647 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	ae77908618	feat(search): add bulk extract endpoint (#9507) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies > - Agents and operators need company-scoped search to discover relevant issue history safely > - The interactive search endpoint intentionally returns compact excerpts and low pagination caps for UI use > - Automation that inventories repeated references, such as pull-request URLs, needs exhaustive distinct matches without loading full issue objects into an LLM context > - Client-provided regular expressions would create an unsafe and expensive query surface, so extraction must remain literal with server-owned expansion modes > - This pull request adds a bounded agent-oriented extraction endpoint with explicit truncation > - The benefit is deterministic, compact bulk discovery across issues, comments, and documents while preserving company authorization and rate limits ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected `server/` REST API and `packages/shared/` contracts. ### Problem or motivation The existing interactive company search caps issue pagination and snippets, so automation cannot reliably enumerate every distinct literal or pull-request URL across issue descriptions, comments, and linked documents without fetching large full issue payloads. ### Proposed solution Add `GET /api/companies/:companyId/search/extract` with escaped literal matching, optional server-owned URL token expansion, issue/comment/document scopes, status/date filters, higher issue-level pagination caps, compact source references, and explicit pagination/match truncation flags. ### Alternatives considered Reusing `GET /issues?q=` would return unnecessarily large issue objects; increasing interactive-search snippet limits would make the UI API heavier; accepting arbitrary client regex would expose avoidable database cost and ReDoS risk. ### Roadmap alignment `ROADMAP.md` does not currently list a conflicting company-search or bulk-extraction initiative. GitHub searches found no directly duplicative open issue or pull request. ## What Changed - Added shared query validation and response contracts for literal and URL extraction. - Added a company-scoped extraction service that pages issues, gathers matching issue/comment/document sources, expands URL tokens, deduplicates values, and reports truncation explicitly. - Added the authenticated route using the existing company-search authorization decision and rate limiter. - Added targeted Vitest coverage for URL extraction, multi-source dedupe, date/status filters, match caps, cross-company denial, and rate limiting. - Documented the extraction surface in the implementation specification. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts` — 30 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check` — passed. ## Risks - Bulk substring search can scan large text columns. The endpoint mitigates this with a minimum literal length, bounded issue pagination, a 20-distinct-match cap per issue, explicit truncation, existing company-search rate limiting, and no client-provided regex. - URL expansion uses a fixed server-owned pattern plus an escaped literal. A security review is requested as part of PR review to confirm the pattern and abuse controls. - No database migration or existing API response shape changes are included. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI coding agent; exact runtime model ID and context-window size were not exposed to the session. Tool-enabled code execution and repository editing were used with medium reasoning effort. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-15 19:05:06 -05:00
3 people	3ae2c30f2f	feat(skills): import skills from projects (#9620) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Company skills make reusable agent behavior discoverable and editable from one place. > - Projects already contain skill directories, but operators had to import each skill path manually. > - Copying those skills would break the desired write-through workflow between Skill Studio and the source project. > - The server therefore needs a safe preview/select/import contract that only accepts rediscovered, workspace-contained candidates. > - The UI needs a guided project picker that explains reference semantics, handles conflicts, and remains usable on mobile. > - This pull request adds that end-to-end project skill import flow with authorization, tenant-scope, traversal, and symlink regression coverage. > - The benefit is faster bulk onboarding while keeping project files as the single source of truth. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Feature request** **Problem:** Importing several skills already stored in a Paperclip project requires operators to discover and submit each local path individually. This is slow, hides which well-known directories were searched, and makes conflict/already-imported states difficult to evaluate before mutation. **Proposed solution:** Add an “Import skills from project” flow that previews skills from well-known directories, lets operators selectively import eligible candidates, and stores local-path references so Skill Studio edits write through to the project files. **Alternatives considered:** Copying files into company-managed skill storage was rejected because it creates divergent copies. Trusting client-supplied paths was rejected because imports must be constrained to server-rediscovered, workspace-contained candidates. **Additional context:** GitHub duplicate search found no existing issue or PR for this exact workflow. Refs #3799 for related skill-import inventory behavior; this PR does not claim to close that issue. ## What Changed - Extend `scan-projects` with backward-compatible preview and selective-import modes, typed validation, candidate statuses, and OpenAPI coverage. - Discover project skills under `skills`, `.agents/skills`, `.claude/skills`, `.codex/skills`, `.cursor/skills`, `.opencode/skills`, and `.gemini/skills`. - Re-discover selections server-side, enforce company/project/workspace scope, and reject traversal or symlink escapes before creating `local_path` references. - Add the Skills-page menu entry and responsive project import dialog with project selection, grouped candidates, select all/deselect all, conflicts, empty/error/403 states, and import results. - Add route, service, and component regressions for preview authorization, cross-tenant selections, traversal/symlink safety, selection counts, grouping, and result semantics. ### Screenshots **Choose a project**  **Review discovered skills**  **Mobile selection footer**  **Import result**  ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/skills/ImportSkillsFromProjectDialog.test.tsx` — 3 files, 81 tests passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all token gates clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Security review passed after adding tenant-scope and unauthorized-preview regressions; UX re-review approved desktop/mobile surfaces; QA passed all seven acceptance areas including write-through editing, deduplication, conflicts, empty state, and permission denial. ## Risks - Files remain referenced in project workspaces, so moving or deleting a source directory can make an imported skill unavailable; the UI explicitly communicates the reference behavior. - New well-known directory scans may discover more candidates than older versions, but preview mode prevents mutation until the operator confirms a selection. - The endpoint remains backward compatible: omitting `mode` preserves the prior full-import behavior. - No schema migration or telemetry event 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 Opus 4.8 with tool use/code execution assisted with the UI implementation and UX polish. OpenAI Codex CLI with tool use/code execution assisted with server implementation, security fixes, regression coverage, integration, and PR preparation; the runtime did not expose Codex's exact backing model ID or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-15 18:01:44 -05:00
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>	2026-07-15 16:41:39 -05:00
Nicky Leach	3a727bf780	fix(codex): warn when sandbox auth is shadowed (#9259)	2026-07-15 10:02:28 -07:00
4 people	89ce36d7af	feat(skills): open-by-default company skill policy and core UX (#9564) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses company skills to make agent capabilities reusable across an organization. > - Skill operations currently mix capability availability with permission checks, which creates avoidable setup friction and inconsistent denial handling. > - The policy contract needs to remain open by default while allowing company-scoped restrictions for governed deployments. > - Core owns the canonical policy actions, persistence, evaluation, API behavior, safe import boundaries, and generic denial/read-only UI. > - Enterprise policy-editor implementation belongs in the separate `paperclip-ee` repository and is intentionally excluded from this PR. ### Problem or motivation Company skill operations can encounter permission dead ends even when no explicit restriction has been configured, and import-source classification can drift between policy evaluation and execution. ### Proposed solution Define eight canonical skill policy actions, default all actions to allowed, persist company-scoped restrictions, expose policy evaluation APIs, normalize import sources at the boundary, and update Skill Studio to present actionable restriction states without embedding Enterprise Edition implementation in the core repository. ### Alternatives considered Keeping capability checks distributed across routes and UI surfaces was rejected because it duplicates policy logic and makes denial behavior inconsistent. Shipping the Enterprise policy editor in this repository was rejected because `paperclip-ee` is a separate repository and must receive its own PR. ### Roadmap alignment Extends the completed **Skills Manager** roadmap area by adding coherent governance and removing workflow dead ends. ### Additional context The core API contract remains suitable for a separate Enterprise Edition editor, but this PR contains no `paperclip-ee` package or EE-specific UI integration code. ## What Changed - Added the company skill policy contract to product and implementation documentation, including the open-by-default rule, eight canonical actions, decision shape, and core/EE ownership boundary. - Added the company-scoped policy schema, migration `0170`, shared validators, policy service, REST routes, OpenAPI coverage, and focused server tests. - Hardened import policy enforcement by normalizing import sources and keeping source classification consistent between policy evaluation and execution. - Updated core Skill Studio behavior to remove generic permission dead ends and show actionable policy/platform denial states only when an operation is actually denied. - Removed the `plugin-paperclip-ee` package, Docker wiring, EE discovery/deep-link helpers, and EE-specific UI tests/stories from this PR so that implementation can be submitted separately to the EE repository. - Preserved open-by-default behavior when no explicit company restriction exists. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/skill-studio/SkillPolicySurfaces.test.tsx src/lib/skill-policy-denial.test.ts` — 20/20 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec tsc --noEmit` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` — 12/12 passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean. - `git diff --check` — passed. - `git diff --name-only origin/master | rg 'paperclip-ee|ee-skill-policy'` — no matches. ## Risks - Migration `0170` introduces company policy persistence; rollout depends on the migration applying before policy routes are exercised. - Open-by-default is an intentional behavioral policy: deployments expecting implicit denials must configure explicit restrictions. - Import normalization is security-sensitive and should retain focused review. - The separate EE editor must stay contract-compatible with the core policy API as policy actions evolve. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI, runtime model identifier and context-window size not exposed by this execution environment; reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, and code review capabilities 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 available to this runtime) - [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 or 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 ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run focused 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 on the latest head - [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> Co-authored-by: Evyatar Bluzer <bluzername@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-07-15 11:42:40 -05:00
