET /api/issues/:id/*` responses should support strong private ETags and `304 Not Modified`. Repeated work may be reused only within the current request. `GET /interactions` must not modify stored interactions. Non-critical activity timestamps may be debounced without weakening authentication or stale instance-admin cleanup. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start Paperclip in local development or self-hosted server mode. 2. Open one issue and request its detail subresources with the same authenticated actor. 3. Repeat a successful JSON request with its `ETag` in `If-None-Match`. 4. Observe `304 Not Modified`, no interaction writes from `GET /interactions`, and unchanged authorization boundaries. **Deployment mode / installation** - Local development or self-hosted server - Built from source - Core server behavior; not adapter-specific ## What Changed - Added strong ETags and `Cache-Control: private, must-revalidate` to successful JSON reads under `/api/issues/:id/*`, including standards-compliant `If-None-Match` handling. - Added request-scoped promise memoization for issue and authorization lookups; no authorization result survives the request. - Made `GET /interactions` read-only, moved supersession and terminal-state handling to mutation paths, and prevented plugin callers from accepting or rejecting interactions after an issue closes. - Removed the production debug-file logger transport while preserving development formatting. - Debounced cloud-tenant activity and board-key `lastUsedAt` persistence, while keeping stale instance-admin deletion unconditional and authentication checks per request. - Added focused tests for ETags, request isolation, authorization lifecycle behavior, interaction invariants, logger configuration, and retry-safe debounce behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/private-json-etag.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts` — 2 files, 23 tests passed. - Focused Vitest run covering request memoization, authorization, interactions, plugin orchestration, logger, cloud tenant, board auth, and issue services — 9 files, 264 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. - Scope guardrails: 21 changed files under `server/src`; no lockfile, workflow, migration, UI, aggregate-view, or bundle-split changes. ## Risks - Strong ETags hash each successful serialized JSON response. This adds a small CPU cost but avoids transferring unchanged bodies. - Debounced bookkeeping timestamps can lag by the bounded debounce interval. They are non-critical usage metadata; authentication still runs per request, and stale instance-admin deletion remains unconditional. - Legacy pending interactions on terminal issues are projected as expired by reads and are finalized only by mutation paths. The stored record remains unchanged on `GET` by design. - No database schema or migration changes are included. > This is a focused performance correction and does not duplicate a planned core feature in `ROADMAP.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.3-codex` for the initial implementation and `gpt-5.6-sol` for isolation, verification, and PR preparation, with reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, and GitHub CLI access. The runtimes did not expose authoritative context-window sizes. ## 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: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
35aaaa0bd0 |
feat(server): preserve task timestamps and hierarchy through company import/export (#11193)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Company export/import moves a whole company — agents, tasks, comments — between instances as a portable bundle > - The bundle never carried task timestamps or parent links: the export writes neither, the importer lets database defaults stamp "now", and sub-tasks arrive flattened > - Boards sort by recency, so every imported task showing "created just now" collapses the task list into import order, and the task hierarchy the user built is gone > - This pull request adds created/updated/started/completed/cancelled timestamps and a parent link to the bundle (schema v7), preserves them end to end on import, and keeps comment imports from clobbering a preserved updated time > - The benefit is that an imported company reads like the company the user left: same recency order, same task tree ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** After a company import, every task showed as created at import time. Recency sorting collapsed to import order, and parent/child task nesting disappeared. The user called out losing "the meaningful task hierarchy and recency sorting". Cause: the export bundle has no fields for task timestamps or parent links, the importer lets `defaultNow()` win on insert, and the comment importer bumps every touched task's `updatedAt` to now. **Expected behavior** An imported company preserves each task's creation/update/start/completion times and its position in the task tree, so sorting and nesting on the destination match the source. **Steps to reproduce** 1. On a source instance, create tasks over several days, including sub-tasks nested under parents. 2. Export the company and import it into another instance. 3. Every task shows the import moment as its creation/update time and all tasks are top-level. ## What Changed - Export writes `createdAt`/`updatedAt`/`startedAt`/`completedAt`/`cancelledAt` (ISO, only when set) and `parent: <taskSlug>` into each task's bundle extension; a parent outside the export selection drops the edge with an aggregate warning, mirroring the existing blocker-edge warning (`server/src/services/company-portability.ts`). - Bundle schema version 6 → 7. All new fields are optional: v5/v6 bundles import unchanged with a version-aware downlevel warning; bundles newer than the board still fail closed. - Manifest parsing validates the new timestamps like comment timestamps (invalid → warn and ignore, never a hard failure); shared types and the zod validator carry the new optional fields. - Import resolves parent slugs to pre-generated destination ids, drops self-references and cycles from tampered bundles with warnings, and orders rows parents-first because the self-referencing FK is checked per insert chunk. - `importIssues` writes the preserved timestamps (falling back to insert time when absent; `startedAt` stays null unless bundle-carried, per #11191's semantics) and `parentId`. - `addImportedComments` no longer blanket-bumps `updatedAt = now()`; it takes `GREATEST(updated_at, newest imported comment createdAt)`, so a preserved update time never regresses while unpreserved rows keep the old behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability-import-batching.test.ts server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts` — 102 passed, 1 pre-existing opt-in benchmark skip. Includes: full round-trip with exact timestamp equality and a 3-deep parent chain against embedded Postgres; v6 back-compat (defaults + warning); forward-compat rejection (v8); cycle/self-reference/invalid-timestamp tampered-bundle handling; comment-bump preserve-awareness in both directions. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — clean. ## Risks - **Rollout ordering**: a board on the previous build (max schema v6) refuses bundles exported by this build (stamped v7) — the existing newer-than-supported rejection, working as designed. Cross-instance moves need the importing board upgraded first. Called out here so operators aren't surprised during the transition window. - Parent edges from tampered bundles are dropped with warnings rather than failing the import; blocker relations already behave this way. - Timestamps are data-only; no destination schema migration. Stacked on #11191 (its commit is included here) — merge #11191 first; this PR then shows only the v7 changes. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) via Claude Code CLI, with extended thinking and tool use (multi-agent implementation with independent 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 - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
d816eb8095 |
fix(server): keep imported tasks quiescent under the productivity review sweep (#11191)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Company import brings a full company package — agents, tasks, routines — into an instance, with `pauseAutomations` promising a quiet landing > - The pause covers the imported entities, but the destination's own productivity-review sweep does not know the difference between imported rows and live work > - The importer stamps every imported in-progress task with `startedAt = now()`, so six hours later the sweep's long-active check fires on every one of them and floods the board with review tasks and agent wakeups > - This pull request stops fabricating `startedAt` on import and makes the sweep skip tasks whose assignee agent is paused > - The benefit is that an import lands quietly: no surprise review-task storm, and paused teams stay paused until the operator activates them ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** After importing a company package with automations paused, a batch of "productivity review" tasks appeared roughly six hours later — one for every imported in-progress task — each with an owner-agent wakeup. The user described it as jarring and wasteful. Cause: `importIssues` fabricates `startedAt = now()` for imported in-progress rows, and `reconcileProductivityReviews` considers any assigned in-progress task without checking whether the assignee agent is paused, so its long-active-duration evidence (6 h threshold) trips on the fabricated timestamp. **Expected behavior** An import with paused automations must be quiescent: no destination sweep should generate work from imported rows until the operator unpauses the imported team. A paused agent must not accumulate review tasks it cannot act on. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Import a company package containing tasks with status `in_progress` assigned to agents, with "pause automations" enabled. 2. Wait for the productivity-review reconcile (runs at startup and on the heartbeat scheduler tick) more than six hours after the import. 3. Observe one new review task plus an owner wakeup per imported in-progress task. ## What Changed - `importIssues` no longer fabricates `startedAt` for imported `in_progress` rows; it inserts null (`server/src/services/issues.ts`). Audited every consumer of `issues.startedAt` — all are null-tolerant, and normal checkout/status-transition paths set the value when work really starts. - `reconcileProductivityReviews` skips candidates whose assignee agent is `paused`, counting them as skipped (`server/src/services/productivity-review.ts`). This is a general rule, not import-specific: a paused agent cannot act on a review. - Tests: paused-assignee candidate with an old `startedAt` creates no review, and creates one after unpausing; imported in-progress issue lands with null `startedAt` (embedded-Postgres import test); the pre-existing long-active regression test still passes. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability-import-batching.test.ts` — 20 passed, 1 pre-existing opt-in benchmark skip. - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` — 78 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — clean. ## Risks - Behavior change beyond imports: tasks assigned to paused agents no longer receive productivity reviews anywhere. This is intended — the review would target an agent that cannot respond — and reviews resume on the first reconcile after unpausing. - Imported in-progress tasks now carry no `startedAt` until real work starts on the destination. The one sweep that read the fabricated value is the one this PR quiets; all other consumers fall back safely (audit in the commit body). - Low risk otherwise: no schema change, no API shape change. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) via Claude Code CLI, with extended thinking and tool use (multi-agent implementation with independent 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 - [ ] 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 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f554d67377 |
fix(server): add explicit review verdict policies (#10931)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issues use `in_review` to request a final decision from an authorized writer > - The server rejected an assignee agent that tried to close its own review, even when the issue had no independent-review rule > - This rejection stopped the default agent workflow and did not represent the configured execution-stage rules > - Paperclip needs an open default and explicit issue-level constraints for teams that require an independent or human verdict > - This pull request removes the unconditional rejection and adds `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only` review policies > - The benefit is a working default path with opt-in, authenticated verdict controls ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10635, #4429, and #10671. The related public work covers execution-stage independence, self-approval fallback behavior, and durable review paths. This change is distinct. It controls who can resolve an issue review verdict. It keeps configured execution stages active. ## What Changed - Added a nullable `review_policy` issue column. Null has the same meaning as `anyone`. The migration does not backfill existing issues. - Added shared create, update, response, and compact issue contracts for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Removed the unconditional agent self-approval rejection for `in_review` issues. - Added one reusable verdict-actor check for terminal status changes and pending interaction accept or reject actions. - Used the authenticated principal type for `human_only`. Agent keys and run tokens remain agent principals. - Used the latest transition into `in_review` to identify the requester for `not_creator`. - Added actionable 403 responses that name the policy, the allowed actor, and the next step. - Kept the configured execution-stage transition and signoff behavior. - Added focused contract, helper, status-route, interaction-route, and execution-stage regression tests. - Updated the implementation specification for the new issue field. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 42 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed across server, CLI, plugin SDK/examples, plugin wiki, and UI. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - SecurityEngineer review approved the authenticated-principal checks and accepted policy-relaxation tradeoff with no required changes. - Greptile reviewed the latest head at 5/5 with zero inline comments or follow-ups. - The latest-head GitHub rollup passed build, typecheck, server/workspace tests, serialized suites, canary, e2e, and external security checks. ## Risks - The migration adds one nullable text column. It has no default and no backfill. - `not_creator` reads the latest recorded transition into `in_review`. It denies the verdict when it cannot identify the requester. - Agents can change or relax `reviewPolicy` when they have issue write access. This is intentional for this issue-level control. - Null and `anyone` do not add a database query to the verdict path. - Configured execution-stage checks still run after the issue-level policy check. > This work aligns with the completed "Agent Reviews and Approvals" and "Enforced Outcomes" roadmap items. It does not add a new roadmap capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed to the agent. The run used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub CLI access. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
72b509c895 |