3 people	24bd860280	Stop cancelled productivity review loops (#5210) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Productivity review reconciliation creates manager-owned review issues when assigned work shows no-comment, long-active, or high-churn patterns. > - SplatImmo hit a loop because productivity-review issues were auto-cancelled while the source issue still matched the same trigger. > - The service already snoozed recently completed reviews, but cancelled reviews were ignored for that snooze check. > - This pull request treats recently cancelled productivity reviews as terminal snooze evidence. > - The benefit is that cancelling a review now suppresses immediate recreation without disabling useful future productivity reviews. ## What Changed - Renamed the recent-review lookup to terminal-review semantics and included `cancelled` alongside `done`. - Added a regression test proving a recently cancelled productivity review produces `snoozed` instead of creating another review. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts` passes: 1 file, 12 tests. - Queried the SplatImmo Paperclip instance for existing `Review productivity` issues: 500 `issue_productivity_review` issues found, all already `cancelled`, 0 active. ## Risks - Low risk: this only affects the reconciliation branch after a terminal productivity-review issue exists. - Operators who cancel a productivity review now get the same default 6-hour quiet window as completed reviews; after that window, persistent evidence can still create a fresh review. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5 class model, tool-enabled code editing and local command execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Yanis Ismail <yanis.ismail@emissive.fr> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-15 11:38:37 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	ea66ea81e6	fix(auth): honor responsible-user grants for company skills (#9571) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies > - Company skills are governed resources, so board users and agents acting for responsible users must be authorized consistently before mutating skill configuration > - The responsible-user authorization intersection handled several task permissions but did not map company-skill mutation actions to the corresponding `skills:create`, `skills:update`, and `skills:delete` grants > - That gap caused valid skill import and mutation requests to be rejected even when the responsible user held the exact direct permission required by the route > - The branch also introduces the repo-sourced `prepare-paperclip-pr` skill so the standard PR preparation process is versioned and reviewable alongside the code > - This pull request adds the missing authorization mappings, covers board, agent, JWT-route, and denial behavior with regression tests, and adds the renamed PR-preparation skill > - The benefit is that governed company-skill workflows honor explicit grants without weakening the responsible-user permission intersection ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. Bug-report shape: - **Affected area**: company skill authorization and skill import routes - **Observed behavior**: agents acting under a responsible user could receive `403` responses for company-skill mutations even when that user had the matching direct `skills:create`, `skills:update`, or `skills:delete` grant - **Expected behavior**: the responsible-user authorization intersection should accept exact company-skill grants while preserving denials for missing or unrelated grants - **Reproduction**: authenticate as an agent with a responsible user, grant that user the relevant company-skill permission, then import or mutate a company skill - **Additional repository change**: adds the renamed `prepare-paperclip-pr` skill as the versioned source of truth for PR preparation Supersedes #9324, which added the PR-preparation skill under the old `prepare-pr` name. ## What Changed - Added `.agents/skills/prepare-paperclip-pr/SKILL.md` with the standard worktree, commit, rebase, guardrail, review-loop, and handoff procedure - Mapped company `skill_config:create`, `skill_config:update`, and `skill_config:delete` actions to direct `skills:create`, `skills:update`, and `skills:delete` responsible-user grants - Preserved restrictive behavior for unsupported resources, missing grants, and unrelated permissions - Added authorization-service regression coverage for board actors and responsible-user agent intersections - Added route-level JWT regression coverage for company skill imports, including allowed and denied cases ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-import-authz-routes.test.ts` — 42 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed - `pnpm build` — passed - `pnpm test:run` — server and UI groups passed; one unrelated CLI doctor assertion failed because the execution environment injects static `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID`/`AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`, which intentionally changes the result from `pass` to `warn` - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY NODE_ENV=development pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts -t 'passes AWS doctor checks when non-secret provider config is present'` — passed, confirming the full-suite failure is environment-specific - GitHub CI — all required checks passed on head `0758393c`; one unrelated `packages/db/src/client.test.ts` 5-second timing timeout passed on the single allowed failed-job rerun after three consecutive local passes (42/42 tests) ## Risks - Low-to-moderate authorization risk: the change expands accepted responsible-user grants only for company-scoped skill configuration actions and is protected by explicit allow/deny regression cases - No database migrations, workflow changes, lockfile changes, or UI changes - The added skill is documentation consumed by agent tooling and does not alter runtime application behavior > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent; exact runtime model ID and context-window size were not exposed to the session. Used reasoning, terminal execution, Git/GitHub tooling, and test/build execution. - Earlier commits were assisted by Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) and an OpenAI Codex coding agent, as recorded in the branch history/task workflow. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [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 documented the one environment-specific full-suite failure - GitHub CI — all required checks passed on head `0758393c`; one unrelated `packages/db/src/client.test.ts` 5-second timing timeout passed on the single allowed failed-job rerun after three consecutive local passes (42/42 tests) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-15 07:52:54 -05:00
Jannes StubbemannandClaude Fable 5	1cfed0c0ff	security(invites): widen invite-token entropy and rate-limit public invite endpoints (#8979) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Companies onboard human members through shareable invite links; the `/api/invites/:token` endpoints are deliberately public so a recipient can view the invite and accept it without being logged in > - That publicness makes the invite token itself the only secret guarding company membership — and it was guessable: the token suffix carried only ~41 bits of entropy, and the endpoints had no rate limiting > - An attacker could therefore enumerate the token space online and accept an invite into someone else's company, gaining member access to its onboarding data, skills, and workspace > - This pull request widens invite tokens to 256 bits of entropy and puts a per-IP rate limit in front of every public `/invites/:token` sub-route > - The benefit is that invite links stop being brute-forceable while their shape, storage scheme, and UX stay exactly the same — existing links keep working ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists; describing the problem in-PR (security/bug): **What happens:** Company invite tokens are **public**: anyone with the link can `GET /api/invites/:token`, fetch onboarding/logo/skills, and `POST /api/invites/:token/accept`. Two weaknesses combined to make them brute-forceable: 1. **Token entropy ~41 bits.** The token suffix was 8 chars over a 36-char alphabet (`8 * log2(36) ≈ 41.4` bits). That is online-enumerable. 2. **No rate limit on `/invites/:token*`.** The public endpoints had no throttling, so the ~41-bit space could be enumerated online. **Impact:** an attacker who guesses a live token can accept the invite and join the company as a member — unauthenticated, from any IP. **Expected:** invite tokens should be computationally infeasible to guess, and the public endpoints should throttle guessing attempts anyway (defense in depth). ## What Changed **Entropy** - `createInviteToken` now uses `crypto.randomBytes(32)` (256 bits) base64url-encoded, keeping the human-readable `pcp_invite_` prefix so link shape and UX are unchanged. The duplicate generator in `plugin-host-services.ts` is updated to match. - Tokens are stored **hashed** (sha256) in `invites.tokenHash`; the raw value is only returned once on creation. Storage scheme is unchanged. - **Backward compatible**: only newly minted tokens are affected; lookup is by hash of the presented value, so existing invite links keep working. **Rate limit** - New generic in-memory per-IP sliding-window limiter (`server/src/services/invite-rate-limit.ts`, 20 req/min/IP), applied as a router-level middleware on `/invites/:token` so every current and future sub-route is covered (summary, logo, onboarding, onboarding.txt, skills/index, skills/:name, test-resolution, and POST accept). - Returns `429` with `Retry-After` and `X-RateLimit-*` headers. In-memory ⇒ per-process, which bounds enumeration per replica. Mirrors the existing `company-search-rate-limit` pattern; no new dependency. - Adds a `tooManyRequests(429)` error helper in `server/src/errors.ts`. ## Verification - `invite-token-entropy.test.ts`: prefix preserved, suffix ≥ 128 bits / 22 chars, charset, 1000 unique tokens. - `invite-rate-limit.test.ts`: allows up to limit then 429s with retry-after; per-IP isolation; forgets hits after the window. - `invite-rate-limit-route.test.ts`: `GET /invites/:token` and `POST /invites/:token/accept` return 429 once the per-IP threshold is exceeded. - Manual: create an invite, open the link (works once per token as before), then hammer `GET /api/invites/<token>` >20 times within a minute from one IP → `429` with `Retry-After`. - Server package typechecks clean for all touched files. ## Risks - Low risk. Token change affects only newly minted tokens; existing links resolve via the same sha256-hash lookup. - The limiter is in-memory and per-process: in multi-replica deployments each replica enforces its own 20 req/min/IP budget. That still bounds enumeration (per-replica) and matches the existing `company-search-rate-limit` approach; a shared store can be layered later if needed. - Legitimate users behind a single NAT/proxy IP share the 20 req/min budget for invite endpoints; the invite flow makes only a handful of requests, so headroom is ample. - No DB migration, no API shape 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 - Claude (Anthropic) — Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking enabled, agentic tool use (code search, editing, local typecheck) via Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [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 Supersedes #8147. --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-14 15:47:58 -07:00
Jannes StubbemannandClaude Fable 5	b4e7ba5143	feat(run-logs): durable run-log store via object-storage mirror (#8984) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Every agent run streams its stdout/stderr/system output into the run-log store (`server/src/services/run-log-store.ts`), and the run-log API serves those logs back for review and debugging > - The only store implementation is `local_file`: logs live on the server pod's filesystem under `PAPERCLIP_HOME` > - In hardened / ephemeral deployments, `PAPERCLIP_HOME` is an `emptyDir` with no persistent volume, so every pod restart wipes the log files while the DB row still references them — the run-log API then returns "Run log not found" for every completed run after any redeploy > - Run logs are the primary audit/debugging trail for agent work; losing them on routine redeploys undermines trust in the platform > - This pull request adds transparent durability: when `RUN_LOG_S3_BUCKET` is set, the store mirrors each completed log to object storage on `finalize` (same `logRef` key) and falls back to it on `read` when the local file is gone; live append/tail stays on the fast pod-local file > - The benefit is that completed run logs survive pod restarts and redeploys with zero changes for existing deployments (unset bucket = today's behaviour) and zero downstream changes (store id stays `local_file`) ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing public issue — inline description following the bug report template: **What happened?** After any server pod restart/redeploy, the run-log API returns "Run log not found" for all previously completed runs. The DB still references the log file, but the file is gone because run logs are written only to the pod-local filesystem. **Expected behavior:** Completed run logs remain readable across pod restarts and redeploys. **Steps to reproduce:** 1. Deploy the server with `PAPERCLIP_HOME` on an `emptyDir` (no persistent volume — common in hardened/ephemeral Kubernetes deployments). 2. Complete an agent run and confirm its log is readable via the run-log API. 3. Restart or redeploy the server pod. 4. Request the same run's log — the API throws "Run log not found". **Paperclip version or commit:** reproducible on current `master`. **Deployment mode:** Kubernetes (server pod without persistent volume). **Agent adapter(s) involved:** Not adapter-specific (core bug). Supersedes #8795. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/run-log-store.ts`: the local-file store becomes a durable store with an optional object-storage mirror - `finalize` mirrors the completed NDJSON log to S3-compatible object storage (keyed by the same `logRef`), best-effort so a failed upload can never break run finalization; upload failures are logged via `console.warn` so operators can detect a persistently broken mirror before a pod roll makes logs unreadable - `read` serves the pod-local file when present and falls back to a ranged object-storage read (with correct `nextOffset`) when the local file is gone - Live `append`/tail stays on the pod-local file — fast path unchanged, no per-chunk PUT - Store id stays `local_file`, so nothing downstream changes (feedback pipeline, read casts, fixtures untouched) - New optional config, all read at store construction: `RUN_LOG_S3_BUCKET`, `RUN_LOG_S3_ENDPOINT`, `RUN_LOG_S3_REGION` (default `us-east-1`), `RUN_LOG_S3_PREFIX` (default `run-logs`), `RUN_LOG_S3_FORCE_PATH_STYLE` (default `true`); credentials via the standard AWS env chain; works with any S3-compatible endpoint - Reuses the existing `createS3StorageProvider`; deliberately independent from `PAPERCLIP_STORAGE_PROVIDER` so enabling durable logs does not redirect workspace/file storage - `server/src/services/run-log-store.test.ts` (new): 7 tests with an in-memory `StorageProvider` mock ## Verification - `npx vitest run src/services/run-log-store.test.ts` in `server/` — 7/7 pass locally: - store id stays `local_file` - live read served from the local file (no S3 round-trip) - `finalize` uploads the completed log to the mirror - read falls back to S3 after a simulated pod roll (local file deleted) - ranged S3 read returns correct slice + `nextOffset` - not-found when neither local nor mirror has the log - local-only safe degrade when no bucket is configured - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` — clean for the touched files - Manual: set `RUN_LOG_S3_*` against any S3-compatible endpoint (e.g. MinIO), complete a run, delete the local `.ndjson` file, and re-request the log via the run-log API — it is served from the mirror ## Risks - Low risk: with `RUN_LOG_S3_BUCKET` unset (the default), behaviour is byte-for-byte today's local-only store - Mirror upload is best-effort by design — a misconfigured bucket loses durability (not correctness) for affected runs; failures are now surfaced via a `console.warn` per failed upload - No DB migration, no API shape change, no change to the persisted `store`/`logRef` handle format ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5` (Fable 5), via Claude Code with extended thinking and tool use (code execution, file editing). Original implementation TDD-authored with the same tooling. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-14 15:45:39 -07:00
3 people	df0e5bd021	fix(interactions): don't supersede decision cards on machine-authored comments (#9015) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents and humans coordinate on issue threads, where `request_confirmation` cards capture pending decisions; a genuine human comment on the thread is meant to supersede (cancel) a card. > - Supersession is keyed on `!comment.authorUserId` — the guard assumes only real human comments carry a user id. > - But local-CLI agent heartbeats post comments under user auth, so a machine comment's `authorUserId` is populated **nondeterministically per run** (the same agent resolves as `agent` on one run and `user` on another). > - As a result an agent's own on-thread comment — or a teammate's, from a different run — can carry `authorUserId` and silently expire a pending decision card. A card was observed expiring 7ms after its own automated comment landed, stranding the decision with no live approval path. > - This PR switches the discriminator to a durable, deterministic signal already persisted on every comment — `created_by_run_id` — so only comments with **no run context** (genuine board-UI comments) supersede. > - The benefit: machine-authored comments can never again expire decision cards, while real human supersession is preserved exactly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue — describing the bug in-PR. - **What happened:** A pending `request_confirmation` decision card was expired by an automated, machine-authored comment on the same thread. Supersession is keyed on `!comment.authorUserId`, but local-CLI agent heartbeats post under user auth, so a machine comment's `authorUserId` is set nondeterministically per run. An agent's own comment (or a teammate's, from a different run) can therefore carry a user id and expire a pending card — one was observed expiring 7ms after its own automated comment landed. - **Expected behavior:** Only genuine interactive human (board-UI) comments should supersede pending decision cards. Machine-authored comments must never expire them, regardless of how the adapter's auth resolves. - **Steps to reproduce:** With a pending `request_confirmation` card (`supersedeOnUserComment: true`), post a comment via a local-CLI agent run whose actor resolves to `user`; the card expires with outcome `superseded_by_comment`. - **Deployment mode:** server (self-hosted), reproduced against `master`. Related PRs (same lifecycle area, not duplicates): #6094 (auto-resolve stale `request_confirmation` interactions) and #8799 (expire ask-user questions superseded by comments, merged). ## What Changed - Supersession now fires **only on comments with no run context** (`created_by_run_id` is null), in both paths: - `expireRequestConfirmationsSupersededByComment` (live post path) — early-return when `comment.createdByRunId` is set. - `expireRequestConfirmationsSupersededByHistoricalComments` (repair sweep) — query filters `isNull(created_by_run_id)`. - Mirrors the existing `shouldImplicitlyMoveCommentedIssueToTodo` reopen guard, which already uses run context to solve the same nondeterministic-identity problem. - Adds live + historical regression tests asserting a run-originated comment under user auth does not supersede a pending card. ## Verification - Interactions service suite: **27 tests pass (1 file)**, including the two new regression tests. - CI: all substantive gates green (Build, General tests, serialized server suites, Typecheck, e2e, verify, security-review, policy). - Manual: with a pending card, a comment carrying `created_by_run_id` leaves it `pending`; a comment with null run context still supersedes it. ## Risks - Low risk, narrowly scoped to the supersession discriminator. Human supersession is preserved (comments with no run context still cancel cards); only the machine-authored case is closed. - No schema migration — `created_by_run_id` is already persisted by `addComment`. - Alternatives considered: (a) ignore only the assignee's own run — misses cross-run machine comments; (b) default `supersedeOnUserComment: false` for agent-created cards — would drop the legitimate "human comment redirects → cancel the card" behavior. The run-context guard covers all machine comments while preserving human supersession. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended reasoning + tool use, via Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id — **not yet met**; renaming an open PR's branch risks closing this PR, so it's flagged for a maintainer to rename safely (or via the GitHub rename-branch API). - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — N/A (internal behavior fix, no user-facing docs) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green (the only red check is the automated PR-review template gate this revision addresses) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s — re-review requested after this revision - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com>	2026-07-14 15:56:26 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	931eec3fbf	feat(mcp) [split 4/8]: wire gateway runtime and Smoke Lab (#9559) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 4/8 and focuses on gateway runtime, Smoke Lab, plugins, and server wiring > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: The policy core needs runtime execution, endpoint guards, route registration, heartbeat integration, and adapter MCP injection to become operational. - Proposed solution: Adds the remaining server routes/wiring/consumers, runtime tests, adapter-utils MCP contracts, and Claude/Codex injection implementations required by the server layer. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/03-server-tool-access`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: SecurityEngineer for gateway, endpoint guard, token issuance, and runtime wiring; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds the remaining server routes/wiring/consumers, runtime tests, adapter-utils MCP contracts, and Claude/Codex injection implementations required by the server layer. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - Changed server test set — 26 files, 382 tests passed - Affected server adapter tests — 38 tests passed after concrete adapter boundary move - Adapter-utils and Codex focused tests — 76 tests passed ## Risks - Remote endpoint validation, token handling, and runtime supervision are security-sensitive and can fail closed or deny legitimate access if misconfigured. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools 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] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-14 15:07:30 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	cfa5e0704e	feat(mcp) [split 3/8]: add tool access policy core (#9558) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 3/8 and focuses on tool-access policy and authorization core > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: Authorization, OAuth binding, secret projection, content guards, and policy evaluation need a security-reviewable server boundary. - Proposed solution: Adds tool-access services/routes/tests plus the runtime service dependencies directly imported by the core, without registering the routes in the application. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/02-schema-shared`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: SecurityEngineer for authz, OAuth, secrets, and content guards; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds tool-access services/routes/tests plus the runtime service dependencies directly imported by the core, without registering the routes in the application. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - Focused server Vitest run — 4 files, 143 tests passed ## Risks - Authorization bugs could permit cross-company or over-broad tool access; the PR remains inert until PR 4 wiring and requires dedicated security review. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools 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] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-14 14:22:39 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	1de0a3bb1e	feat(mcp) [split 2/8]: add governed access contracts (#9557) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 2/8 and focuses on database schema and shared governance contracts > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: The governed access model needs additive persistence and synchronized shared types before server enforcement can compile. - Proposed solution: Adds migrations 0148–0169, tool-access and Smoke Lab schema, shared types/validators/gallery helpers, and the minimal compile-required contract consumers identified by boundary testing. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/01-demo-servers`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: QA for migrations/validators; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds migrations 0148–0169, tool-access and Smoke Lab schema, shared types/validators/gallery helpers, and the minimal compile-required contract consumers identified by boundary testing. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db test` — passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared test` — passed ## Risks - Migration or contract mistakes could affect every upper layer; all migrations are additive/idempotent and compile consumers are included in this boundary. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools 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] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-14 12:57:20 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	efcce9cc8e	fix(adapters): record unpriced CLI usage (#9505) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies > - Budgets and spend telemetry are control-plane safety features, not just reporting > - Local Codex and Claude adapters can execute through either ACP or their native CLI engines > - The ACP lane records usage and reported cost, but CLI JSON output often reports tokens without a price > - The CLI lane was either losing per-run usage semantics or coercing missing cost to zero, making real usage indistinguishable from a genuinely free run > - This pull request preserves CLI usage as per-run totals and records token-bearing runs without a reported price as explicitly unpriced ledger events > - The benefit is accurate usage accounting and a visible pricing gap instead of silently misleading zero-cost telemetry ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9471 Refs #9230 **Bug description** A `codex_local` run using the CLI engine can emit a final `turn.completed` event with millions of input tokens and tens of thousands of output tokens while the agent's spend ledger remains indistinguishable from a true zero-usage, zero-cost run. Claude CLI output has the same missing-price edge case. **Expected behavior** Token-bearing CLI runs should persist their usage. If the adapter reports a price, the ledger should record it as reported; if the CLI reports usage but no price, the ledger should explicitly mark the event as unpriced rather than silently treating missing price data as a reported `$0` cost. **Reproduction shape** 1. Configure `codex_local` with `engine: cli`. 2. Run a task that produces a `turn.completed` usage payload. 3. Observe token usage in the run stream. 4. Before this change, missing price data is represented as ordinary zero-cost spend and the CLI usage basis is not consistently propagated. ## What Changed - Mark Codex and Claude native CLI usage totals as `per_run` and propagate that basis through success and failure results. - Stop coercing missing Claude CLI cost to `0`. - Add `cost_status` to cost events with `reported` and `unpriced` values, including an idempotent migration and shared validation/types. - Persist token-bearing runs without a reported price as `unpriced` ledger events while retaining zero cents until an authoritative price exists. - Add parser, execute-path, heartbeat-accounting, and cost-service regression coverage for both local CLI adapters. - Document the cost-status invariant and CLI accounting behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/parse.test.ts packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/parse.test.ts server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts server/src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-cost-accounting.test.ts server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts` — 6 files / 102 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — includes migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` ## Risks - Existing cost rows default to `reported`, preserving current interpretation; only new token-bearing events with absent cost are marked `unpriced`. - This change does not invent model pricing. Budget hard stops still cannot charge an unknown amount, but operators and evals can now distinguish missing pricing from a genuinely reported zero cost. - Consumers that enumerate cost-event fields should tolerate the additive `costStatus` field. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model `gpt-5.3-codex`, with repository tool use and code execution; default reasoning mode. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-13 20:44:38 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	5dff52631d	fix(heartbeat): throttle redundant issue re-wakes (#9470) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI agents and their work > - Heartbeat admission decides when an agent should start another adapter session for an issue > - After process-loss recovery, assignment pollers and reconcilers can repeatedly request another wake while the issue remains `in_progress` > - When the preceding runs succeeded without issue-visible progress, those event-free wakes provide no new information but still pay the full cost of an adapter session > - Existing liveness evidence is too broad for this case because workspace tool calls can make a run look active without moving the issue > - This pull request adds an issue-scoped admission throttle for consecutive no-progress re-wakes while preserving every wake that carries new information or recovery intent > - The benefit is bounded recovery cost without delaying comments, operator actions, failures, or other meaningful events ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. **What happened?