Recognize delivered workspaces and reap terminal worktrees (#10908)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip separates workspace provisioning lifecycle from whether the work was actually delivered. > - Git ancestry alone cannot recognize squash merges or deliveries into a branch other than the workspace base. > - A merged pull request linked from a terminal issue is stronger delivery evidence for those cases. > - The read contract should expose that evidence without changing persisted workspace schema. > - Cleanup must remain conservative: terminal descendants, delivered work, and no active run checkout are all required. > - Reusing the existing cleanup primitives keeps service shutdown, lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival behavior consistent. > - Focused regression coverage locks in both the honest read signal and the fail-closed reaper guards. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Execution workspace close-readiness payloads and terminal workspace cleanup. **Current behavior** Delivered squash-merged or cross-branch workspaces can remain `active` and report a permanent “not merged” warning because git ancestry does not contain their original commits. **Proposed behavior** Read payloads distinguish PR-confirmed delivery, ancestry delivery, unmerged work, and unknown state. Fully terminal delivered workspace trees are archived only when no active run holds the checkout. **Reason and benefit** Operators and automation receive an honest delivery signal, while shipped worktrees stop looking active forever and genuinely unmerged work retains its warning. **Breaking changes** The workspace payload gains a derived field. Existing fields and persistence remain unchanged; no database migration is required. **What happened?** A delivered workspace can remain `active` and warn that it is not merged forever after its issue ships through a squash or cross-branch pull request. **Expected behavior** Pull-request delivery should be represented honestly, and a fully terminal delivered workspace should become cleanup-eligible when no run holds its checkout. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an issue workspace with commits ahead of its configured base. 2. Deliver those commits with a squash merge or into a different target branch. 3. Mark the source issue and descendants done, then read workspace close readiness. Before this change, the workspace remains active with a “not merged” warning indefinitely. ## What Changed - Added the derived `deliveryState` workspace contract: `merged_via_pr`, `merged_by_ancestry`, `unmerged`, or `unknown`. - Extracted a shared GitHub pull-request merge classifier and reused it for merge confirmations and workspace delivery checks. - Suppressed false ancestry warnings when a terminal issue has ground-truth merged-PR evidence. - Added an idempotent terminality reaper with descendant-terminal, active-run, and delivered-work guards. - Restricted PR delivery evidence to the source issue, then required live merged state plus matching GitHub repository, head branch, and current workspace HEAD; persisted status, stale PRs, lexical mentions, inbound references, and descendant PRs cannot authorize cleanup. - Preserved workspaces with modified or untracked files even when their committed HEAD was delivered. - Bounded both long-lived pull-request state caches to 1,000 entries with oldest-entry eviction. - Routed eligible workspaces through existing runtime shutdown, lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival machinery with exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks plus non-forced removal. - Added regression coverage for delivery derivation, warning behavior, reaper guards, scheduler wiring, and squash/cross-branch delivery. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 63 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts --reporter=verbose` after review hardening — 43 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts --reporter=dot` on the final local head — 73 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 15 passed - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` — server 3,662 passed (4 skipped), UI 3,599 passed, CLI 327 passed, shared 415 passed, and skills catalog 20 passed; the aggregate DB stage ran both source and built copies of one unrelated embedded-Postgres migration test and both reached its 5-second timeout - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/status-card-migrations.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — isolated aggregate-timeout verification passed in 3.99 seconds - `NODE_ENV=production pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks The reaper intentionally fails closed when issue terminality, pull-request state, git ancestry, or checkout ownership cannot be proven. GitHub lookups can delay classification and cleanup but cannot cause an unproven workspace to be archived. Automated terminal archival holds exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks across validation and removal, skips configured destructive hooks, and uses non-forced removal so dirty writes fail closed. Reopening a source issue does not restore an archived workspace; it emits an audit event so a human or agent can re-provision explicitly. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. Reasoning, tool use, repository editing, test execution, and GitHub CLI access were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
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
|
||
|
|
678728f650 |
feat: maintained in_review review-path contract + stalled-review actions (#10675)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents move issues to `in_review` and rely on a "review path" (an interaction, an approval, a monitor, or a named reviewer) to tell them who decides next. > - That review path can silently disappear. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction, a monitor is exhausted, or a run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with nobody reviewing it and no visible action. > - Such issues become invisible zombies. Nobody knows a decision is owed, so the work stalls forever. > - This pull request makes the review path a maintained invariant, exposes a `reviewAttention` surface, and gives every stalled review three inline actions in the UI. > - The benefit is that an `in_review` issue always shows who reviews it, or shows an amber "nobody is reviewing this" notice with one-click Approve, Request changes, and Send back to work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request describes the problem inline. The tracking issue is internal. **Subsystem affected** The review and attention loop that agents and humans share: the `in_review` status, the `reviewAttention` surface, the /decisions attention feed, and the issue-page review panel. **Problem or motivation** Agent-owned issues in `in_review` can lose their last review path. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction. A monitor is exhausted. A run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with no reviewer and no visible action. It becomes an invisible zombie and the work never progresses. **Proposed solution** Maintain the review path as a server invariant. Expose a `reviewAttention` field that says what is under review, who decides, and since when. Render a persistent review panel on the issue page and inline actions on the /decisions feed. Keep human PATCHes into `in_review` ungated, but record the requesting user so the panel never renders empty. **Alternatives considered** A pure background auto-recovery sweep. This stays opt-in and is not enough on its own, because it is invisible to the human. A bare status banner. This is rejected, because it gives no action to resolve the stall. **Roadmap alignment** This improves the core review and attention loop that both agents and humans use every day. ## What Changed - **Server — maintained review-path invariant:** when an issue enters or sits in `in_review`, the server derives and persists a review path (interaction, approval, monitor, or the requesting user) and recovers a stale path with one bounded wake instead of leaving the issue pathless. - **Server — `reviewAttention` surface:** a new field describes what is under review (bound target with links), who decides, since when, and whether the review is stalled. Stalled agent-assigned reviews are now included in the attention feed. - **Server — inline stalled-review decisions:** secured routes let a permitted responder Approve (→ `done`), Request changes (→ `todo` + wake carrying the note), or Send back to work (→ `todo` + wake) directly from the attention feed. - **Server — resume-intent wake:** an `in_review -> todo` transition now wakes the assigned agent so a resumed review is not dropped. - **Server — user-entry symmetry:** user PATCHes into `in_review` stay ungated (no 422 for humans) and record the requesting user, who becomes the named responder when no other path exists. - **UI — review panel:** a persistent `IssueReviewPanel` renders above the thread whenever status is `in_review`. The covered state shows the bound target, responder, and outcomes and hoists the pending interaction/approval card. The stalled state shows the amber notice plus the three actions. - **UI — decisions card actions:** the same three actions render inline on the /decisions `AttentionQueueRow`. - **UI — responsive fix:** the stalled action row stacks to full-width buttons at phone width and returns to a horizontal row at `sm` and up. New 390px stories capture the phone layout. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueReviewPanel.test.tsx src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx src/lib/attention.test.ts src/api/issues.test.ts` — 91 tests pass. - Server suites added and updated: `issue-review-attention`, `issue-stalled-review-decision-routes`, `review-path-recovery`, `recovery-observability`, and related route/liveness tests (run by CI). - A designer reviewed the UI at 390px and desktop in light and dark themes on both the issue-page panel and the /decisions card. The stalled action row stacks cleanly at phone width with no overlap and keeps the horizontal row on desktop. ## Risks - **Migration:** adds migration `0200` (next after master `0199`, no renumber). It extends the agent-wakeup-requests schema and is additive. - **Behavioral shift:** `in_review -> todo` now dispatches a wake. This is intended (resume intent) and covered by tests. - **Authz:** the inline decision routes are permission-gated. Only a permitted responder sees and can trigger the actions. - Overall risk is moderate and contained to the review and attention loop. ## 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 - [ ] 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f91a6e27c0 |
feat(issues): contain cross-issue agent side effects (#10837)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane that coordinates autonomous agent work. > - Agents need to collaborate on issues beyond their current assignment. > - Cross-issue comments and updates are useful, but an unbounded run can create cascading side effects. > - The control plane must preserve company-wide collaboration while containing each run's influence. > - Comment attribution must also show the responsible user and the acting agent in audits. > - This pull request adds run-bound cross-issue containment, attribution, and agent-class wake rules. > - The benefit is safer collaboration without restoring issue-assignee ownership restrictions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Agent-authenticated issue comments, updates, reopen behavior, and assignee wake routing. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server routes and services, shared contracts, database schema and migration, and implementation documentation. **Current behavior** An authenticated agent can collaborate across company issues, but one heartbeat run has no per-run side-effect boundary. Comment records also do not persist the responsible user separately from the acting agent. **Proposed behavior** Require a valid heartbeat run for agent cross-issue comments and updates. Audit each attempt and cap a run at 20 cross-issue effects. Keep the cap in log-only mode until it automatically changes to enforcement at 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. Preserve same-issue writes. Use agent-class wakes for agent comments. Keep same-run completion comments from reopening completed work. Record the responsible user on agent-authored comments and activity. **Reason and benefit** Agents can collaborate on other issues without an assignment gate, while each run has an atomic and inspectable side-effect limit. Operators can identify both the acting agent and the responsible user. **Breaking changes** After 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC, the twenty-first cross-issue comment or update from one heartbeat run returns a containment error. Agent cross-issue writes without valid run context are rejected. The migration is additive and backfills existing agent-authored comment attribution where the source data is available. ## What Changed - Added an atomic per-run counter for cross-issue agent comments and updates. - Added audit events for allowed and rejected cross-issue effects. - Added the automatic log-only to enforcement flip at 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. - Added responsible-user attribution to agent-authored comments, activity records, shared types, and validators. - Added an additive migration and migration coverage for existing comments. - Updated reopen, resume, and wake behavior so agent comments create agent-class wakes and same-run completion comments remain inert. - Updated the implementation specification and regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/cross-issue-influence-limit.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-attribution-audit-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts packages/db/src/issue-comment-on-behalf-migration.test.ts` — 97 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration safety checks. - `pnpm test:run` — server batch: 3,364 passed and 2 skipped; UI batch: 3,504 passed. One unrelated CLI doctor test warned because this agent runtime injects static AWS credentials. - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` — 8 tests passed and confirmed the CLI failure was ambient-environment sensitive. - `pnpm build` — passed. ## Risks - The fixed enforcement timestamp changes production behavior automatically on 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. Audit logs before that time provide rollout visibility. - The per-run counter serializes on the heartbeat-run row. This prevents concurrent attempts from racing past the cap but adds a small lock scope for cross-issue writes. - Existing comments can only be backfilled when their acting run or agent attribution is recoverable. > 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 in the Codex agent runtime. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. Reasoning, shell tools, code editing, and test execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8e7f1c03eb |
feat(decisions): improve desk triage and queue parity (#10785)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The decisions desk and queue help operators find work that needs a human decision. > - The current views use different grouping, sorting, and labels. > - Repeated confirmation requests can also leave stale pending actions in the queue. > - Blocked-work attention can point at an intermediate issue instead of the terminal blocker. > - This pull request aligns the server contract and both user interfaces. > - The benefit is a smaller, clearer queue that ranks the decisions with the largest impact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related PR: #10774 **What existing behavior does this improve?** The decisions desk and queue currently use different triage rules. They can show stale repeated confirmations and can rank blocked work by an intermediate issue. **Subsystem affected** This change affects attention aggregation, issue thread interactions, shared attention contracts, and the decisions user interface. **Current behavior** The desk uses a can-wait group that has no clear arrival meaning. The queue has fewer controls than the desk. Repeated pending confirmations remain actionable. Blocked-work rows do not always identify the terminal actionable blocker. **Proposed behavior** Group desk items by arrival date, and reserve Decide now for explicit due dates. Use one toolbar and shelf model on both pages. Supersede older repeated pending confirmations. Aggregate blocked work under the terminal actionable blocker and rank it by impact. **Reason and benefit** Operators get one consistent triage model. The badge reflects new and overdue work. High-impact blockers move to the top. Duplicate confirmation work no longer consumes attention. **Breaking changes** The attention summary field `decideNowCount` changes to `deskBadgeCount`. Consumers must use the new field. Older repeated confirmation interactions can now finish with the `superseded_by_newer_request` outcome. ## What Changed - Supersede older pending confirmation requests for the same issue and record the mutation in activity history. - Resolve blocked-work attention to actionable terminal blockers, suppress live blocker trees, and rank rows by blocked-work impact. - Group the decisions desk into New today and Earlier, and count new plus overdue work in the desk badge. - Share the decision toolbar and shelf components across the desk and queue. - Add queue grouping, sorting, filtering, aging, visible training controls, and clearer recommendation copy. - Add server, shared-contract, and user-interface tests for the new behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` (all server, UI, CLI, shared, and catalog tests passed; one fixed five-second DB timeout flaked under full-suite load) - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/status-card-migrations.test.ts` (passed in isolation) - `pnpm build` ## Risks - The attention summary field rename requires synchronized consumers. - Terminal-blocker traversal uses cycle and depth guards. A malformed dependency graph can stop at the last safe node. - The new arrival grouping changes which items contribute to the decisions badge. - Superseding repeated confirmations changes the terminal state of older pending interactions. > 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. The runtime did not expose a dated model snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
95d33e1788 |
fix(inbox): archive tasks completed by human users (#10668)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Mine inbox gives each human user a personal work queue. > - A human user can complete a task from the board. > - The status update did not update the user's inbox archive state. > - The completed task therefore stayed in the user's Mine inbox. > - This pull request archives the task for the human user who completes it. > - Agent completion does not change another user's inbox archive state. > - The benefit is that manual completion removes the task from Mine without an extra action or comment. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** When a human user changed a task status to `done`, the task stayed in that user's Mine inbox. **Expected behavior** The status change should archive the task from that user's Mine inbox. The operation should not add a task comment. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task that appears in Mine. 2. Change the task status to `done`. 3. Return to Mine. 4. Observe that the completed task is still present. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** All deployment modes with a board user and the Mine inbox. **Access context** Board (human operator). ## What Changed - Archive the completed task for the board user who changes its status to `done`. - Persist the status update, inbox archive, and archive audit atomically. - Publish live and plugin activity only after the owning transaction commits, including recovery, decision, and approval completion paths. - Keep agent-driven completion from changing a human user's inbox archive state. - Add database-backed regression tests for the archive, audit, Mine filter, rollback, event publication, recovery, and agent paths. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts` passed all 7 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts` passed all 44 tests. - Five directly affected server test files passed all 74 tests; decision and comment-route suites passed all 105 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the final fix. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. - The initial repo-wide `pnpm test:run` passed 3,223 tests; one unrelated plugin orchestration wake-reason test failed and reproduced in isolation. - All latest-head GitHub Actions gates are green, including all server and E2E shards. - Greptile reviewed the latest commit at 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. - Public GitHub search found no duplicate issue or pull request. ## Risks - Low risk. The behavior only runs on a board user's transition into `done`. - Reopening and completing the task again updates the existing per-user archive row. - Agent status updates do not archive a human user's inbox. - Transactional callers must supply a post-commit activity queue; covered completion paths do so and tests exercise rollback and publication order. - This bug fix does not duplicate planned core work in `ROADMAP.md`. > 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 from the GPT-5 model family assisted with this change. The runtime does not expose the exact serving model ID or context window. Reasoning, repository tools, code execution, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API access were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
dcac49a4fd |
feat(workspaces): defer isolated setup until runtime start (#10653)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Isolated workspaces give each task a safe and reproducible checkout. > - The existing setup cloned the development database before an agent needed to run the app. > - This made worktree creation slower and heavier for tasks that never start a service. > - Runtime services already use one server start path for heartbeat, operator, and startup recovery flows. > - This pull request moves heavy setup to that start path and keeps worktree creation lean. > - The benefit is faster isolated workspace creation with the same reliable runtime setup when a service starts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related pull request: #10652 covers the initial deferred database-seeding slice. This pull request supersedes it with end-to-end runtime provisioning and safe cleanup. **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves isolated worktree creation, runtime service startup, and isolated instance cleanup. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: CLI worktree setup, server runtime orchestration, shared workspace contracts, and development scripts. **Current behavior** Paperclip seeds an isolated development database during worktree creation. It can also leave an isolated instance directory after workspace teardown. This work happens even when no runtime service starts. **Proposed behavior** Paperclip creates the worktree with a lean eager setup. It runs an idempotent runtime provision command before the first managed service spawn. Concurrent starts share one provision attempt. Teardown removes the isolated instance safely. **Reason and benefit** Many agent tasks only edit and test code. They do not need a running Paperclip instance. Deferring the database seed reduces workspace startup cost while preserving automatic setup for tasks that start the app. **Breaking changes** None. The new runtime provision command is optional. Existing workspace behavior is unchanged when it is absent. ## What Changed - Split Paperclip worktree setup into a lean eager script and an idempotent runtime provision script. - Added `runtimeProvisionCommand` to project, issue, realized workspace, and persisted workspace contracts. - Added a per-workspace provision mutex before local service spawn for heartbeat, operator, and startup recovery flows. - Added a persisted `provisioning` service state and the `workspace_runtime_provision` operation phase. - Kept provision time outside the service readiness timeout and made failed attempts visible and retryable. - Reclaimed isolated instance data during safe workspace teardown. - Serialized deferred database seeding across processes and bound teardown to the instance root captured in persisted workspace metadata. - Added tests for config flow, concurrency, retry, no-op behavior, readiness timing, scripts, CLI commands, and cleanup. - Documented the eager and runtime provisioning contracts. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm test:run` (server: 3,201 passed; UI: 3,345 passed; the CLI phase exposed one environment-sensitive AWS doctor assertion because the agent runtime injects static AWS credentials) - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts -t 'passes AWS doctor checks when non-secret provider config is present'` - Focused runtime tests cover serialized provisioning, retry after stderr failure, absent-command no-op behavior, operation logging, persisted state order, and readiness timeout exclusion. - Focused CLI and cleanup tests cover concurrent seed serialization, stale-lock fail-closed behavior, persisted instance ownership, and rewritten sibling pointers. ## Risks - A faulty runtime provision script blocks service startup. Paperclip records stderr, marks the service failed, and retries on the next start. - Concurrent service requests share an in-process provision attempt, while the seed command uses an atomic filesystem lock across processes. A stale lock fails closed and requires an operator to verify no seed is running before removing it. - Isolated instance cleanup is destructive. The cleanup service validates ownership and path containment before removal. > 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`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The service does not expose the context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
14d4db6330 |
fix(inbox): keep passive issue views out of Mine (#10581)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The inbox shows work that a board user owns or has joined > - Issue detail views update a per-user read receipt > - The Mine query treated that read receipt as user participation > - A passive view therefore added the issue to Mine > - This pull request separates passive reads from audited user mutations > - The benefit is a Mine inbox that reflects ownership and real participation ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Opening an issue detail marks the issue as read. The Mine query treated the read receipt as participation. The viewed issue then appeared in Mine even when the user did not change it. **Expected behavior** Viewing an issue can update unread state. A view alone must not add the issue to Mine. Issue creation, assignment, comments, and audited user mutations must add it. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open an issue that you did not create and that is not assigned to you. 2. Do not comment or change the issue. 3. Open the Mine inbox. 4. Observe that the issue appears in Mine on the previous implementation. **Paperclip version or commit** `90ead239a8` **Deployment mode** Local dev from source. **Additional context** Related approach: #3421 changes Mine to an assignee-only filter. This change keeps participation-based Mine behavior and corrects the participation signal. ## What Changed - Use an explicit audited user-mutation allowlist for Mine participation, including comment cancellation. - Keep passive reads, previews, denied resource requests, and archive bookkeeping out of Mine participation. - Record manual routine reuse as an explicit audited inbox touch instead of a read receipt. - Keep that inbox bookkeeping from satisfying routine activity gates. - Add focused regression coverage for passive views, real mutations, comment cancellation, and manual routine runs. - Document the Mine participation contract. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "does not treat passive issue activity"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts -t "touches a (coalesced|skipped active) routine issue|ignores inbox bookkeeping activity"` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - GitHub latest-head CI: all required checks passed, including build, typecheck, server suites, and e2e shards. ## Risks - Low risk. The change affects only the server query that defines user participation in Mine and the manual routine touch signal. - Historical audited user mutations can now qualify an issue for Mine. Passive read and archive actions remain excluded. > 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 family. The runtime did not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
ddbcf53e31 |
fix(server): refuse agent delegation cycles back to an open ancestor's creator (#10658)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents decompose work by creating child issues assigned to other agents > - When two agents each lack a capability the other assumed (e.g. neither can push to GitHub), each can "resolve" its blocker by delegating the same step to the other: A creates a child for B, B creates a grandchild back for A > - Nothing detects the cycle; the chain of blocked issues grows and no signal reaches the human who could actually fix the capability gap > - This pull request refuses agent-initiated child creation when the child's assignee is the creator of a still-open ancestor in the same chain — a mechanical, semantics-free cycle signal > - The benefit is that the hot-potato dies at creation time with an actionable error instead of growing a dead chain ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #10642 (write-time counterpart: #10648 refuses assignment to paused agents; the credential-gap *preflight* side is tracked separately in #10644) ## What Changed - `issueService.findOpenAncestorCreatedByAgent(parentIssueId, agentId, {maxDepth})`: bounded walk up the parent chain looking for a still-open (not done/cancelled) ancestor created by the given agent. - Agent-initiated issue creation with a parent (both the create-with-`parentId` route and `POST /issues/:id/children`) now refuses with a structured 409 (`code: delegation_cycle`, naming the ancestor) when the new child would be assigned to the agent that created a still-open ancestor: that agent delegated the work into this chain, so assigning it back is a cycle. The message states the alternatives — complete the work, leave the child unassigned, or escalate to a board operator. - Deliberately unaffected: human actors (deliberate re-routing is their call), closed ancestors (re-engaging the creator of finished work is normal), and accepted-plan decomposition (its children come from a human-approved plan). ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-assignee-invokability-routes.test.ts` — cycle refused with 409 and no create call; the same child allowed when no open ancestor matches; board actors never consult the guard. - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — new embedded-Postgres coverage: ancestor found through the chain, closed ancestors ignored, depth bound honored (114 total). - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` — unchanged (79). - `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate: a new 409 for a creation shape that previously succeeded. The blocked shape (agent assigns new work to the creator of an open ancestor) is the cycle signature; the legitimate "hand a subtask to the parent's assignee" pattern is unaffected because it keys on assignee, not creator. Watchdog and plan-decomposition flows are exempt or unaffected as described. - The walk adds at most `maxDepth` (10) single-row lookups per agent child creation with an assignee. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved. ## 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 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
627728bdde |
feat: add authoritative issue PATCH receipts (#10478)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents update tasks through the issue API. > - The update response did not state which values changed. > - Blocker updates also did not echo the scalar blocker IDs. > - Agents therefore used an extra GET request to confirm a successful write. > - This pull request adds an authoritative change receipt and an optional small response. > - The benefit is fewer API calls with a clear and compatible write contract. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and the UI issue cache. ### Problem or motivation A successful issue PATCH returned the updated issue, but it did not identify the effective changes. Blocker writes returned relation summaries without the scalar IDs. Agents could not distinguish a confirmed clear operation from missing data. The response must confirm committed field and blocker changes while existing UI clients continue to receive the full issue by default. ### Proposed solution Add a `changes` receipt. Add a conditional `blockedByIssueIds` echo. Support `Prefer: return=minimal`. Keep the full response as the default. ### Alternatives considered Make the small response the default for agent tokens. This would create different response contracts by actor type, so this pull request does not use that design. ### Roadmap alignment This is a focused control-plane reliability improvement. It does not duplicate an open roadmap milestone. ## What Changed - Compute committed issue row and relation changes in the issue service. - Omit no-op fields and truncate changed long text values to 200 characters. - Echo blocker ID arrays for blocker set and clear requests. - Add the opt-in `Prefer: return=minimal` response and `Preference-Applied` header. - Keep receipt metadata out of React Query issue caches. - Add route and embedded Postgres tests for the new contract. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "returns authoritative update receipts for row fields and blocker relations"` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Low compatibility risk. The default response only adds receipt fields. - Minimal mode is opt-in. Existing clients do not receive a smaller body. - The receipt excludes `updatedAt` because the response already returns it as the freshness anchor. - Prose API and agent workflow guidance will follow after the server contract is available. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID, context window size, and reasoning mode are not exposed to the agent. The agent used 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> |
||
|
|
fc5a30805e |