** After a process died, external wake drivers could re-wake the same agent for the same `in_progress` issue every few seconds. Each succeeded run that produced no issue-visible progress could be followed by another full adapter session despite no new issue input. In the observed recovery smoke, one recovery consumed 25 sessions and 2.4× the direct-run cost. **Expected behavior** Repeated event-free re-wakes should back off after consecutive successful runs produce no issue-visible progress. Any new information, explicit operator intent, or failed-run recovery should continue immediately. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start an issue heartbeat and simulate process loss while the issue remains `in_progress`. 2. Allow assignment/reconciliation drivers to request repeated event-free wakes for the same agent and issue. 3. Complete each follow-up run successfully without adding a comment, issue mutation, document, work product, interaction, or continuation. 4. Observe repeated adapter sessions starting every few seconds without new issue input. **Environment** - Version: reproduced on `master` before this change - Deployment: local development, built from source - Adapter scope: core bug; not adapter-specific - Database: reproduced and tested with embedded Postgres ## What Changed - Add a pure issue re-wake throttle that detects consecutive succeeded runs without issue-visible progress and applies a 120-second exponential cooldown capped at 30 minutes. - Gate event-free `enqueueWakeup` requests and return the explicit skip reason `issue_rewake_throttled` while the cooldown is active. - Always bypass throttling for comment wakes, new issue activity, explicit resumes, `forceFreshSession`, event-shaped reasons, and post-failure recovery. - Add focused pure unit coverage and database-backed heartbeat admission coverage for throttle and bypass behavior. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts` — 12 passed. - `cd server && pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts` — 6 passed with embedded Postgres. - `cd server && pnpm run typecheck` — passed. - Neighbor suites previously verified: `heartbeat-dependency-scheduling`, `heartbeat-process-recovery`, `run-continuations`, `heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation`, `recovery-stale-issue-lock-sweep`, and `heartbeat-comment-wake-batching` — 131 tests passed. ## Risks - A progress classifier that is too narrow could defer a legitimate event-free poll; the cooldown is bounded and new issue activity bypasses it immediately. - A progress classifier that is too broad could allow the original heartbeat storm; tests intentionally distinguish issue-visible mutations from workspace-only activity. - Low compatibility risk: no schema, API contract, or migration changes. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent. The runtime does not expose the exact underlying model ID or context-window size; reasoning, terminal tool use, code inspection, GitHub CLI access, 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 public PR 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>	2026-07-12 20:38:27 -05:00
3 people	9e7e84e3fe	fix(adapters): propagate ACP-lane usage and cost into spend telemetry (#9471) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane for running and governing AI-agent companies. > - Adapter executions feed token usage, billing identity, and run cost into the control plane's spend telemetry. > - The default ACP execution lane for local Claude and Codex adapters did not propagate per-turn usage or cost, so paid runs could be recorded with zero spend and no tokens. > - Claude CLI result events could also undercount output tokens by reading only the main-loop usage block instead of the complete per-model ledger. > - The shared executor needs to distinguish per-run usage from session-cumulative usage so the server does not apply the wrong delta heuristic. > - This pull request captures ACP usage and cumulative-cost deltas, resolves adapter billing identity, uses Claude's complete model-usage ledger, and preserves per-run usage in server normalization. > - The benefit is accurate token and cost accounting across the default paid Claude and Codex execution paths. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? Paid `claude_local` and `codex_local` runs using the default ACP engine can complete successfully while the control plane records zero or null cost and missing token usage. Claude CLI result parsing can additionally undercount output tokens when subagent or sidechain usage is present. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Run a paid Claude or Codex local adapter through the ACP engine. 2. Complete a turn that reports usage and cumulative cost through ACP status/events. 3. Inspect the execution result and normalized run telemetry. ### Expected behavior The execution result contains per-turn token usage, a per-run USD cost delta, and the correct billing identity. Server normalization records those per-run values without applying a session-cumulative delta a second time. ### Actual behavior before this change ACP execution results returned no usage and `costUsd: null` with unknown billing. The server therefore recorded zero spend and no tokens for paid runs. Claude CLI parsing could use an incomplete usage block. ## What Changed - Capture ACP usage from runtime status and `usage_update` events, reporting it as `usageBasis: per_run`. - Convert agent-reported cumulative ACP cost into a per-turn delta, including counter-reset and no-report safeguards. - Add a shared billing-identity resolver and map Claude and Codex authentication/provider modes to control-plane billing types. - Prefer Claude result-event `modelUsage` totals so subagent and sidechain tokens are included. - Skip the server's session-cumulative usage delta when an adapter explicitly reports per-run usage. - Add regression coverage for usage capture, event fallback, cost resets, stale reports, billing identities, model-usage totals, and server spend normalization. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/parse.test.ts packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/acp.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/acp.test.ts server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/monthly-spend-service.test.ts` — 6 files, 126 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - A broader Claude-local suite has a pre-existing rate-limit classification failure in `test.probe.test.ts`; it also fails on clean `master` and is unrelated to this change. ## Risks - Cost reporting depends on the agent's cumulative counter semantics; reset handling falls back to the post-turn amount and is covered by regression tests. - Incorrect billing-mode inference could misclassify spend; provider/auth mappings mirror each adapter's existing CLI behavior and have focused tests. - The new `usageBasis` contract changes server normalization only when adapters explicitly opt into `per_run`; existing adapters retain prior behavior. - No database migration, workflow, lockfile, or UI changes are included. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Implementation commit: Anthropic Claude Fable 5, tool-enabled coding workflow (exact context window and runtime configuration were not recorded in the commit metadata). - PR preparation and verification: OpenAI Codex, tool-enabled coding agent (runtime model ID and context window are not exposed to this session). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-12 20:37:22 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4a40c0cb13	feat(routines): gate scheduled runs on external activity (#9436) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI-agent companies and their recurring work > - Scheduled routines provide native cron-driven execution for recurring agent tasks > - Watcher-style routines currently dispatch a model run even when the control plane has been quiet since their last useful run > - Existing pause, catch-up, and concurrency policies do not distinguish external work from a routine's own bookkeeping > - This pull request adds a generic activity gate that checks company-scoped activity provenance before scheduled dispatch > - The benefit is backward-compatible zero-token quiet skips while real human, agent, or delegated-child activity still wakes the routine ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #8534 ## What Changed - Added `activity_gate_policy` and `activity_gate_scope` routine columns with backward-compatible `always` / `company` defaults. - Added a company-bounded `evaluateActivityGate()` predicate that uses the last dispatched run as its open window, excludes the routine's own execution runs and scheduler bookkeeping, ignores pure-read actions, and supports company/project scope. - Integrated the predicate into scheduled ticks after pause/worktree eligibility checks; quiet ticks create visible skipped run-history rows with reason `no_external_activity` and gate-window diagnostics without advancing the activity window. - Kept webhook, manual, and API dispatch paths ungated; catch-up schedules evaluate the gate once per scheduler tick. - Added migration-default, provenance predicate, project-scope, quiet-window, scheduler, and webhook-bypass coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` — 51 tests passed - Embedded Postgres `EXPLAIN` for the company-scope gate scan: ```text Limit (cost=24.56..24.58 rows=1 width=24) -> Incremental Sort (cost=24.56..24.60 rows=2 width=24) Sort Key: activity.created_at, activity.id Presorted Key: activity.created_at -> Nested Loop Anti Join (cost=0.44..24.55 rows=1 width=24) Join Filter: (own_run.id = activity.run_id) -> Index Scan using activity_log_company_created_idx on activity_log activity (cost=0.15..8.19 rows=1 width=40) Index Cond: ((company_id = '00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001'::uuid) AND (created_at > (now() - '01:00:00'::interval)) AND (created_at <= now())) ``` ## Risks - The migration adds two non-null text columns, but constant defaults preserve all existing routine behavior and avoid a backfill step. - Project scope resolves activity through issue/run/routine provenance; tests cover in-project and cross-project issue activity, while every top-level and correlated query remains company-bounded. - This is the scheduler/schema foundation. Public API validation and documentation for configuring the new fields are intentionally handled in the next scoped follow-up. > 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` with medium reasoning, repository/tool access, terminal code execution, and test 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 extends the existing Scheduled Routines roadmap item - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked the related efficiency request 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 (no user-facing configuration is exposed in this scoped foundation PR) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-11 21:52:09 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	e4e12bfb89	fix(workspaces): persist readiness state and validate ports (#9408) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Execution workspaces can run managed services that must report reliable lifecycle and readiness state > - Service startup previously waited for readiness before committing the starting row, making concurrent control actions see stale state > - Fixed service ports also needed clearer configuration and ownership diagnostics to avoid cross-workspace collisions > - This pull request persists startup state before readiness, validates port ownership, and exposes configurable service ports in the workspace UI > - The benefit is dependable service controls and actionable diagnostics when workspace runtimes start slowly or compete for ports ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? Slow-starting workspace services could remain invisible to concurrent stop/restart controls until readiness completed, and fixed-port conflicts lacked enough ownership context for safe repair. ### Expected behavior A starting service is persisted immediately, control operations can observe it, configured ports are editable, and conflicts identify the owning process/workspace. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Configure a workspace service that delays binding its HTTP port. 2. Start the service and immediately request another control action. 3. Observe stale persisted state before this change. 4. Configure two workspaces for the same fixed port and observe limited conflict diagnostics. ### Paperclip version or commit `origin/master` at `02e2dd271` ### Deployment mode Local dev; built from source; not adapter-specific; database-backed workspace runtime state. ## What Changed - Commit the `starting` runtime-service row before waiting for readiness and transition it after the probe completes. - Add port-owner inspection and cross-workspace conflict details to local service supervision. - Preserve configurable runtime service ports through workspace configuration updates. - Surface service-port editing and validation in the execution workspace details UI. - Add server and UI regression coverage for slow readiness, concurrent controls, port persistence, and conflict diagnostics. ## Verification - `vitest --project @paperclipai/server src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` — 118 tests passed. - `vitest --project @paperclipai/ui src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.service-ports.test.ts` — 4 tests passed. - `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` — all token gates clean. ## Risks - Moderate risk: changes touch workspace service lifecycle persistence and local process/port inspection. - No schema migration is required; tests exercise slow readiness, concurrent control, persisted ports, and cross-workspace conflicts. > 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-5.3 Codex, reasoning with repository tool use and code execution; context-window size was 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>	2026-07-11 03:02:21 -05:00
3 people	36ec79c196	feat: add attention queue and Decisions surface (#9380) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, where operators need a reliable way to find and act on work awaiting their input. > - The attention and issue-thread interaction subsystems expose those decision points across server APIs and the board UI. > - The previous navigation and interaction presentation left these actions fragmented and did not offer a controlled rollout for the Decisions surface. > - This branch adds the attention feed, richer interaction cards, grouping, dismiss/snooze behavior, and a gated Decisions sidebar entry. > - It also keeps experimental settings and API contracts synchronized, with an idempotent migration for the new dismissal state. > - This pull request delivers the complete, tested attention/Decisions experience as one reviewable unit. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Adds an operator-focused attention queue and Decisions experience: grouped decision cards, semantic interaction actions, dismiss/snooze handling, resilient interaction states, and an experimental flag to control the Decisions navigation entry. ## Feature Context ### Problem or Motivation Operators currently have to hunt across approvals, interactions, failed runs, and budget alerts to find decisions that need their action. ### Proposed Solution Provide a gated Decisions attention queue that groups actionable items, supports direct resolution, and preserves operator control through dismiss and snooze actions. ### Alternatives Considered Keep separate, source-specific views only; this leaves cross-cutting operator decisions fragmented and harder to prioritize. ### Roadmap Alignment This improves the V1 control-plane operator workflow by making pending governed actions discoverable in one company-scoped surface. ## What Changed - Added server attention-feed services, routes, interaction handling, dismiss/snooze support, and an idempotent `0145` inbox-dismissal migration. - Added shared attention, inbox-dismissal, and experimental-settings contracts. - Added Decisions/attention UI, interaction-card states, sidebar badge/navigation integration, grouping, keyboard support, and Storybook coverage. - Added tests for attention behavior, thread interactions, settings normalization, dismissals, and API behavior. - Removed generated screenshots from the final PR diff and rebased the branch onto current `master`. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-dismissals.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — passed: 158 tests across 9 focused files. - GitHub Actions for `ad636f560`: build and typecheck/release-registry have passed; remaining general-server and Greptile checks are in progress. ## Risks - Moderate: this is a cross-layer attention/interaction feature with a new migration and navigation behavior. - The `enableDecisions` experimental setting defaults to off, limiting rollout impact. - Existing dismissal data is backfilled to `dismiss`; the migration is idempotent and uses guarded constraint creation. > ROADMAP.md was checked; no duplicate planned core feature was identified. Related open pull requests were searched before opening this PR. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with tool use and local code execution. Context-window size unavailable in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My public PR branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally; focused tests pass and the remaining unrelated AWS test failure is documented above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-10 17:09:57 -05:00
Devin Foley	17dde9d3f2	fix(sandbox): keep custom-image snapshots applied to config tests, probes, and saves (#9385) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Sandbox environments can capture reusable custom images (provider snapshots) so agents boot with pre-installed tools and CLI logins > - The custom-image runtime fingerprint check included provider secret-ref paths (e.g. the Daytona `apiKey`), while capture-time fingerprinting excluded them, so any config carrying a credential never matched its captured snapshot > - As a result, agent config tests and environment probes silently booted the provider base image instead of the snapshot, test sandboxes were deleted before operators could inspect them, and any environment save orphaned the snapshot without warning > - The UI compounded the confusion by displaying an internal template id that matches nothing in the provider dashboard > - This pull request aligns runtime fingerprints with capture-time exclusions, re-stamps fingerprints on saves that cannot affect the snapshot (warning when they can), archives test/probe sandboxes instead of deleting them, and surfaces the provider snapshot ref in the UI > - The benefit is that custom images actually apply to config tests and probes, survive unrelated config edits, and are debuggable against the provider dashboard ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this; describing it in-PR per the bug template. Related: Refs #9329 (saved-environment probe company context — this branch carries an equivalent fix), Refs #8794 (introduced reusable sandbox custom images). **What happened?** With a Daytona environment whose provider config stores the API key as a secret reference and an active captured custom-image snapshot: - Agent config tests and environment probes booted the provider base image (`daytonaio/sandbox:0.8.0`) instead of the captured snapshot, so CLI upgrades/logins baked into the snapshot were missing and the probe reported "login required" and an outdated CLI. - The environment card showed an internal template id (e.g. `b5be03e1-ca5…`) that does not correspond to any snapshot name in the provider dashboard, making the active image impossible to correlate. - Test/probe sandboxes were deleted immediately after the run, so the sandbox a test used could not be inspected afterwards. - Saving the environment config (even fields unrelated to the image) changed the stored fingerprint, silently detaching the snapshot with no warning. **Expected behavior** Config tests and probes boot the captured snapshot when one is active; the UI shows the provider-facing snapshot/template ref; test sandboxes stay inspectable for a short window; unrelated config edits keep the snapshot linked, and edits that genuinely invalidate it produce an explicit warning. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure a sandbox environment on Daytona with the API key stored as a company secret reference. 2. Capture a custom image snapshot from the environment page and mark it active (e.g. after installing/logging into a CLI in the setup sandbox). 3. Run the agent config test or an environment probe: the sandbox boots the base image, not the snapshot, and the sandbox is deleted immediately after the test. 4. Save the environment config with an unrelated field change: the snapshot silently stops applying. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at the merge-base of this branch. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted local instance (macOS, pnpm dev server) with the Daytona sandbox provider plugin. ## What Changed - Runtime custom-image fingerprint checks now exclude provider secret-ref paths, matching capture-time exclusions, so configs carrying credentials match their captured snapshots (`environment-custom-image-runtime.ts`). - Agent config tests and saved-environment probes force fresh, non-reused sandboxes and pass company context so lease-backed probes can resolve company secrets and boot the real snapshot (`environment-probe.ts`, `routes/agents.ts`, `routes/environments.ts`). - Test/probe sandboxes are released by archiving (stop + 60-minute provider-side auto-delete) instead of immediate deletion, so operators can inspect the exact sandbox a test used (Daytona plugin). - On environment PATCH save, changes that cannot affect the captured snapshot re-stamp the template's source fingerprint so the snapshot stays linked; boot-source or provider-identity changes (new manifest field `templateIdentityPaths`) mark the template detached and the save response reports it (`environment-custom-images.ts`, shared plugin types/validators). - The custom-image overview exposes `activeTemplateMatchesConfig`; the environments UI shows the provider snapshot/template ref (internal id moved to a tooltip), warns via toast when a save detaches the snapshot, and shows a persistent "Not in use" warning when the active template no longer matches the saved config (`CompanyEnvironments.tsx`, `api/environments.ts`). ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-probe.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-test-environment-routes.test.ts` — server coverage for fingerprint exclusions, re-stamp/detach on save, probe company context, and fresh-sandbox test behavior. - `pnpm vitest run packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/src/plugin.test.ts` — archive-on-release and snapshot ref handling. - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx` — snapshot ref display, detach toast, and "Not in use" warning. - Manually verified end-to-end on a live self-hosted instance against real Daytona: config test boots the captured snapshot (CLI login and version persist), the test sandbox remains visible in the provider dashboard as archived, and saving unrelated fields keeps the snapshot applied. ## Risks - Fingerprint exclusion widening: a provider credential rotation alone no longer detaches a captured snapshot; that is the intended behavior (the snapshot content does not depend on the credential), and provider-identity fields (e.g. Daytona `apiUrl`) still detach via `templateIdentityPaths`. - Archived test sandboxes consume provider-side resources for up to their auto-delete window instead of being freed immediately; bounded (60 minutes) and only for test/probe sandboxes. - New optional manifest field `templateIdentityPaths` is backward-compatible; providers that omit it keep current matching behavior. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use via Claude Code / Claude Agent SDK. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-07-10 14:32:47 -07:00
3 people	70ce005bef	Ensure worktree execution starts only after activation (#9374) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open-source control plane people use to manage AI agents and their work. > - Its scheduler, routines, and heartbeat services decide when agents automatically begin work. > - Experimental per-worktree execution is useful for isolated development, but enabling it previously allowed automatic services to consider an existing backlog. > - A worktree activation must therefore create a durable eligibility boundary rather than merely toggle execution on. > - This pull request records an activation cutoff and applies it consistently to automatic routine and heartbeat dispatch. > - The result is that an enabled worktree executes only work created after its own activation, while non-worktree behavior remains unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem type:** Bug / safety regression **Summary:** Enabling experimental run execution in an existing worktree could start automatic scheduler, routine, watchdog, and heartbeat activity for work created before that worktree was explicitly armed. **Expected behavior:** A worktree that has execution enabled only considers automatically dispatched work created on or after its activation timestamp. Ambiguous activation state fails closed. Non-worktree instances keep their existing behavior. **Related public work:** Refs #8275 (runtime worktree policy gating); this PR adds an activation-time boundary for automatic execution rather than changing the general runtime policy. ## What Changed - Persist a worktree execution activation timestamp and originating instance ID; stamp them only when the experimental toggle changes from disabled to enabled. - Resolve activation state fail-closed when the cutoff is missing, invalid, disabled, or belongs to another instance. - Gate automatic routine scheduling, webhooks, watchdog activity, and heartbeat selection at the activation cutoff; manual runs remain available. - Share the canonical worktree truthy-environment helper across routine dispatch and agent inbox filtering. - Add cutoff and truthy-runtime regression coverage, plus experimental-settings UI states that explain armed and suppressed execution. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts` — passes: 2 files, 60 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passes. - Existing CI completed successfully before the follow-up review fixes; this branch was rebased onto the latest `origin/master` before retesting. ## Risks - **Behavioral:** Automatic worktree execution is intentionally more restrictive; pre-existing work is suppressed until newly created after activation. - **Operational:** A malformed or cross-instance activation record fails closed, requiring an operator to disable and re-enable the experimental toggle on the intended worktree. - **Compatibility:** The worktree environment now accepts all canonical truthy values (`1`, `true`, `yes`, and `on`) consistently; non-worktree instances are unaffected. - **Branch metadata:** This existing execution-workspace branch predates the current naming rule and cannot be renamed under this task's workspace contract; the code and PR title do not include internal ticket references. > `ROADMAP.md` was checked; this targeted execution-safety fix does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Code — assisted with the original implementation; exact model identifier and context window were not recorded in the repository metadata. - OpenAI Codex CLI — assisted with PR preparation and review fixes; exact model identifier and context window are not exposed in this execution environment. Used with terminal tooling, code editing, and targeted test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-10 16:11:26 -05:00