feat(cli): add managed install, update, and service lifecycle (#10045)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies > - Operators need a predictable installation path that survives beyond an ephemeral `npx` process > - A durable installation needs an owned per-user payload store, stable command shim, safe shell integration, and supported service lifecycle > - Updates must preserve recoverability by backing up data, installing side-by-side, verifying the new payload, and retaining rollback state > - Bootstrap scripts and privileged service operations must fail closed across download, filesystem, ownership, and consent boundaries > - This pull request integrates managed install, update, rollback, service, uninstall, doctor, bootstrap-installer, and runtime-serving support into one workflow > - The benefit is a recoverable, inspectable, and documented installation lifecycle with explicit safety boundaries across Linux, macOS, containers, WSL, npm, npx, and source checkouts ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Problem Paperclip lacks a first-class durable installation and lifecycle workflow. Operators currently have to assemble npm/npx installation, PATH setup, background-service management, updates, rollback, diagnostics, and uninstall behavior themselves. That makes upgrades harder to recover, creates inconsistent behavior across platforms, and leaves shell/download/service trust boundaries without one documented implementation. ### Proposed Solution Add a managed per-user install store and stable shim, a verified shell bootstrap installer, service lifecycle commands, install-mode-aware update/rollback behavior, doctor checks, and documentation. Managed updates back up the database, install and smoke-test a side-by-side payload, atomically switch `current`, and retain prior payloads. The shell installer pins registry/download trust boundaries and requires explicit consent for non-interactive privileged actions. ### Alternatives Considered - Keep recommending `npx`: simple for evaluation, but ephemeral and unsuitable for stable services, atomic updates, or rollback. - Require global npm installation only: familiar, but cannot provide the owned side-by-side payload store and retained rollback semantics. - Split the capability across multiple PRs: rejected because install, update, service, uninstall, bootstrap, and serving behavior share contracts and security boundaries that need review together. ### Related Pull Requests - Supersedes #10042 and #10044 with one integrated final diff. - Incorporates and replaces the closed preparatory work in #10032 and #10034. ## What Changed - Added `paperclipai install`, `update`/`upgrade`, rollback, uninstall, service lifecycle, onboarding integration, and managed-install doctor checks. - Added a private managed payload store, verified manifest/marker ownership, exclusive mutation locks, atomic manifest/current/shim writes, retained previous payloads, and provenance validation. - Added npm and GitHub-ref install sources with exact target resolution, registry isolation, database backup, side-by-side verification, atomic activation, service restart coordination, and failure rollback. - Made managed-update backups report actionable service-start and `--no-backup` recovery guidance for unreachable databases, while clean never-onboarded instances skip an empty backup. - Added systemd user and launchd service definitions, status/health/log commands, single-instance coordination, stale-port recovery, and explicit sudo/lingering consent handling. - Added the `scripts/install.sh` bootstrap path with checked two-stage downloads, pinned public npm registry usage, platform checks, dry-run/non-interactive controls, and Docker fixtures. - Added embedded Postgres/native bootstrap integration, hot-restart/systemd-notify serving support, passive update notices, configuration contracts, README/CLI/install documentation, and focused regression tests. - Security re-review should explicitly re-verify: (1) `addManagedPathBlock`/`removeManagedPathBlock` reject symlinked or non-regular rc files, assert current-user ownership, preserve restrictive modes, and replace atomically; (2) managed shim replacement rejects unsafe parents, foreign-owned or multiply linked files, and uses checked atomic replacement; (3) the shell installer and sudo path preserve explicit consent and checked downloads; and (4) installed service/runtime serving remains bound to the validated managed shim and instance configuration. ## Verification - `bash -n scripts/install.sh scripts/clean-install-git.sh scripts/clean-install-npm.sh scripts/test-install-sh-docker.sh` - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/install-store.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/install-command.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/managed-install-check.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/onboard-service.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/service-health-check.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/service-manager.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/update-command.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/update-notice.test.ts packages/db/src/embedded-postgres-native.test.ts` — 9 files, 66 tests passed - `pnpm --dir cli typecheck` - `pnpm --dir cli build` - Follow-up verification: `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/update-command.test.ts` (14/14), `pnpm --dir cli typecheck`, `pnpm --dir cli build`, and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - Full `pnpm test:run` exercised all suites; an injected static AWS credential changed one unrelated doctor expectation, which passed when those credentials were removed. A second run cleared that case and exposed stale pre-existing adapter-utils `dist` output; rebuilding `@paperclipai/adapter-utils` made the isolated test pass. The updated PR CI is the authoritative clean-workspace full-suite run. ## Risks - Installer/update code writes executable shims, symlinks, shell rc blocks, service definitions, and managed payloads; ownership, regular-file, symlink, hard-link, marker, and path-containment checks fail closed before destructive changes. - The bootstrap installer executes downloaded tooling; downloads are staged and checked before execution, npm traffic is pinned to the public registry, and non-interactive privileged behavior requires explicit consent. - Linux lingering may invoke `sudo`; the command is surfaced and confirmed before execution, and unsupported service managers fall back to foreground-run guidance. - Database migrations remain forward-only; payload rollback does not reverse migrations, so managed updates create a backup before activation unless explicitly disabled. - Service restart and runtime serving touch process/port ownership; lifecycle locks, health/version checks, and stable-shim service definitions reduce split-brain and stale-process risk. > 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 agents using GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6-sol, with reasoning, repository/API access, shell execution, and test tooling. The runtime did not expose a reliable 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
075951f6bd |
Fix import completion UX: inbox flood, false-failure message, stale company list (#10538)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Company Import/Export (#10507, hardened in #10523 and #10531) now imports a large company end to end via an async job > - A real 1,418-issue import succeeded, but three rough edges showed up in that success > - Imported issues flooded the inbox, a completed import surfaced a false "failed" message after its in-memory result expired, and the new company didn't appear in the switcher until a manual refresh > - This pull request keeps imported issues out of the inbox, treats an expired-but-completed import as success, and refreshes the company list on completion > - The benefit is that a successful import looks and feels successful, and doesn't bury the user's inbox in historical tasks ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #10507 / #10523 / #10531 (Import/Export and its hardening). No open issue; three post-import bugs described above. ## What Changed - **Imported issues no longer flood the inbox.** The inbox "mine" tab is a query: an issue is "touched" if the user authored a comment on it, and import re-attributes bundled user comments to the importing user — so every imported issue appeared. Import now seeds a per-user `issue_inbox_archives` row for each imported issue (via a batched `issues.archiveImportedInbox`), the exact table the inbox visibility query excludes. Gated on an actor user id, so agent/system imports and normal issue creation are untouched; genuine new activity still resurfaces the issue. - **A completed import no longer shows a false failure.** The in-memory job's terminal retention was 5 minutes, so a poll after that 404'd and the UI showed "failed." Retention is extended to 60 minutes — the real mitigation for a user who steps away during a long import. `watchImportJob` additionally treats a *server-confirmed* success whose full result is no longer retained (a `succeeded` status carrying only the compact summary — a cloud tenant job, or a board job whose full in-memory result aged out) as a soft success ("import completed — open the company"), navigating by the summary's company id. A 404 while the job is still being watched is *not* treated as success: a running job is never dropped by the retention sweep, so its disappearance means a restart mid-import that may not have finished, and it surfaces the honest "may have restarted while the import ran" error. A first-poll 404 (the id never existed) is likewise a real error. - **The imported company appears without a refresh.** `onSuccess` now invalidates the companies/switcher query unconditionally (covering both the full-result and expired-but-completed paths) and navigates by the job's company id. ## Verification - shared/server/ui typechecks clean; 15 UI tests in the touched spec green, plus the embedded-Postgres import batching and portability-routes suites. - New tests: embedded-Postgres test that imported touched issues are archived for the actor and excluded from the inbox query while a normally-created issue still appears; job resolvable at the old window+1 and only 404s past 60 min; UI soft success on a server-confirmed `succeeded` job without a retained full result (no error, list invalidated, navigates by company id), a running-then-gone job → honest error (restart mid-import), and a first-poll 404 → error. ## Risks - Low and import-scoped: the inbox archive only affects imported issues for the importing user; normal issue creation and non-user (agent/system) imports are unchanged. Retention extension is a constant; the async job store remains in-memory by design. A restart mid-import still 404s and is surfaced honestly as a possible failure (never masked as success); only a server-confirmed success whose full result has expired is reported as a soft success. ## Model Used - Implementation: Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic). Review hardening (the confirmed-success narrowing): Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`, Anthropic). Both via the Claude Code CLI with extended thinking + tool use; root-caused against the live import. ## 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 - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation 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 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
276ae3a75d |
Harden company import: durable UI, async jobs, integrity guard, batched inserts (#10523)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Company Import/Export (#10507) moves whole companies between instances as portability bundles > - Real-world use on a large company (1,418 issues, ~10.6k comments) surfaced a cluster of related failures: the import took hours and the browser connection died while the server kept running, a retry silently produced a second partial import, the progress/error UI gave no durable signal, and a cloud-tenant user couldn't even open the companies afterward > - Root cause of the slowness: importBundle inserted every issue, comment, and document as a separate round-trip to a network Postgres — an N+1-over-network pattern > - This pull request hardens the whole import path: durable progress/error UI, an async server-side job so imports survive dropped connections (with a duplicate-submit guard), a fail-closed guard against incomplete payloads, and batched inserts that cut a large import from hours to minutes > - The benefit is that migrating a real, large company actually completes, is legible while it runs, and can't half-import twice ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #10507 (the Import/Export feature this hardens). Supersedes #10513 (the progress/error-UI piece, folded in here). No open issue; problem described above (large-company import: slow, connection-fragile, silently duplicable, opaque UI). ## What Changed - **Batched inserts (perf):** importBundle pre-generates entity ids in JS and inserts in chunked multi-row statements, so children no longer wait on parents' generated ids. A 1,418-issue import drops from ~15,600 insert statements to **82** (190×); benchmark below. Import semantics — collision handling, pause-on-import, label/blocker/monitor/attachment/embedded-asset handling, blob sha verification — are unchanged (full portability suite green). - **Async import jobs for board sessions:** the existing cloud-tenant async job path opens to board sessions with per-actor job keys; the import page submits, polls, and resumes watching after a reload or dropped connection instead of holding one fragile request. A non-terminal job blocks a duplicate submit (409 returns the running job), preventing the double-import. - **Fail-closed completeness guard:** an optional `expectedFileCount` on inline imports; the server rejects (422 `import_payload_incomplete`) a body carrying fewer files than declared, so a re-framed/short payload fails loudly instead of half-importing. - **Durable progress/error UI (was #10513):** persistent progress panels with size-aware copy, persistent error panels with retry guidance, and inline explanation when the preview button is disabled; request-lifecycle guards so stale previews/imports can't publish or detach. ## Verification - `pnpm -r` typechecks (shared, server, ui) clean. - `company-portability.test.ts` (76) + `company-portability-routes.test.ts` (30) green — the import correctness net — plus new `CompanyImport.test.tsx` async/resume/409 coverage and a new batching regression test (a 50-issue import issues <50 issue-insert statements; rows land unchanged). - **Batching benchmark (embedded Postgres):** at 1,418 issues × 7 comments × 1 doc — 82 insert statements vs ~15,598 one-per-row (190×), ~1s wall-clock; a row-verifying run at that scale imports all 1,418 issues / 9,926 comments / 1,418 documents with unique identifiers and no warnings (no rows dropped by chunking). Over a network DB the round-trip reduction is the hours→minutes lever. - What is NOT directly measured here: wall-clock against a real network Postgres (that happens on a staging deploy); the local timing is network-free. ## Risks - Batching is the load-bearing change: it rewrites the import write path. Mitigated by the unchanged 106-test correctness suite, a new scale/row-integrity test, and per-writer transactions (a failure rolls back its table group; not a single outer transaction across writers — noted, correctness preserved). - Async jobs are in-memory (lost on server restart → pollers 404 and can resubmit); matches the pre-existing cloud-tenant job semantics. - `expectedFileCount` is optional (older callers unaffected); over-count is allowed, only under-count fails closed. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic), Claude Code CLI, extended thinking + tool use; implementation across Fable 5 subagents with live diagnosis against a running 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 - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f6ab82d490 |