3 people	1fe89eb8f8	Enforce durable external-wait liveness (#9373) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The heartbeat/recovery subsystem decides whether an agent run has a durable continuation path after the process stops. > - External waits need stricter semantics than local background watchers: a killed local process is not durable, while a first-class blocker/monitor/scheduled wake is. > - Without that distinction, recovery can repeatedly treat adapter-failed continuations as live work and obscure the real reason a task stopped. > - This pull request adds explicit durable external-wait liveness handling and documents the expected execution semantics. > - It also improves operator-visible recovery evidence so invalid external-wait paths explain why they were rejected. > - The benefit is clearer recovery behavior, fewer duplicate continuation recoveries, and a safer contract for monitor-backed external waits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #5978 - Related PRs: #4988, #7495, #8502 ## What Changed - Added durable external-wait liveness classification so local/background watchers are not accepted as durable live paths after the owning process exits. - Preserved first-class blocker/monitor/scheduled wake paths as valid external-wait continuations. - Added backend regression coverage for killed watcher failure, monitor-backed durable wait resumption, normal completion, blocker behavior, and no duplicate recovery. - Added adapter utility coverage for terminal cleanup behavior used by local process adapters. - Surfaced invalid external-wait recovery evidence in the recovery action card and run ledger. - Updated execution semantics documentation and the V1 implementation contract. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group general-server` equivalent lane passed in CI-clean env: 238 files, 2164 tests passed, 1 skipped. - `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group general-workspaces-a` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env: UI 305 files / 2430 tests; CLI 43 files / 230 tests. - `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group general-workspaces-b` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env: shared/db/adapters/plugin packages all green. - `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode serialized` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env: 107 serialized server suites green, including 84/84 heartbeat-process-recovery tests. - `pnpm build` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env. Notes: running `pnpm test:run` directly inside the Paperclip heartbeat environment exposed local harness env contamination in existing tests (`PAPERCLIP_CONFIG`, `PAPERCLIP_DB_BACKUP_DIR`, and `PAPERCLIP_WORKTREE_START_POINT`). Re-running the same lanes with inherited `PAPERCLIP_*` and port env removed produced the CI-equivalent green results above. ## Risks - Medium behavioral risk: this changes recovery classification for stopped local external-wait processes, so adapters relying on unmanaged background watchers must use blockers, monitors, scheduled wakes, or explicit durable handoff instead. - Low UI risk: recovery-card copy changes are covered by component tests and Storybook screenshot QA. - No database migration is included. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool-enabled terminal/code execution. Exact context-window metadata was not exposed in the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-10 13:21:12 -05:00
Devin Foley	a4993a72a6	Fix live run streaming text readability (#9330) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue thread UI renders live agent output from adapter run logs and transcript parsing. > - Some adapter streams emit many small or repeated token chunks, and live UI updates can expose partial words, duplicated slices, or transient markdown placeholders. > - That makes active run updates look like gibberish even when the underlying agent output is valid. > - The fix needs to preserve raw logs while making the live thread view stable, readable, and ordered. > - This pull request adds monotonic run-log sequencing, safer live transcript dedupe/order handling, markdown placeholder hiding, and readable live text stabilization. > - The benefit is a live issue thread that updates smoothly without showing confusing partial parser artifacts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists yet, so this PR includes the bug details inline. ### What happened? Live run updates in the issue thread can show confusing repeated or partial text while an adapter is streaming. The visible text appears to lose parsing boundaries during active updates, especially with ACP-style token deltas, so the live output can briefly render duplicated chunks, incomplete words, or HTML-comment placeholders. ### Expected behavior Live text should remain readable while preserving the underlying run output for raw inspection. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Start a live agent run whose adapter emits small stdout token deltas. 2. Watch the issue thread while the run is still active. 3. Observe transient duplicated chunks, incomplete words, or markdown placeholder artifacts in the live rendered text. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced against current `master` before this PR branch. ### Deployment mode Local dev issue-thread UI with live local adapter runs. ### Additional context GitHub PR search for `live run streaming text markdown transcript` found one broad merged PR, `#252` (“Dotta updates - sorry it's so large”), but no targeted duplicate for this live streaming readability bug. ## What Changed - Added per-run monotonic sequence numbers to persisted and live run-log chunks. - Dedupe and order live transcript chunks by sequence before falling back to timestamp ordering. - Hide markdown HTML comment placeholder text from rendered markdown output. - Smooth live issue-thread text updates so partial additions reveal at readable word boundaries and sliding-window removals do not produce gibberish. - Added coverage for run-log ordering/deduping, markdown comment hiding, live issue-thread stabilization, and Greptile-reviewed edge cases where overlap rewrites could synthesize text or no-boundary additions could stay hidden. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx src/components/transcript/useLiveRunTranscripts.test.tsx` passed before the review fix: 3 files, 86 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts` passed after the review fix: 1 file, 30 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts src/components/transcript/useLiveRunTranscripts.test.tsx` passed after the final Greptile overlap fix: 2 files, 40 tests. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - Local PII/secret scan of touched files found only expected code/test words such as `secret`, `token`, and redaction-related strings; no literal credentials found. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after restoring declared dependencies with `CI=1 pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` and running with a short `TMPDIR` because `tsx` IPC sockets fail under the long sandbox temp path. - `pnpm build` passed with existing Vite CSS/font/chunk warnings. - GitHub PR checks passed on head `4c052dfe86aecb5feb73504e6b48843f68fce813`: build, typecheck/release registry, server and workspace test shards, serialized server suites, e2e, canary dry run, policy, review, Socket, Superagent, Snyk, and verify. - Greptile review passed on head `4c052dfe86aecb5feb73504e6b48843f68fce813` with confidence score 5/5 and no blocking issues found. - `pnpm test:run` failed in unrelated server workspace tests on this macOS local environment: - `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts`: two assertions compare `/tmp/...` with `/private/tmp/...`. - `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-worktree-suppression.test.ts`: expected one heartbeat run but observed two, followed by cleanup fallout in the full run. - Isolated rerun of those two server suites reproduced the same three failures. ## Risks - Low product risk for the UI changes: the readable smoothing only affects active live-run display stabilization, not stored comments or raw run logs. - Moderate verification risk: local full Vitest did not pass because of unrelated server workspace tests. Targeted tests for this change, typecheck, token gates, and build passed. - Run-log sequence fields are optional for compatibility with older log rows that do not include `seq`. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool-using local workspace 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 searched the GitHub PR list for similar PRs and confirmed this is not a duplicate - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-07-10 08:11:52 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	0f5f461729	Avoid startup crash when Reflection Coach assets are missing (#9351) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server has built-in agent definitions that are loaded during startup and used to provision optional operational agents such as Reflection Coach > - Reflection Coach stores richer stock instructions, a routine description, and a bundled skill as markdown assets outside the TypeScript module body > - A deployed server can fail before it is healthy if one of those copied markdown assets is absent from `server/dist` > - A recent build fix preserves those assets during normal server builds, but runtime should still degrade gracefully if a packaged asset is missing or unreadable > - This pull request adds resilient loading for built-in Reflection Coach assets and keeps a minimal compiled fallback available > - The benefit is that a missing optional built-in agent file no longer turns into a process-wide startup crash ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Bug fix. No public GitHub issue found for this exact startup crash. - Related public PR: #9339 - What happened: the server could throw `ENOENT` while importing the built-in agent service if `server/dist/built-ins/agents/reflection-coach/AGENTS.md` was missing from a deployed build. - Expected behavior: the server should keep starting, log that the built-in asset was missing, and use safe fallback text for the optional built-in agent resource. - Steps to reproduce: build the server, remove the compiled Reflection Coach `AGENTS.md` asset from `server/dist`, then import/start the server path that loads built-in agent definitions. - Paperclip version/commit: reproduced against a deployed build containing the Reflection Coach built-in agent assets; fixed against current `master` after #9339. - Deployment mode: Node server deployment using compiled `server/dist` output. ## What Changed - Added built-in agent text loading that checks the compiled asset path first, then source/package fallback paths, then a minimal compiled-in fallback string. - Added fallback text for Reflection Coach instructions, routine description, and bundled skill content so startup does not depend on optional markdown assets being present. - Added regression coverage for readable candidate selection and missing-file fallback behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm -w exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts` — 1 test file passed, 24 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` — server TypeScript build completed and copied `src/built-ins` into `dist/built-ins`. - Manual smoke: temporarily moved `server/dist/built-ins/agents/reflection-coach/AGENTS.md`, imported `server/dist/services/built-in-agents.js` through the repo-pinned `tsx` runtime, and confirmed Reflection Coach definitions still loaded with output `reflection-coach:3732`; the asset was restored afterward. ## Risks Low risk. The normal path still uses the full packaged markdown assets. The fallback path is only used when those files are missing or unreadable, and it logs a warning so packaging drift remains visible. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent, with repository tool access and shell-based verification. Exact context window was not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-10 08:28:37 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	cc81eefb60	Make plan-approval continuations durable after failed wakes (#9331) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents often work from reviewed plans that are approved through issue-thread interactions. > - Accepting a plan is not just a UI decision; it must reliably resume the assignee so approved work continues. > - A failed continuation wake could leave an approved plan stranded in review with no durable retry or visible recovery path. > - This pull request makes approved plan continuations retryable, recoverable, and visible when resume fails. > - The benefit is that operators can trust plan approval to either resume the agent or produce an explicit actionable failure instead of silent limbo. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. Inline bug report follows the repository bug template. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip or can reproduce on `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? When a plan-confirmation interaction was accepted, the assignee continuation wake could fail before useful agent execution. In that case the issue could remain in review even though the plan had been approved, because the failed wake was fire-and-forget and there was no durable retry or recovery path for accepted continuations. ### Expected behavior Accepted plan continuations should either wake the assignee successfully, retry bounded infrastructure failures, recover dropped wakes, or surface an explicit failure state that operators can act on. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create an issue with an assignee and a plan confirmation that wakes the assignee on accept. 2. Accept the confirmation. 3. Simulate a pre-flight continuation failure, such as process loss before agent start or workspace validation failure. 4. Observe that the approved issue can remain in review without an active assignee wake or visible retry/failure state. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproducible on `master` before this PR's retry/recovery changes. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`) and server-side recovery paths. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm install`, `pnpm dev`, test runner). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific; this is a core continuation/recovery bug. The tests cover local-agent failure shapes without relying on a provider-specific API. ### Database mode Embedded Postgres test database for verification. The affected logic is database-backed and applies to normal Postgres deployments as well. ### Access context Board accepts the interaction; agent execution resumes through the assignee wake path. ### Relevant logs or output No sensitive logs are needed. The regression tests simulate the failed wake and recovery states directly. ### Relevant config No special config is required beyond an assignee with wake-on-demand enabled. ### Additional context This PR also prevents a stale workspace-validation payload from quarantining another issue's active workspace and prevents unrelated successful runs from masking a continuation that never resumed. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII, usernames, file paths, API keys, tokens, and company names, and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Added bounded infrastructure retries for failed accepted-interaction continuation wakes. - Extended stranded issue recovery so dropped accepted-plan continuation wakes are requeued. - Recorded and rendered explicit resume-failure state on accepted confirmation cards. - Added clean-workspace fallback for workspace-validation failures while preventing cross-issue workspace quarantine. - Tightened recovery so unrelated successful runs do not mask an accepted continuation that never resumed. - Added focused server/UI coverage for retry scheduling, recovery, visible failure state, and interaction card rendering. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` — 106 tests passed. - Earlier branch verification also covered the issue-thread interaction card tests for the visible resume-failure UI. - GitHub CI is green on the replacement PR head, and Greptile reports 5/5 with no blocking issues. ## Risks - Medium behavioral risk: this changes recovery behavior for accepted continuation interactions and workspace-validation retries. - Mitigation: retries are bounded, scoped to same-company issue context, and workspace quarantine now requires ownership by the issue being retried. - Existing stored confirmation results remain compatible because the new resume-failure field is 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, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled terminal workflow. The runtime does not expose an exact context-window value to the agent. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-10 08:12:16 -05:00
3 people	5c85ae64a0	Cases: experimental first-class case object (#9198) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board currently uses issues for execution, but longer-lived content work needs a separate object that can survive beyond a single task thread. > - The Cases subsystem adds an experimental, company-scoped record for content artifacts and their supporting metadata. > - The backend needs durable storage, API routes, revision history, issue linkage, and company-boundary enforcement before the UI can depend on Cases. > - The UI needs an opt-in navigation surface, list/detail views, reference chips, and issue-page context so operators can inspect Cases without making them the default workflow. > - The agent-facing skills need a contract for creating and updating Cases so automated content workflows can dogfood the feature. > - This pull request ships that experimental end-to-end path behind the `enableCases` flag. > - The benefit is a first-class place to collect content work, references, attachments, revisions, and related execution threads without polluting the core issue model. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this experimental feature. Feature request fields: ### Problem Content-oriented work such as release notes, announcements, docs, and campaigns can span many execution issues, which makes the final artifact hard to find and reason about after the execution thread moves on. ### Proposed solution Add an experimental Cases object that is company-scoped, linked to issues, queryable through the API, inspectable in the board UI, and writable by agent workflows through documented conventions. ### Alternatives considered Continue encoding content artifacts directly in issues or documents only. That keeps the data model smaller, but it does not give operators a stable artifact-centric view or a clean way to link related execution history. ### Roadmap alignment Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned core roadmap item. ## What Changed - Added the `cases` data model, migration, schema exports, and experimental `enableCases` instance setting. - Added company-scoped Cases API routes for list/detail/update, issue links, revisions, children, activity events, annotations, attachments, and idempotent agent-oriented upserts. - Scoped case and issue lookup helpers before access checks so inaccessible cross-company identifiers resolve as not found rather than leaking existence. - Fixed case PATCH timestamp handling so non-status updates cannot overwrite `completedAt` from a stale pre-transaction row snapshot. - Moved Cases list type/status/project filters into the server request before the server-side limit is applied, including multi-select filters and no-project filtering. - Added backend route coverage for creation, updates, idempotency, issue linking, attribution, company-boundary enforcement, OpenAPI registration, list filtering, timestamp patch behavior, and inaccessible lookup regressions. - Added the experimental Cases UI surface: sidebar entry, gated routes, list filters/grouping, detail overview, activity, revisions, children, attachments, and issue-page case rail. - Added case reference rendering and company-prefixed case href generation so case links resolve directly inside the active company route. - Added Paperclip skill documentation for agent workflows that create or update Cases. - Wired release-content skills to emit Cases for dogfooding. - Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the Cases migrations to `0143`/`0144` after the latest upstream migration sequence. ## Verification - Current PR head: `ecc13be0d`. - Rebased on current `master` (`606aa4f266`) and pushed to the existing PR branch. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed before the first update push; subsequent committed diffs were also checked with `git diff --check` before commit. - Guardrails checked: no `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes, no `.github/workflows` changes, and changed-file count is below the Greptile 100-file limit. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed, 3 files / 26 tests before review-fix commits. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts` — passed after each server-side Greptile fix, latest 1 file / 15 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed after the timestamp and lookup fixes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Cases.test.tsx src/pages/CaseDetail.test.tsx src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx src/App.cases-routing.test.tsx` — passed, 4 files / 30 tests before review-fix commits. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Cases.test.tsx` — passed after the list-filter fix, 1 file / 12 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after the list-filter fix. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed after UI changes. - Remote PR checks on head `ecc13be0d` are green: Paperclip CI, build, typecheck, test matrix, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, commit review, Superagent Security Scan, Socket, Snyk, and Greptile passed; Storybook visual regression is skipped and security-review is neutral. - Greptile Review: 5/5 confidence, zero unresolved Greptile threads. ## Risks - Medium feature risk because this introduces a new experimental domain object across database, server, shared contracts, skills, and UI. - The feature is gated behind `enableCases`, which limits default operator exposure while the model is exercised. - Case links now prefer company-prefixed hrefs; the unprefixed redirect remains for externally entered URLs. - Cases list filtering now sends multi-select filters to the server before limiting; the UI still applies the same local filters as a second pass for ancestor/context rows. - Migrations were renumbered on top of current master; the SQL uses guarded `IF NOT EXISTS` / `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` patterns where relevant for safer replay. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex in the Paperclip local coding environment was used for this PR curation, rebase verification, review-fix implementation, push, and PR description update. The runtime exposes tool use and shell execution; context-window size is not exposed by this Paperclip adapter. Several implementation commits also include AI co-author trailers recorded in git history. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I searched the GitHub PR list for similar PRs and confirmed this is not a duplicate - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-09 22:11:03 -05:00
3 people	606aa4f266	feat(search): filters, sorting, operators & command-palette parity (#9327) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Company search is the primary way operators find issues, comments, documents, artifacts, agents, and projects across a busy company > - Search previously supported only a bare text query: no way to narrow by status/assignee/project/label/date, no sort control, no typed operators, and weak relevance/snippets meant hunting through noise > - As companies accumulate tens of thousands of items, unfiltered single-sort search stops scaling for day-to-day operator workflows > - This pull request adds a full filtering model (filter bar, chips, mobile sheet, URL state), sort modes, typed query operators (`status:`, `assignee:`, `type:`, …) with command-palette parity, relevance/snippet/deep-link improvements, zero-results recovery, and the supporting shared validators, backend service work, and DB indexes > - The benefit is that operators can go from a vague query to the exact item in a couple of keystrokes, on desktop and mobile, with shareable filtered-search URLs ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing public GitHub issue; describing the underlying feature request inline (per feature_request template): - **Problem:** Company search accepted only a plain text query. Users could not filter results by status, assignee, project, label, or recency; could not change result ordering; and got no guidance when filters emptied the result set. - **Desired solution:** Structured search filters (UI controls + typed query operators + URL parameters), selectable sort modes, better relevance and snippets with exact deep links, and parity between the search page and the command palette. - **Alternatives considered:** Client-side filtering of unfiltered results (does not scale past the fetch limit); a separate "advanced search" page (splits the surface and duplicates state handling). Related (not duplicate) PRs found while searching: #4848 (issue search query planning), #8235 (search rate limiting). ## What Changed - **Shared contract:** new search filter/sort/count/zero-results types and validators in `packages/shared` (`validators/search.ts`, types index). - **Backend:** `server/src/services/company-search.ts` supports issue filters, sort modes, per-filter option counts, snippets, artifact visibility, and zero-results loosen suggestions; single-statement match replaces per-scope scans and predicates are trigram-index compatible (~3.7s → ~350ms on a live 14.8k-hit corpus). - **DB:** migration `0142_company_search_sort_indexes.sql` adds the supporting indexes. - **Search page (`ui/src/pages/Search.tsx`):** filter bar, removable chips, mobile filter sheet with result-count preview, sort menu, URL round-tripping, zero-results recovery UI. - **Query operators (`ui/src/lib/search-query-parser.ts`):** typed operators parsed into filters, operator autocomplete, filter pills. - **Command palette:** operator-aware parsing and full-search handoff. - **Stale-operator fix (latest commit):** typed operator filters are no longer folded into persistent URL-filter state, so deleting a token (e.g. removing `status:blocked` from the input) actually removes the filter from subsequent requests; filter-control edits materialize control state and strip typed tokens so a removed chip cannot resurrect from the input. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/pages/Search.test.tsx` — 19 tests including two new red→green regressions for the stale-operator paths (both fail on the previous commit, pass now). - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/CommandPalette.test.tsx` and `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/company-search-service.test.ts` — operator parity and backend filter/sort/count coverage. - `cd ui && npx tsc --noEmit` — clean. - Manual: open `/search`, type `auth status:blocked`, confirm the status filter applies; delete `status:blocked`, confirm results are unfiltered again; drive the same filters from the filter bar/chips/mobile sheet and confirm the URL round-trips (reload/back/forward preserves state). - Full end-to-end QA pass (9/9 acceptance checks) against the wireframes on desktop (1280px) and mobile (390px) with a live API and browser automation. ## Risks - Additive migration (indexes only, no data rewrites) — safe to roll forward; index creation cost is paid once at migrate time. - Search request shape gains optional parameters only; old clients keep working. - Behavioral shift: filter-control edits now strip typed operator tokens from the query text (their values persist as filter state) — deliberate, so removed filters stay removed. - Ranking changes alter result ordering for existing queries; covered by service tests and the QA pass. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic, extended thinking + tool use) — stale-operator-filter fix, regression tests, PR preparation. - GPT-5 Codex (`codex_local` adapter) and Claude Opus 4.6 (`claude-opus-4-6`) — earlier implementation phases (backend contract, filter UI, operators, ranking) under agent orchestration. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details — pre-existing branch name retained to avoid closing/reopening the PR - [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 (no user-facing docs affected) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending re-run on latest commit) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending re-review of the stale-filter fix) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-09 19:32:58 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	cec0fc249a	[codex] Parallelize release verify workflow (#9168) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Releases publish the same app and package set that operators install, so release verification should keep full release-strength coverage. > - The release workflow currently verifies stable and canary releases with one serial job that typechecks, runs all tests, and builds. > - The PR workflow already proves the test surface can be split into grouped general suites and serialized shards without changing coverage. > - This pull request extracts the release verify work into a reusable workflow and fans out the independent lanes. > - The benefit is faster stable and canary release verification while preserving the existing publish and preview gates. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this CI improvement. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) **Problem or motivation** Release verification spends most of its wall time in a single serial test step even though the same stable test surface is already partitioned for PR CI. Stable dispatches and master-push canaries therefore wait on one long runner after setup, typecheck, tests, and build run sequentially. **Proposed solution** Add a reusable release verification workflow with parallel typecheck, grouped general tests, serialized test shards, and build lanes. Have both stable and canary release verification call it with the ref they need to verify. **Alternatives considered** Keeping the serial `pnpm test:run` job preserves the old shape but keeps stable and canary releases waiting on one long runner. Skipping verification when a source SHA already has green CI would be faster, but adds stale-check and lookup risk beyond this change. **Roadmap alignment** No overlapping item found in `ROADMAP.md`; this is release CI maintenance. **Additional context** The new workflow keeps the release-strength full `pnpm -r typecheck`, uses the existing stable test grouping/sharding entry points, and leaves publish/preview jobs unchanged. ## What Changed - Added `.github/workflows/release-verify.yml` as a `workflow_call` workflow accepting a `ref` input. - Split release verification into parallel `typecheck`, `general_tests`, `serialized_tests`, and `build` jobs with 20-minute lane timeouts. - Mirrored the PR workflow's stable test partition: `general-server` shards 1-3, `general-workspaces-a`, `general-workspaces-b`, and four serialized shards. - Replaced `release.yml` `verify_canary` and `verify_stable` job bodies with calls to the reusable workflow while leaving publish and preview jobs unchanged. - Added a Node test that guards the release workflow delegation and split verify surface. ## Verification - `actionlint 1.7.12 .github/workflows/release.yml .github/workflows/release-verify.yml` - `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check` - `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs ./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Release verification now starts more jobs per release event, increasing total runner setup/install minutes. This matches the existing PR CI tradeoff and should reduce release wall time substantially. - The called workflow checks out the requested ref shallowly. That is intentional for verify lanes; publish and preview jobs still retain their existing full-history checkouts. > 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-class coding agent in local tool-use mode with shell execution, repository editing, GitHub connector access, and medium reasoning. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-09 19:28:00 -05:00