feat(interactions): add interaction withdrawal and terminal-issue expiry (#10251)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents and boards coordinate through issue-thread interactions (request_confirmation, ask_user_questions, suggest_tasks, …) that wait as `pending` cards until someone resolves them > - Two lifecycle gaps existed: an interaction's creator could not take back a card it no longer stands behind, and interactions left `pending` on issues that reached a terminal status lingered forever as live-looking approval requests > - Stale pending cards mislead humans (they look actionable), distort attention/liveness signals, and in the worst case invite acting on a proposal whose issue is already closed or cancelled > - This pull request adds an explicit withdraw route for pending interactions and automatically expires pending interactions when their issue reaches a terminal status (including a catch-up sweep for issues closed before this change) > - The benefit is that interaction cards now faithfully reflect reality: only genuinely actionable requests stay pending, and creators can retract requests that events have overtaken ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #5787 Refs #7403 Related prior PRs found while searching for duplicates (all overlap partially; none combine both lifecycle paths or the route-level authorization used here): #6709 and #7312 (creator-withdraw attempts), #8169 (terminal expiry), #8081 and #5137 (generalized cancel/expire endpoints), #6094 (stale confirmation auto-resolve). Related merged context: #9568 (agent cancel for ask_user_questions), #10119 (tolerating legacy `withdrawn_by_creator` result outcomes — the reader side of the outcome this PR writes). ## What Changed - New route `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/withdraw` that resolves a `pending` interaction to status `withdrawn` with a structured result (`outcome: "withdrawn"`, optional trimmed `reason`), stamps `resolvedBy*`/`resolvedAt`, touches the issue, logs activity, and emits resolved-interaction telemetry - Withdrawal authorization: board users, the interaction's creator agent, or the issue's current assignee agent (assignees additionally pass the standard issue-mutation gate); task-watchdog runs are explicitly rejected, and authorization-boundary plus low-trust control-plane checks apply - Withdrawing an already-resolved interaction returns `409`; unknown/cross-issue/cross-company interaction ids return `404` - New service method `expirePendingInteractionsForTerminalIssue`: when an issue transitions to a terminal status, all of its `pending` interactions are resolved to `expired` with `outcome: "issue_closed"`, guarded by a `status = 'pending'` predicate so concurrent resolutions are not overwritten - The same expiry runs as a catch-up when interactions are listed on an already-terminal issue, so cards stranded by issues closed before this change also get cleaned up; expired request_confirmations are logged with a distinguishing source - Shared package: new `withdrawIssueThreadInteractionSchema` validator, `WithdrawIssueThreadInteraction` type, and `withdrawn` / `issue_closed` result-outcome support for all interaction kinds (kind-aware result shapes for `ask_user_questions` and `request_item_verdicts`) - UI helper `ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.ts` recognizes the new outcomes for card rendering - Docs: bundled skill API reference updated with the withdraw endpoint - Review follow-up: terminal expiry moved from the HTTP route hooks into `issueService.update`'s status-transition block, so direct service callers (tree control, recovery, pipelines, status cards) expire pending cards too; the list-endpoint catch-up remains for issues closed before this change - Review follow-up: withdrawing or issue-close-expiring a `request_confirmation` also settles its linked `tool_action_requests` row (withdraw -> `cancelled`, issue closed -> `expired`), so a parked tool call cannot stay approvable after its card is gone - Review follow-up: interaction cards render dedicated copy for the new outcomes ("Withdrawn" with the reason, "Expired when issue closed") instead of falling through to superseded-by-comment / stale-target variants; withdrawn plan reviews badge as "Withdrawn" rather than "Changes requested" ## Screenshots Card states rendered from a local ux-lab harness with mocked data ([full gallery](https://pages.paperclip.ing/pr-10251-interaction-withdrawal-cards/)): | Light | Dark | | --- | --- | |  |  | ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` — clean tsc - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts` — 22 tests pass, including new coverage for: creator-agent withdraw success, non-creator/non-assignee agent 403, watchdog-run 403, double-withdraw 409, and board-user withdraw - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` — 4 tests pass, including terminal-issue expiry writing `issue_closed` results and leaving already-resolved interactions untouched - `cd ui && pnpm typecheck` — clean - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — includes a new embedded-Postgres test proving a direct `issueService.update` terminal transition expires pending interactions and writes the activity-log entry - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx` — 32 tests, including new coverage for withdrawn / issue-closed confirmation and question cards - `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit` — matches the pre-existing repo error baseline exactly (no new errors) - Manual: `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/withdraw` with `{"reason":"superseded"}` as the creator agent resolves the card to `withdrawn`; closing an issue with a pending confirmation flips it to `expired` with `outcome: "issue_closed"` ## Risks - Interactions on terminal issues now auto-expire (including retroactively via the list-time catch-up), so consumers that expected to resolve a pending interaction on a closed issue will get `409`; this is the intended semantics and matches how the attention feed already wants to treat dead cards - New result outcomes (`withdrawn`, `issue_closed`) are written to stored results; readers were already made tolerant of these outcome strings in #10119, so mixed-version reads are safe - No schema/migration changes; per-row conditional updates (`status = 'pending'`) avoid clobbering concurrent resolutions - Withdrawal is a new mutation surface, but it is strictly narrower than existing resolve paths (board, creator, or assignee only; watchdog runs blocked) ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic Mythos-class tier) with extended thinking and agentic tool use (Claude Code harness); commit authored in a Paperclip-managed engineering session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
7e40ed8c43 |
feat(status-cards): add experimental status card update view (#10101)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Operators need a board-level way to monitor a changing slice of company work without repeatedly rebuilding filters or reading raw task threads. > - Existing summaries are useful snapshots, but they do not provide a dedicated query-backed card with refresh policy, change tracking, update history, and per-update cost visibility. > - The capability needs to be safe to evaluate before it becomes part of the default product surface. > - This pull request adds end-to-end experimental Status Cards, from schema and query compilation through update orchestration and operator UI. > - The entire feature is gated behind the `enableStatusCards` experimental toggle, including its route and sidebar entry. > - The benefit is a governed, inspectable way to keep focused operational rollups current while preserving explicit controls over refresh frequency and spend. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `server/`, `ui/`, and bundled skills/docs). ### Problem or motivation Operators cannot currently define a reusable natural-language view of company work, compile it into an inspectable query, and keep its summary current as matching issues change. Rebuilding filters and rereading task threads makes board-level monitoring repetitive and hides the relationship between source changes, refresh cost, and the resulting summary. ### Proposed solution Add experimental Status Cards that compile operator intent into a query, summarize matched work, record each update, expose manual/interval/reactive refresh policies and costs, and preserve the last good result across stale, updating, paused, and error states. The capability is off by default and fully gated behind `enableStatusCards`, including its route and navigation entry. ### Alternatives considered - Extend existing one-off summaries: rejected because status cards require persistent query provenance, refresh policy, update history, and card-specific cost controls. - Add a dashboard-only filter widget: rejected because it would not provide governed background refresh, an update ledger, or an inspectable compile pipeline. - Ship the surface by default: rejected in favor of an experimental toggle while behavior and operator value are evaluated. ### Roadmap alignment This advances Paperclip’s board-level execution visibility and output-first product goals. `ROADMAP.md` was checked and no duplicate status-card initiative was found. ### Additional context No related open PR was found in the public GitHub search for status cards. The PR-only design wireframes were removed from the repository after review; the published prototype remains external to the production source tree. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped status-card schema, CRUD APIs, compile provenance, update ledger, shared contracts, validators, and OpenAPI coverage. - Added the text-to-query compile pipeline, bundled `status-card-query` agent skill, query versioning, and authorized write-back flow. - Added the experimental board, create flow, lifecycle tiles, detail/settings/debug drawers, archived view, routing, navigation, and instance setting. - Added a change-gated update engine with manual, interval, and reactive refresh policies, trigger selection, active hours, and daily token caps. - Added per-update token/cost recording, today and lifetime rollups, and policy-derived cost previews. - Added operator documentation and agent-authoring hardening for compile and update behavior. - Added PR-prep integration coverage for settings/startup wiring and replaced raw UI values with design-system tokens. - Removed the PR-only `design/pap-15023-status-cards` wireframe artifacts so the repository contains only production feature assets. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passes on the PR head; includes `ui` `tsc -b` passing. The UI compile gate was also independently recorded as passing at `6d7f3cf96b` on July 23, 2026. - `pnpm build` — passes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passes with all three gates clean. - `pnpm test:run` — 2,880 tests passed and 1 skipped; the sole failure was an unrelated 10-second `afterAll` database-cleanup timeout in `execution-workspaces-service.test.ts`. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` — passes on immediate focused rerun (25/25). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` — passes (31/31). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/StatusCards/StatusCardSettingsForm.test.tsx src/pages/StatusCards/StatusCardTile.test.tsx src/pages/StatusCards/format.test.ts src/lib/status-card-state.test.ts` — passes (26/26). - Recorded pre-PR QA: compile-pipeline e2e PASS; full lifecycle and cost QA PASS; security re-review PASS after write-back hardening; UX approved. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/status-card-migrations.test.ts` — passes; reapplies migrations `0185`–`0189` against an already-migrated embedded Postgres database. - `pnpm --filter /db check:migrations` — passes migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter /db typecheck` — passes. - Merged current `origin/master` on July 24, 2026 with no conflicts; migrations `0185`–`0189` remain unclaimed on master. ## Risks - The feature introduces five database migrations and a new background update path; all new DDL is repeat-safe after partial application, migration numbering/safety checks pass, and update execution is company-scoped and change-gated. - Natural-language compilation can produce invalid or overly broad queries; compile provenance, query validation, debug visibility, and version history make failures inspectable and recoverable. - Reactive or interval refresh could increase spend; active hours, max refresh frequency, daily token caps, per-update cost records, and budget-paused states bound and expose that risk. - The branch name contains an internal execution identifier because it is a fixed handoff branch; it was intentionally not renamed or rebased per the release handoff instructions. - Overall rollout risk is limited because the route, navigation, services, and UI are disabled by default behind `enableStatusCards`. > 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-5.5 with reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, GitHub CLI, and test/build execution. The runtime did not expose a 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; the fixed execution-workspace identifier is documented as an authorized handoff exception - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass, with the one cleanup timeout passing on focused rerun - [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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
148a5b11f5 |
Route blocked transitions to explicit unblock owners (#10112)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies. > - Issue status transitions determine whether work keeps moving or silently stalls. > - A blocked issue previously could rely on prose alone, leaving the intended unblock owner unstructured and unnotified. > - Existing blocker-attention classification could identify stalled chains, but the signal was not delivered to the board attention feed. > - Blocked transitions also need rollout-safe deduplication so upgrades do not notify for historical issues and repeated processing does not create notification storms. > - This pull request adds structured unblock descriptors, prospective transition timestamps, owner delivery, and board attention routing with focused authorization controls. > - The benefit is that newly blocked work has an explicit, routable next action without weakening company boundaries or allowing agents to inject arbitrary human attention items. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related documentation PR: #10094. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/db`, and `packages/shared`. ### Problem or motivation An issue can enter `blocked` without a machine-readable unblock path. Prose-only ownership does not reliably wake the responsible agent or surface human-owned work, while the existing `blockerAttention` classifier is not delivered to an operator-facing attention feed. ### Proposed solution Require new transitions into `blocked` to have unresolved blockers, a pending interaction/approval, or a structured `{ owner, action }` descriptor. Notify an allowed owner once per prospective transition, route human-owned cases to board attention, and leave pre-rollout blocked issues untouched. ### Alternatives considered - Keep prose-only blockers: rejected because ownership remains unroutable. - Backfill all historical blocked issues: rejected because upgrades would create notification storms. - Let agents target arbitrary users or the board: rejected after security review because it creates an attention-injection channel. ### Roadmap alignment Aligns with `ROADMAP.md` → “Enforced Outcomes (watchdogs, recovery actions, review gates)” by making blocked work carry an explicit continuation path. ### Additional context The implementation is prospective-only and deduplicated per blocked transition. Agent-authored descriptors are limited to the acting agent; board actors retain human-owner routing. ## What Changed - Added persisted unblock descriptors and prospective blocked-transition delivery timestamps with an idempotent migration. - Added shared types and validation for board, user, and agent unblock owners. - Enforced valid blocked transitions and same-company owner validation in the issue update route. - Restricted agent-authored descriptors to the acting agent itself, preventing board/user attention injection by compromised agents. - Added one-per-transition agent wake delivery and prospective-only rollout gating. - Routed human-owned blocker attention into the board attention feed. - Added focused tests for validation, prospective delivery, flap deduplication, attention routing, route authorization, and stop-relay compatibility. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routable-blocked.test.ts server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID= AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY= pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` ## Risks - Behavioral shift: new `blocked` transitions without a real blocker, pending governed action, or structured descriptor now return `422`. - Notification abuse is constrained by same-company validation, agent self-only routing, prospective rollout gating, and transition-scoped deduplication. - Migration risk is low: columns are additive, nullable, and use `IF NOT EXISTS`; historical blocked issues are not backfilled or notified. > 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 CLI with GPT-5.4, reasoning-enabled tool use and code execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window value. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a17bee98f2 |
Allow trust-gated direct-parent issue reports (#10098)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane used to coordinate and govern AI-agent companies. > - Agent issue access must preserve company boundaries and trust-policy containment without preventing legitimate task coordination. > - Checked-out standard-trust child runs need a narrow way to report progress directly to their parent issue, but existing authorization treated that report like an arbitrary cross-boundary write. > - Low-trust review runs must remain contained, and stop propagation must not copy potentially untrusted child prose into a higher-trust parent context. > - This pull request adds an audited, one-hop direct-parent comment grant only for standard checked-out runs and a sanitized, idempotent relay for blocked or cancelled child stops. > - The benefit is restored parent/child liveness while retaining least privilege, complete mediation, and low-trust output quarantine. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? A standard-trust agent running a checked-out child issue could not post a progress comment to the direct parent issue because the authorization boundary treated it as an arbitrary cross-issue write. This could stall parent/child coordination. Low-trust review runs also need stop propagation without exposing quarantined child-authored prose. ### Expected behavior A standard checked-out child run may add a comment only to its direct parent issue. The grant must not allow grandparent or sibling access, issue mutation, document writes, reopening, or resuming. Low-trust runs remain denied unless separately mentioned, while blocked/cancelled stops relay only sanitized system metadata once. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create a parent issue and a child issue assigned to different standard-trust agents. 2. Check out the child issue in a heartbeat run and authenticate as that run. 3. Post a comment to the parent issue and observe the authorization denial before this change. 4. Mark a low-trust child blocked or cancelled and observe that no bounded sanitized parent notification preserves liveness before this change. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduces on `master` before this PR, including base commit `d36ea13e08`. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`). ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific (core authorization and issue-routing behavior). ### Database mode External Postgres in the focused route regression suite; behavior is database-mode independent. ### Access context Agent (bearer API key associated with a checked-out heartbeat run). ### Additional context The implementation deliberately distinguishes a direct-parent report decision from general issue mutation permission and records successful grants in the activity log. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII, API keys, tokens, company names, and private instance references. ## What Changed - Adds a distinct authorization decision for standard checked-out runs commenting on their direct parent issue. - Keeps low-trust direct-parent reports denied unless an existing explicit mention grant applies. - Forces direct-parent grants to remain comment-only even when a closed parent is unassigned or assigned to the reporting agent. - Audits successful direct-parent report grants in issue activity details. - Adds sanitized, parent-scoped, idempotent system comments and parent wakeups for blocked or cancelled child stops. - Extends the low-trust red-team route suite for allowed parent reports, forbidden upward/sibling writes, closed-parent mutation suppression, and non-laundering stop relays. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` — 11 tests passed after the review fix. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed after the review fix. - Confirmed the PR changes four files and excludes `pnpm-lock.yaml`, workflow changes, migrations, and unrelated branch commits. ## Risks - This is an authorization behavior change. An overly broad grant could enable cross-boundary writes, while an overly narrow grant could preserve the liveness failure. - The implementation constrains the grant to a standard-trust checked-out run, a direct parent target, and comments only; activity auditing and red-team coverage make regressions observable. - Stop relays intentionally contain only system-generated child identity/status metadata and are deduplicated; child-authored prose is not copied. - SecurityEngineer approval is mandatory before merge. > 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-5.5 with reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, and test execution. The runtime does not expose the context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
429792f1f3 |
fix(interactions): stop wedging confirmation accept on a terminal workspace_finalize (#10099)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - When an agent finishes work in an execution workspace, the board can confirm the result through an issue-thread interaction (e.g. the "Merged" / mark-done confirmation button on a `request_confirmation`). > - That accept action is gated: it must not race a worktree sync-back (`workspace_finalize`) that is still copying the agent's commits out of the sandbox, or the board could act on a base that hasn't received them yet. > - The gate (`runWorkspaceIsFinalized`) treated the sync-back as "settled" only when the latest `workspace_finalize` op was `succeeded` — so a run whose finalize reached a terminal `failed` state, or died leaving a stale `running` op, was treated as "still syncing" forever. > - Users hit a permanent, misleading `... has not finished syncing its workspace` error and could never click "Merged", even though nothing was syncing and the run had long since ended. > - This PR fixes the settle semantics so the gate blocks only while a sync-back is genuinely pending or in flight, and treats any terminal (or stale-orphaned) finalize as done. > - The benefit is that a failed or abandoned sync-back no longer wedges the human confirmation, while a genuinely in-flight sync-back on a live run still blocks correctly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this. Describing the bug in-PR (bug report): **What happened** Clicking the "Merged" / mark-done confirmation at the bottom of an issue thread returns an error that the workspace "has not finished syncing its workspace" — but nothing is actually syncing, and the run that created the interaction has already ended. The confirmation is permanently stuck; the only workaround is to merge and mark the task done manually. **Expected behavior** Once the source run's worktree sync-back has finished — whether it succeeded, failed, or was skipped — the confirmation should be acceptable. The gate should block only while a sync-back is genuinely still running on a live run. **Steps to reproduce** Have an agent run reach `workspace_finalize` and end without a `succeeded` finalize (e.g. the sync-back fails, or the run process dies mid-finalize leaving a `running` op). Then attempt to accept the `request_confirmation` interaction it created → 409 "... has not finished syncing its workspace" with no way to proceed. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on the current `master` line (server service); root cause is in `runWorkspaceIsFinalized` in `server/src/services/issues.ts`. **Deployment mode** Local / self-hosted instance (server service). **Root cause** `runWorkspaceIsFinalized` returned `true` only when the latest `workspace_finalize` operation was `succeeded`. A terminal `failed` finalize (the sync-back ran and failed; it will not retry within that run) and a `running` finalize left behind by a dead run both left the gate closed forever. ## What Changed - `runWorkspaceIsFinalized` (server/src/services/issues.ts) now treats a sync-back as **settled** when the latest `workspace_finalize` op reached any terminal status (`succeeded`, `failed`, or `skipped`), instead of only `succeeded`. - A `workspace_finalize` still marked `running` blocks only while its owning run is alive; a `running` record left behind by a terminal/missing run is treated as stale (settled), so a dead run can no longer wedge the gate. - Preserved existing behavior for the other cases: no operations recorded at all → settled; earlier phases recorded but no `workspace_finalize` yet → still blocks (the sync-back hasn't been attempted). - Extracted the run-liveness check into a shared exported helper `heartbeatRunIsTerminalOrMissing` and reused it from the existing `isTerminalOrMissingHeartbeatRun` closure (no behavior change there). - Added a short comment at the confirmation-accept gate (server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.ts) documenting the relaxed settle semantics. - The dependency-readiness / blocker barrier (`listPendingFinalizeBlockerIssueIds`) is deliberately left unchanged: an automated dependent must not proceed onto a base that never received a blocker's synced-back commits, so a failed finalize keeps that gate closed. Only the human-driven confirmation accept is relaxed. - Added regression tests for: failed finalize, stale `running` finalize on a dead run, and a genuinely `running` finalize on a live run (must still block). ## Verification - `cd server && node_modules/.bin/vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts -t "accept"` → 17 passed (includes the 3 new regression tests), 21 unrelated tests skipped by the name filter. - Manual reasoning walkthrough of `runWorkspaceIsFinalized` for each op-history shape (no ops / earlier-phase-only / terminal finalize / running-on-dead-run / running-on-live-run) confirms the intended block-vs-settle outcome. ## Risks - Low risk and narrowly scoped to the human confirmation-accept gate. The only behavioral change is that a terminal (`failed`/`skipped`) or stale-orphaned `running` finalize now settles the gate instead of blocking forever. - A genuinely in-flight sync-back on a live run still blocks (covered by a regression test), so the accept cannot race commits that are actively being synced back. - The blocker/dependency barrier for automated dependents is unchanged, so no dependent will be advanced onto a base missing a failed blocker's commits. ## Model Used - Provider/model: Claude (Anthropic), **Opus 4.8**, model ID `claude-opus-4-8`, 1M context window. - Capabilities used: extended thinking, tool use (repo inspection, local test execution). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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 |
||
|
|
1ba79d82a5 |
fix(server): preserve terminal status on issue release (#7524)
Fixes #4206 ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents on issues with checkout/release semantics for execution locks > - `POST /api/issues/:id/release` clears checkout and execution locks when a heartbeat ends without finishing the issue > - `issues.release()` unconditionally set `status: "todo"`, undoing terminal and waiting states (`done`, `cancelled`, `in_review`, `blocked`) set during the session > - Agents reported status drift after release (e.g. `in_review` → `todo`, `done` → `todo`), forcing manual PATCH recovery and risking silent stalls > - This pull request gates the `todo` re-queue to `in_progress` issues only and preserves all other statuses on release > - The benefit is lock cleanup without destroying workflow state agents already recorded ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Fixes #4206 — `issues.release()` must not downgrade terminal/waiting statuses - Related internal incident: AIT-114 status drift on terminal issue release (AI Trading Council) ## What Changed - `server/src/services/issues.ts` — `releaseStatus` is `todo` only when `existing.status === "in_progress"`; otherwise preserves `existing.status` - `server/src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts` — regression tests: release preserves done, cancelled, in_review, blocked keeps `done` and clears lock fields - `server/package.json` — patch bump `0.3.1` → `0.3.2` - `server/CHANGELOG.md` — documents the fix ## Verification ```sh pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test issue-stale-execution-lock-routes ``` - 7/7 tests pass (parametrized done, cancelled, in_review, blocked) (includes new `preserves terminal status when releasing a done issue` and existing `in_progress` → `todo` on release) - CI: Build, Typecheck, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run green on latest head `f31b55f` ## Risks Low risk. Behaviour change is intentional: non-`in_progress` releases no longer force `todo`. Agents that relied on release to re-queue `in_review`/`blocked` work must PATCH status explicitly (documented in agent lifecycle guidance). Rollback: revert this commit and redeploy `@paperclipai/server` 0.3.1. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Opus 4.6 (extended thinking mode) — 200K context window, tool use enabled. Assisted implementation and PR packaging for AI Trading Council upstream port from local hotfix. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (CHANGELOG) - [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 (re-review requested on head `f31b55f`) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com> Co-authored-by: brandon <brandonburr@gmail.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
59eee4829c |
fix(inbox): stop archived items from resurfacing (#9931)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane operators use to coordinate AI-agent companies and review work needing attention. > - The Inbox is the operator-facing surface that aggregates tasks requiring attention across server state and shared client polling. > - Archiving a task optimistically removed it, but ordinary background activity and stale polling responses could make it reappear seconds later. > - The server therefore needs to distinguish genuine user-attention events from routine agent/system activity. > - The client also needs a bounded local archive guard across every Inbox query path while the server mutation and in-flight polls settle. > - This pull request fixes both resurrection paths and adds race-focused regression coverage. > - The benefit is stable archive behavior without hiding a genuine archive failure after reconciliation or reload. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] Searched existing open and closed issues and pull requests; no duplicate implementation was found. - [x] Reproduced on `master` before this branch. - [x] Confirmed this is a Paperclip core bug, not adapter or provider behavior. ### What happened? Archiving an Inbox task hid it optimistically, then background refresh activity could insert it back into the list seconds later. ### Expected behavior A successfully archived task remains hidden during normal polling. A genuine failed archive may become visible again after reconciliation or reload. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Open Inbox with a visible task. 2. Archive the task. 3. Wait for shared polling or routine agent activity to refresh task data. 4. Observe the archived task reappear without a hard page refresh. ### Paperclip version or commit `master` before this branch. ### Deployment mode Built from source using the local development application. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific; this is a core Inbox bug. ### Database mode Not database-mode-specific. ### Access context Board (human operator). ### Additional context The failure had independent server and client causes: routine activity could resurface archived rows server-side, while stale shared-poll responses could bypass optimistic client removal. ## What Changed - Restrict server-side Inbox resurfacing to explicit user-attention events rather than any issue activity write. - Add a bounded client-side archive guard with confirmation, failure restoration, and cache reconciliation behavior. - Apply the guard to Inbox rendering, badge counts, optimistic cache updates, and shared-poll result application. - Classify the generic compact Inbox query so stale shared-poll data cannot bypass the guard. - Add server visibility-matrix tests and UI race-condition regression tests. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/hooks/useSharedPolling.test.ts src/lib/inboxArchiveCache.test.ts src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — 25 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — 107 passed. - Branch rebased cleanly onto current `origin/master` before push. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate behavioral risk: resurfacing is intentionally narrower, so the server tests cover human comments, mentions, interactions, and status transitions that must still regain attention. - The client guard is bounded and cleared on mutation failure, limiting the risk of hiding a task whose archive did not persist. - No schema, migration, public API, workflow, dependency-lock, or visual-token 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 - Anthropic Claude via Claude Code (`claude_local`; prior implementation/review run, exact underlying model ID and context window were not retained in the handoff metadata), with repository tool use and test execution. - OpenAI `gpt-5.5` via Codex CLI for final review repair and PR preparation, with reasoning, repository editing, GitHub tooling, 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/described the result above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip task identifier - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation where needed; no documentation change is required for this bug fix - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [x] All Paperclip-authored commits include the required co-author trailer --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
a59aa128a3 |
fix(api): sanitize createdByRunId on comment insert to prevent 500s (#9489)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The issue-comments API (`POST /api/issues/:id/comments`) attributes each comment to the run that created it via `created_by_run_id`, a foreign key into `heartbeat_runs` > - In multi-agent local control-plane usage, board/session clients sometimes forward an `X-Paperclip-Run-Id` that is not a real run row — a non-UUID client request id, a synthetic string, or a since-deleted run > - That value was written straight to the FK column, so the insert died with a Postgres FK violation and the endpoint returned HTTP 500, breaking agent coordination > - This PR resolves the run id defensively before insert: reject non-UUID shapes, verify the row exists for the company, and null out anything unresolvable while logging a warning > - The benefit is that a bad run-id header degrades gracefully to an unattributed comment (201) instead of a 500, so comment creation stays up ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists; describing inline (bug): **What happened:** `POST /api/issues/:id/comments` returns HTTP 500 when the request carries an `X-Paperclip-Run-Id` that does not correspond to a row in `heartbeat_runs` (non-UUID value, synthetic client id, or deleted run). The value is written to the `created_by_run_id` FK, and Postgres rejects the insert with a foreign-key violation (SQLSTATE 23503). **Expected:** the comment is created (HTTP 201); an unresolvable run id is dropped to `null` rather than failing the request. **Impact:** in multi-agent usage, comment creation — and the agent coordination that depends on it — fails whenever a client forwards a run id that isn't a live run. ## What Changed - Add `resolveCommentCreatedByRunId(dbOrTx, companyId, runId)` — trims and validates UUID shape, then checks existence in `heartbeat_runs` scoped to the company; returns `null` for missing/invalid ids. - `addComment` now resolves the run id through that helper before insert and logs a warning when a supplied run id is dropped. - Add embedded-Postgres regression tests for the three cases (non-UUID header, unknown UUID, valid run id). ## Verification - `pnpm --filter server test issues-service` — the new `issueService.addComment createdByRunId` block passes. - Cases covered: non-UUID header → 201, `createdByRunId: null`; UUID absent from `heartbeat_runs` → 201, `null`; valid run id present for the company → preserved. ## Risks Low. Purely defensive — valid run ids are still preserved, only unresolvable ones are nulled. Adds one indexed, tenant-scoped `SELECT` per comment insert. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (extended thinking), via the Paperclip PR-triage cockpit, produced the added regression tests and this description. The original implementation is by @digitalflanker-ux; the author's model is unspecified. ## 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) - [ ] 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 (related: #4795 same fix; #8065 sibling FK-guard on the activity-log path) - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [ ] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] 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 - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Haiku 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com> |
||
|
|
1f1f545238 |
feat: add built-in summarizer and summary slots (#9713)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to organize, govern, and understand AI-agent work > - Operators need concise, current status views across projects and execution workspaces without manually reading every issue and run > - Paperclip already has auditable issues, documents, built-in agents, routines, and live run events, but no first-class summary-slot workflow connecting those systems > - A built-in Summarizer can generate status prose through ordinary governed tasks while summary slots provide stable, revisioned destinations for that output > - The UI needs to show current summaries, generation progress, failures, revisions, and streaming draft status in the places operators already work > - This pull request adds the end-to-end summary-slot data, API, agent, orchestration, and UI surfaces behind an experimental setting > - The benefit is decision-oriented status context that remains company-scoped, auditable, retryable, and inexpensive by default ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. **Problem** Operators currently have to reconstruct project and workspace status by reading many issues, runs, and comments. This makes it hard to identify decisions, review queues, recent work, and the next event worth watching. **Proposed capability** Add an experimental summary system with revisioned summary slots for projects and workspaces, a paused-by-default built-in Summarizer agent, governed generation tasks, live draft status, and reusable UI cards. **Expected behavior** - Summary data remains company-scoped and revisions remain auditable. - Generation runs through normal issue/agent orchestration and deduplicates active requests. - Only the linked built-in Summarizer generation task can author a slot revision. - Operators can generate, retry, inspect revisions, and follow draft progress from project and workspace views. - The feature remains opt-in and background generation remains paused by default. ## What Changed - Added summary-slot schema, idempotent migrations, shared contracts, validators, API paths, and service tests. - Added company-scoped summary-slot routes for reading revisions, requesting generation, and guarded Summarizer writes with activity logging. - Added terminal generation finalization, failure reasons, assignment wakeups, and orchestration integration. - Added the paused-by-default built-in Summarizer bundle, low-cost runtime defaults, status-summarization skill, and stale-summary routine. - Added summary cards, revision selection, retry/configuration states, live draft streaming, transcript chunk handling, and project/workspace integrations. - Updated Claude local parsing for streamed status output and expanded server, adapter, shared, database, catalog, and UI coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/summary-slots-schema.test.ts packages/shared/src/summary-slot.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slot-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts server/src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.status.test.tsx ui/src/components/useSummaryDraftStream.test.tsx ui/src/lib/summary-draft-stream.test.ts ui/src/lib/run-log-chunks.test.ts ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.hook.test.tsx` — 113 tests passed - `pnpm test:run` — server and UI suites passed; one CLI AWS doctor test was affected by inherited `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID`/`AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`, and passed when those host credentials were removed - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` with inherited AWS credential variables removed — 8 tests passed - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` currently reports nine `#9627` comment references introduced by current `master`; none are in this PR diff ## Risks - Database risk is limited by incrementally ordered, idempotent migrations and migration safety checks. - Summary generation creates normal issues/runs, so misconfiguration can produce failed slots; the UI exposes retryable failure reasons and agent configuration entry points. - Streaming draft parsing depends on the documented `STATUS:` protocol; final persisted revisions remain the source of truth. - The feature is experimental, opt-in, and its built-in routine is paused with no background token spend by default. > 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-5.3 Codex with reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip control-plane integration. Earlier branch commits also record Claude model co-authorship where applicable. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
53f09cb818 |
fix: prevent duplicate task creation and recovery loops (#9648)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies > - Agents, routines, productivity review, and recovery services can all create or re-trigger work > - Repeated heartbeats or catch-up cycles can produce duplicate tasks or repeat recovery actions before prior work is visible > - The base duplicate-create and routine catch-up coalescing work has now landed on `master` via related PRs while this PR was being prepared > - This pull request carries the remaining hardening: bounded idempotency retention, recovery cooldown/throttle fixes, productivity-review query batching and ordering fixes, and regression coverage > - The benefit is fewer duplicate tasks, safer retries, and enough provenance to diagnose any future recurrence ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Agents can retry issue creation after ambiguous responses or independently recreate the same child title, while recovery and short-interval routine catch-up paths can repeat before prior work settles. This can produce visible duplicate tasks and makes the originating heartbeat difficult to identify. Related work: Refs #8356 for caller-supplied issue-create idempotency and Refs #9224 for plugin-scoped issue-create idempotency. Prior related PR: #6936. The base issue-create deduplication and routine catch-up coalescing pieces have since landed on `master` via #9650 and #9649; this PR remains as the follow-up hardening stack on top of those changes. ## What Changed - Add 7-day retention for issue-create idempotency claims with indexed, batch-limited cleanup so the claim table does not grow forever. - Preserve recovery cooldown intent after terminal recovery actions are closed, and throttle repeated source-scoped recovery work. - Batch productivity-review source-activity checks to avoid repeated per-source queries while keeping the no-action suppression behavior. - Order productivity-review no-action streak windows by review creation time, matching the window semantics even when completion timestamps are out of order. - Preserve generated issue IDs in route mocks used by backlog/assignment contract tests. - Document PR-gardening task deduplication expectations in the company skill. - Add focused regression tests for idempotency retention, liveness recovery cooldowns, and productivity-review batching/suppression/ordering behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed on latest head. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts --reporter verbose` — 2 files, 23 tests passed on latest head. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils build && pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils --reporter dot` — 30 files passed, 476 tests passed, 8 skipped. - `pnpm build` — passed on latest head. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed on the rebased head before the final productivity-review ordering commit; the latest touched server code is covered by the server typecheck above. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — progressed through server, UI, CLI, shared, skills-catalog, and DB sections, then exposed an adapter-utils compiled-test fingerprint mismatch before rebuilding adapter-utils; the adapter-utils project passed after rebuild, and the GitHub split PR checks passed on the pushed head. ## Risks - Caller-supplied idempotency replay is now bounded to 7 days; reusing an old key after retention can create new work, which matches retry-oriented idempotency semantics. - Recovery and productivity-review timing changes may suppress redundant follow-up work; focused tests cover the intended boundaries. - Advisory locking and idempotency cleanup rely on PostgreSQL-compatible transaction semantics already used by the production data layer. - The migration extends the private claim table indexes without rewriting existing issue rows. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5, with reasoning, repository editing, shell/tool execution, and test execution. Exact model ID and context-window size 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> |
||
|
|
59fb27ff79 |
feat(inbox): let agents safely tidy user inboxes (#9724)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work > - The inbox is a per-user attention view, so archiving an item must not alter the underlying issue, assignment, or status > - Agents can help responsible users tidy resolved work only when the action is company-scoped, reversible, policy-controlled, and fully attributable > - The database and authorization foundations landed in #9654 and #9658, but the end-to-end archive routes, audit details, agent workflow guidance, and operator UI still need to ship together > - Separate stacked PRs #9659 and #9661 made the complete behavior harder to review and land as one coherent capability > - This pull request consolidates the remaining server, shared-contract, documentation, skill, and UI work on top of current master > - The benefit is a single reviewable change that lets agents safely archive responsible-user inbox items and lets users control or undo that behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting inbox management across shared contracts, server authorization/routes/services, shipped agent skills, and the board UI. ### Problem or motivation Agents may complete work whose issue remains in the responsible user's Mine inbox. Existing board-user archive behavior does not provide the agent-facing policy endpoints, target resolution, heartbeat-run attribution, typed denials, conservative workflow guidance, or UI needed for safe agent-managed cleanup. ### Proposed solution Allow authorized agents to archive or unarchive responsible-user inbox items under the user's open, allowlist, or disabled policy; preserve actor/agent/run attribution in issue detail and activity records; expose policy controls and agent archive attribution in the UI; and document conservative cleanup rules for agents and PR gardening. ### Alternatives considered - Reuse generic issue mutation permissions: rejected because inbox state belongs to a target user and requires user-scoped authorization. - Automatically archive every completed or closed item: rejected because completion signals can still require human review or a decision. - Keep the backend and UI as separate stacked PRs: superseded by this consolidated PR so the complete user-visible behavior can be reviewed and verified together. ### Related work - Builds on merged foundations #9654 and #9658. - Supersedes the remaining stacked changes in #9659 and #9661. - `ROADMAP.md` has no overlapping inbox archive or inbox authorization initiative. ## What Changed - Added shared inbox-agent policy types and validators plus company-scoped self-service policy routes and OpenAPI coverage. - Enabled agent archive/unarchive mutations with responsible-user targeting, policy enforcement, typed failures, attribution, idempotency, and detailed activity auditing. - Returned agent archive attribution in issue detail and documented reversible inbox cleanup semantics in the implementation spec and Paperclip skill. - Added conservative PR-gardening inbox tidy guidance that keeps GitHub access read-only and avoids archiving work that still needs human action. - Added the Profile settings policy control and Issue Properties attribution/unarchive UI with focused component coverage and narrow-pane handling. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-agent-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/InboxAgentPolicyControl.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 110 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/inbox-archive-agent-policies-migration.test.ts` — 1 passed. - `node --test .agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` — 9 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — changed files are clean; the repository-wide command currently reports nine unrelated pre-existing `#9627` literals outside this PR's diff. ## Risks - Agent inbox mutations broaden an existing endpoint path, so authorization and target resolution must remain fail-closed; focused route and authorization tests cover allowed and denied paths. - Archive state affects only the responsible user's inbox presentation and remains reversible; it does not mutate issue status, assignment, or visibility. - The UI policy defaults to the existing open behavior, while allowlist and disabled modes can reduce agent access. - This PR intentionally builds on #9654 and #9658 and contains no new migration number or modification to an already-applied migration. > 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-5.4, medium reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, code review, 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 (`feat/inbox-agent-archive-complete`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6ec059ab4e |
fix(server): suppress stale handoff alarms during live continuation (#9695)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The control plane records a successful-run handoff when productive work ends without a durable next-step disposition > - That handoff state was derived only from the latest activity event, without checking whether a corrective run or wake was currently alive > - As a result, actively progressing issues could still show a high-severity missing-disposition alarm and blocked-inbox row > - The same stale required event could also remain indefinitely when a later successful run correctly skipped recovery because another valid continuation path already existed > - This pull request makes the derived state liveness-aware, suppresses attention only while the live path exists, and resolves stale required events on valid-path skips > - The benefit is that productive work stays calm while genuine stalls still resurface automatically when liveness disappears ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - **Bug:** An issue whose latest successful-run handoff event is `required` continues to report a missing disposition even while a heartbeat run, scheduled retry, or queued/deferred/claimed wake is actively targeting that issue. - **Expected behavior:** The API should expose current continuation liveness, the blocked inbox should suppress the alarm only while that path remains live, and a later successful run that skips recovery because a valid path exists should durably resolve the stale event. - **Related but distinct:** #9370 changes disposition freshness at detection time; #8748 adds an explicit policy opt-out. This PR preserves detection/escalation policy and fixes read-time/current-liveness state. ## What Changed - Extended `SuccessfulRunHandoffState` with `hasLiveContinuation` and optional `liveRunId` evidence. - Added bounded liveness hydration for required handoff states using active heartbeat-run and wake-request signals. - Suppressed `missing_disposition` blocked-inbox rows only while a run, scheduled retry, or live wake targets the issue. - Added durable `issue.successful_run_handoff_resolved` logging when handoff detection skips because another valid continuation path owns the next action. - Added focused regressions for live/absent derived state, self-healing attention suppression, valid-path skip classification, and resolved-event logging. - Updated UI normalization and fixtures for the shared contract without changing rendering behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts` — 56 passed - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "queues one finish-handoff wake when a successful run leaves in-progress work without a next action"` — 1 passed - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Low risk: no schema or migration changes, and detection, bounded correction attempts, and escalation behavior are unchanged. - Liveness lookups are limited to issues whose latest handoff state is `required`; blocked-inbox suppression reuses rows already loaded by that query path. - Suppression is read-time and self-healing: when the run or wake stops, the alarm returns on the next fetch. > 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-5.4`, tool-enabled software-engineering workflow with repository, shell, test, Git, GitHub, and Paperclip control-plane access. Context-window size is not exposed by 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
bd7c0d5f83 |
fix(issues): deduplicate repeated creates (#9650)
## Thinking Path > Paperclip already treats issue creation as a company-scoped mutation, but retries and parallel agent heartbeats can submit the same create more than once. Client instructions cannot provide at-most-once behavior under concurrency, so the guard belongs in the server transaction. This change adds an explicit company-scoped idempotency contract, a conservative fallback for recent open same-parent titles, and run attribution for auditability. Advisory transaction locks serialize competing requests before lookup/insert, avoiding the race that affected the prior attempt. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #6529. This is a clean replacement for #6936, which was closed because it mixed unrelated changes and its check-then-insert implementation was not concurrency-safe. Unlike that attempt, this PR is scoped to eight files, uses a dedicated idempotency-key table, and serializes duplicate candidates inside the create transaction. ## What Changed - Accept optional `idempotencyKey` and `allowDuplicate` fields on issue creation. - Replay the existing issue with HTTP 200 and deduplication metadata for a repeated company/key pair. - Deduplicate recent open issues with the same company, parent, and normalized title for 48 hours unless `allowDuplicate: true` is supplied. - Persist idempotency mappings in a company-scoped table and serialize competing creates with transaction advisory locks. - Populate `originRunId` from `X-Paperclip-Run-Id` for agent/manual creates when the body does not provide an origin run. - Add route integration coverage for key replay, title fallback, bypass, closed/old recreation, company scoping, and run attribution. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts` — 7 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-assigned-backlog-contract-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts` — 10 tests passed after the service-contract compatibility fix. ## Risks - The title fallback intentionally treats normalized same-parent titles as duplicates for 48 hours; callers creating intentionally repeated titles must send `allowDuplicate: true`. - Advisory locks use hashed duplicate keys, so an extremely unlikely hash collision can serialize unrelated creates but cannot merge their lookup results. - Deleting an issue cascades its idempotency mapping, allowing the same key to create a replacement later. ## Model Used - OpenAI `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning effort, Codex CLI with repository, shell, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API tool access. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9af96461d5 |
fix(server): restore stranded recovery continuations (#9630)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI agents and their work. > - Its server recovery layer classifies blocked issue graphs and restores interrupted heartbeat execution. > - A dependent issue could remain dispatch-suppressed by a cancelled blocker without producing operator-visible attention when the dependent still displayed as todo or backlog. > - Separately, a monitor-triggered run that lost its process before disposition could consume the monitor's one-shot wake without scheduling the existing bounded continuation. > - Both gaps strand useful work even though Paperclip already has the relevant blocker-attention and process-loss recovery mechanisms. > - This pull request widens the existing classification path and reuses the single process-loss retry for monitor dispatches with no future wake. > - The benefit is visible, routable recovery without weakening dependency checkout rules or introducing an unbounded retry loop. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue or pull request was found. ### What happened? Two server recovery cases could leave work stranded: 1. A non-terminal, agent-assigned issue with an unresolved cancelled blocker remained ineligible for checkout, but blocked-chain liveness classification only inspected issues already displaying `blocked` or `in_review`, so the existing `blocked_by_cancelled_issue` attention was not surfaced. 2. A one-shot issue monitor cleared its next check when dispatched. If that monitor-triggered run ended as `process_lost` without a tracked local child, the existing bounded retry gate rejected it and no future monitor wake remained. ### Expected behavior - Cancelled blockers continue to be unresolved dependencies, and their dependents receive blocker attention regardless of whether the dependent currently displays as backlog, todo, blocked, or in review. - A monitor-triggered run lost before disposition receives exactly one bounded continuation when no future monitor check exists; a second loss follows the normal recovery-action escalation path. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create an agent-assigned todo issue blocked by a cancelled issue and run issue-graph liveness classification. 2. Observe that no cancelled-blocker finding appears before this change. 3. Dispatch a due issue monitor, clear its one-shot `monitorNextCheckAt`, and mark the resulting untracked run `process_lost`. 4. Observe that no retry is queued before this change. ### Environment - Paperclip commit: `3e348b96b` - Deployment: built from source / local test environment - Adapter: not adapter-specific; core server recovery - Database: embedded test database ## What Changed - Inspect non-terminal, agent-assigned issues with unresolved blocker edges during blocked-chain liveness classification. - Include cancelled dependents in the existing blocked-inbox attention query while preserving company-scoped relation checks. - Allow monitor-triggered `process_lost` runs with no future monitor wake to use the existing single bounded retry. - Mark monitor recovery retries as continuation-needed context and retain the existing second-loss escalation behavior. - Document cancelled-blocker and monitor-dispatch recovery semantics. - Add focused regressions for liveness findings, attention propagation, one retry, and second-loss escalation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts` — 3 files, 126 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. ## Risks - Low risk and server-only. The liveness scan inspects more unresolved dependency shapes, which can produce additional existing attention entries for previously invisible cancelled blockers. - Monitor recovery remains bounded by `processLossRetryCount < 1`, and the extra path only applies when the dispatch was monitor-triggered and no future monitor check exists. - No schema, migration, authorization, API-contract, or UI 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 `gpt-5.4` through Codex CLI, with reasoning, repository tool use, command execution, and test execution capabilities. ## 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> |
||
|
|
b13eb5b2b5 |
Skill Studio: three-pane skill IDE with sandboxed test runs (#9241)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Skills Manager gives operators a reusable skill layer, but iteration still required manual edits, ad hoc prompts, and indirect run inspection. > - Skill authors need a focused workflow for editing skill files, saving representative test inputs, and running those inputs through an agent without exposing harness tasks as normal company work. > - The backend therefore needs durable test inputs, reusable run templates, hidden harness issues, scoped run execution, retention metadata, and read-containment rules around hidden work. > - The frontend needs a three-pane Studio that keeps skill files, saved inputs/templates, and run output/history visible together while preserving the existing design system and token rules. > - This pull request ships that Skill Studio surface end to end: database migrations, shared contracts, server APIs/services, hidden harness execution behavior, UI routes/components, and focused tests. > - The benefit is faster and safer skill iteration, with inspectable outputs and fewer ways for internal harness work to leak into normal task lists, costs, or adjacent read APIs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. Feature request summary: - Problem: Skill authors need to edit and test company skills in one place instead of switching between the skill detail page, task creation, run output, and manual prompt history. - Proposed solution: Add a Skill Studio workbench with saved inputs, reusable templates, hidden sandboxed test runs, live run status, output inspection, run history, rerun/delete controls, and frontmatter-aware editing. - Expected users: Paperclip operators and agent-company maintainers who create, fork, import, and tune skills. - Related public PRs: Supersedes #9205, which was replaced so the public PR branch name follows contributor policy. - Duplicate search: searched public GitHub issues and PRs for "Skill Studio"; no other active public issue or PR directly covers this feature. ## What Changed - Added database migrations for Skill Studio test inputs, test runs, test run retention, and reusable run templates. - Added shared Skill Studio types, validators, route helpers, frontmatter utilities, and status handling. - Added server services and routes for saved inputs, test runs, templates, reruns, terminal-run deletion, hidden harness issue execution, and run-detail hydration. - Strengthened hidden-issue read containment across issue-adjacent routes and cost rollups used by skill test harness work. - Added the Skill Studio UI with skill file editing, frontmatter editing, saved inputs, templates, run creation/cancel/rerun/delete flows, output rendering, history, route support, and responsive pane behavior. - Added focused backend, shared, and UI tests for the new APIs, routing logic, editor/run behavior, hidden-issue containment, and migration safety. - Rebased onto current `master`, removed the generated lockfile diff from the PR, and verified no workflow files are changed. ## Verification - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - [x] `pnpm check:token-gates` - [x] `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skill-test-runs-service.test.ts ui/src/lib/skill-studio.test.ts ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx` — 5 files, 132 tests passed - [x] Greptile review on the latest PR head - [x] GitHub PR checks on the latest PR head ## Risks - Medium risk because this is a broad feature touching database schema, server orchestration, issue visibility, and a large UI surface. - Hidden harness issue containment is security-sensitive; this PR includes regression coverage for adjacent read paths and cost rollups. - The new migrations are additive and use idempotent guards where applicable, but deployed databases that previously tested draft migration numbers should still be checked carefully. - The UI depends on a new resizable panels package in `ui/package.json`; the lockfile is intentionally left to repository automation. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with shell, git, and GitHub CLI tool use. Earlier feature commits include assistance from other Paperclip coding agents; this PR preparation, rebase, cleanup commit, and PR body were completed by OpenAI Codex in a Paperclip worktree. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
38cca22b09 |
fix(server): avoid accepted-plan workspace branch freeze before child realization (#9233)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents tackle complex tasks via *plan* flows: a planner decomposes
work into child issues, which are accepted by the board and then
executed
> - When a plan is accepted, `createChild` in `issues.ts` inserts child
issues pre-bound to the parent's already-realized execution workspace —
carrying over its concrete branch ref
> - If the repository's base ref advances between plan acceptance and a
child's first heartbeat, the child inherits a stale branch that no
longer matches the current base
> - At first heartbeat the workspace validator detects the mismatch and
freezes the child ("branch freeze"), blocking it from starting any work
> - The real fix is to strip the concrete workspace binding when
creating accepted-plan children: they should receive only the unresolved
*intent* (mode, baseRef, branchTemplate) and realize a fresh workspace
from the current base on their own first heartbeat
> - This PR implements that strip, adds a regression test that proves a
post-base-advance child realizes cleanly, and also fixes
`parseIssueExecutionWorkspaceSettings` so `environmentId` is not
silently dropped on update round-trips (a latent bug that was masking
the original fix)
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. Bug description follows the
bug-report template:
**What happened:** Accepted-plan decomposition pre-binds child issues to
the parent's realized execution workspace branch (`executionWorkspaceId`
+ `executionWorkspaceBranch`). When `origin/master` advances between
plan acceptance and the child's first heartbeat, the workspace branch
interlock fires and the child is permanently frozen before it can start.
**Expected behavior:** Accepted-plan children should receive only
unresolved workspace intent (mode, git strategy fields) and realize a
fresh isolated worktree from the current base on first heartbeat. A
base-ref advance between acceptance and first-run should be transparent.
**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Accept a plan that decomposes into one or more child issues
(isolated_workspace + git_worktree mode).
2. Allow `origin/master` to advance (new merge).
3. Observe the first child heartbeat: workspace validation fails with a
branch-freeze error.
**Paperclip version:** current `master` (pre-fix).
**Deployment mode:** any (affects all modes that use isolated workspace
+ git worktree strategy).
Supersedes #9227 (earlier attempt, now closed — the fix was incomplete
because `environmentId` was silently dropped during
`parseIssueExecutionWorkspaceSettings` update round-trips, causing the
child workspace to lose its environment binding; this PR includes that
fix).
## What Changed
- **`server/src/issues.ts` — `createChild` / accepted-plan decomposition
path:** strip resolved workspace fields (`executionWorkspaceId`,
concrete branch) when creating accepted-plan children; preserve only
unresolved intent fields (`mode`, `baseRef`, `branchTemplate`,
`environmentId`, runtime/provisioning settings).
- **`server/src/execution-workspace-policy.ts` —
`parseIssueExecutionWorkspaceSettings`:** preserve `environmentId`
through update round-trips (was silently dropped, causing environment to
detach on any workspace settings update).
-
**`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts`:**
new regression test — accepted-plan child created after `origin/master`
moves realizes a fresh isolated worktree from the moved base and passes
workspace execution.
- **`server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`:** extended
workspace-linkage and `createChild` tests covering the accepted-plan
strip and the unchanged direct-child path.
## Verification
```sh
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "workspace linkage|accepted plan decomposition|createChild applies"
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
```
All three pass on this branch.
## Risks
**Low.** The change is scoped to the accepted-plan `createChild` code
path. The direct child / follow-up issue creation path (normal non-plan
decomposition) is unchanged and covered by existing tests. The
`parseIssueExecutionWorkspaceSettings` fix is additive — it now
preserves a field that was previously silently dropped, so no consumer
loses data.
## Model Used
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`), Anthropic, 200K context window,
extended tool use + code generation.
## 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 (supersedes #9227)
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