3 people	f3ca4d24bc	fix: repair dirty/foreign-branch execution worktrees (#9297) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Execution workspaces are the bridge between Paperclip's control plane and a local agent's checked-out repository state. > - When a workspace is restored after a failed or interrupted run, the recorded branch can disagree with the branch currently checked out on disk. > - A clean branch mismatch can be reconciled safely, but a dirty mismatch needs a lossless path that does not discard uncommitted agent work. > - This pull request adds a quarantine-and-restore path that saves dirty work to a rescue branch, restores the recorded branch, and exposes the repair from the board UI and run page. > - The benefit is that operators can recover wedged execution workspaces without losing work or moving another live branch unexpectedly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this workspace-recovery failure, so this PR includes the bug report inline. **What happened** A git worktree-backed execution workspace could become wedged when Paperclip expected one branch but found a different checked-out branch with dirty tracked or untracked files. The existing safe repair path refused the restore, leaving the source task blocked with no lossless one-click recovery path. **Expected behavior** Paperclip should preserve dirty work before restoring the recorded workspace branch. If another live workspace claims the checked-out branch, or an attached runtime service is active, the repair should refuse with clear operator-facing evidence instead of risking work loss or file contention. **Steps to reproduce** Create a git worktree execution workspace whose persisted branch name differs from the checked-out branch, add dirty tracked or untracked files in that worktree, then trigger workspace validation or use the branch reconcile endpoint. Before this change, the dirty mismatch remained blocked because Paperclip had no quarantine restore mode. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed on the pre-fix workspace-recovery implementation. Verified on this PR head after rebasing onto current `master`. **Deployment mode** Local trusted development/worktree deployments using git worktree execution workspaces and optional workspace runtime services. ## What Changed - Added dirty-worktree quarantine repair that creates a rescue branch, commits dirty tracked and untracked files there, restores the recorded branch, writes audit comments/activity, and preserves the live foreign branch ref. - Added `quarantine_restore` branch reconcile API support, recovery-action resolution, source-task wake behavior, execution-review preservation, claimant refusal, runtime-service refusal, and coverage for the non-transactional git ordering. - Added board UI controls for the repair action in the recovery card plus a compact failed-run workspace recovery surface that uses the same reconcile handlers. - Hardened Greptile follow-up cases by best-effort restoring the recorded branch after a mid-sequence rescue commit failure and by refusing quarantine restore while attached runtime services are active. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts -t "quarantine_restore"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "workspace dirty quarantine branch repair"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts -t "repairs clean unrecorded branch drift|adopts unrecorded forward branch drift"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - Earlier PR verification covered the route, service, heartbeat, UI component, and run-page recovery surfaces; Cutter posted public preview screenshots for the repair popover and run-page panel at https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9297#issuecomment-4926934211. - GitHub PR checks are green on `dcac76b05f4cf6e1ee16544c2831d83c7857e475`. - Greptile is 5/5 with zero annotations and no unresolved review threads on `dcac76b05f4cf6e1ee16544c2831d83c7857e475`. ## Risks - Moderate risk because the change intentionally runs git commands against local worktrees; the implementation refuses dirty repair when another claimant or active runtime service is detected and records rescue refs for auditability. - Compatibility / release-note callout for self-hosted operators: existing instances that left `enableWorkspaceBranchReconcileForward` unset now get automatic forward branch reconciliation during heartbeat workspace recovery. Operators who want the previous advisory-only behavior can set `experimental.enableWorkspaceBranchReconcileForward` to `false`; dirty quarantine repair can likewise be disabled with `experimental.enableWorkspaceDirtyQuarantineRepair: false`. - If the git rescue succeeds but a later database write fails, the worktree may already be restored while the recovery action remains open; this ordering is documented in code because git side effects cannot participate in the database transaction. - UI risk is limited to the workspace recovery surfaces and covered by component tests plus the existing Cutter visual preview. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use, shell execution, and local test execution. Earlier preserved commits on this branch also show Claude Code / Claude Opus 4.8 assistance in their commit metadata. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] Branch naming exception documented: this PR preserves the existing worktree branch requested for publication while keeping the PR title and body public-facing - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-09 18:19:49 -05:00
3 people	4d898aa7af	feat(prompt): one-time execution-workspace branch guard in wake prompt (PAP-13326) (#9319) ... ## Summary When a task runs in a branch-pinned execution workspace, agents sometimes switch or rename the workspace branch, which breaks the worktree contract. This adds a short, one-time prompt hint telling the agent to stay on the pinned branch. - **heartbeat.ts**: after the execution workspace is resolved, attach `executionWorkspace: { branchName }` to the wake payload (only when a branch pin exists — agent-home runs without a branch are untouched). - **server-utils.ts (adapter-utils)**: normalize the new payload field and render one bullet in `renderPaperclipWakePrompt`: > `- execution workspace branch: you are running in an execution workspace on branch \`<name>\`. Do not switch, rename, or re-point this branch; keep all commits on it.` - The hint renders **only on non-resumed sessions** — resume-delta prompts skip it, so it appears the first time an issue's session starts, not on every turn, and it never pollutes the issue thread. One renderer change covers every adapter (claude, codex, cursor, gemini, grok, opencode, pi, hermes, acpx engine) with zero per-adapter edits. ## Tests - `server-utils.test.ts`: branch guard renders on first prompt, absent on resumed-session prompts, absent when no branch is pinned; payload round-trips through `stringifyPaperclipWakePayload`. - `heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts`: the finalize-path adapter mock now asserts the wake payload the adapter receives carries the branch pin matching `context.paperclipWorkspace.branchName` (end-to-end heartbeat wiring, embedded postgres). All 6 pass. - Full `server-utils` (56) and acpx-engine execute (34) suites green; adapter-utils typechecks clean; no new server tsc errors. PAP-13326 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-09 17:53:00 -05:00
Nicky Leach	4856558fd9	Fix skills routes to skip user secret resolution ... Skip user_secret_ref bindings when resolving adapter config for agent skill listing and sync paths, while keeping normal runtime resolution strict. Add route and service regression tests for required user-secret refs in adapter config.	2026-07-09 15:09:58 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	8b6a06ee25	[codex] Add built-in agents and Reflection Coach bundle (#9206) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators need first-party agent capabilities for repeatable company work, not just manually created one-off agents. > - Built-in agents need to behave like normal company-scoped agents while preserving approval gates, permissions, budgets, and audit trails. > - Reflection and coaching work also needs bundled instructions, skill content, and a routine so the feature can be installed and reset predictably. > - The API, database, UI, portability, and tests all need to agree on the built-in lifecycle from not provisioned through setup, approval, ready, paused, and reset. > - This pull request adds built-in agent provisioning and the Reflection Coach bundle end-to-end. > - The benefit is a safer first-party path for Paperclip-managed agents without bypassing the same governance model used for operator-created agents. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this exact built-in agent and Reflection Coach bundle work. Problem/motivation: - Paperclip did not have a first-party built-in agent lifecycle for product-owned agents. - Bundled agent resources such as default instructions, skills, and routines needed managed ownership and reset semantics. - Approval-gated companies needed built-in setup to preserve requested adapter, budget, manager, and permission state through board approval. - The board UI needed clear built-in badges, setup affordances, readiness state, and bundle status without exposing secrets. Proposed solution: - Add a company-scoped built-in agent registry, provisioning/reset/reconcile/status APIs, and Reflection Coach bundled resources. - Track bundled managed resources in the database with idempotent migration behavior. - Reuse existing agent approval, authorization, budget, and activity-log paths instead of creating a bypass. - Add UI setup, badges, gates, bundle panels, and route coverage for built-in agents. Duplicate search: - Searched GitHub PRs for `built-in agents Reflection Coach repo:paperclipai/paperclip`; only this PR was returned. - Searched GitHub issues for the same query; no public issues were returned. ## What Changed - Added built-in agent definitions, lifecycle state derivation, provisioning, reset, reconcile, status, and routine-control routes. - Added the `built_in_managed_resources` migration and schema exports for bundled instructions, skill, and routine ownership. - Added the Reflection Coach built-in bundle with default instructions, skill catalog content, routine template, default permissions, and managed-resource drift handling. - Added approval-aware provisioning behavior that preserves requested adapter config, budgets, manager assignment, and built-in permissions through hire approval. - Added authorization and mutation gates for built-in agent and skill changes, including consented Reflection Coach change paths. - Added UI surfaces for built-in agent setup, roster/detail badges, readiness gates, bundle status, routine controls, and route filtering. - Added company import/export and validator coverage for built-in managed resources and low-trust/red-team presets. - Addressed Greptile follow-ups for pending approval reconciliation, consent-gate error propagation, config-read authorization fallback, approval-path manager preservation, and non-model adapter provisioning. ## Verification Local verification: - `git diff --check public/master..HEAD` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed with all gates clean. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/ConfigureBuiltInAgentModal.test.tsx` passed: 1 file, 4 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/EntityRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx ui/src/components/BuiltInAgentGate.test.tsx ui/src/components/ConfigureBuiltInAgentModal.test.tsx ui/src/components/BuiltInBundlePanel.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` passed: 7 files, 64 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts` passed: 3 files, 91 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after the rebase; `pnpm --filter ui typecheck` passed after the final UI review fix. Remote verification on latest head `1c61f693a4ec881d739022b0e75a8ca8bf8c2cd8`: - Merge state: `CLEAN`. - Greptile: `5/5`, zero unresolved Greptile threads. - PR check rollup: all checks successful, neutral, or skipped as expected. - Passing gates include Build, Typecheck + Release Registry, all server shards, all workspace shards, all serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, review, verify, Socket, Superagent, and Snyk. ## Risks - This adds a new managed-resource table and migration; the migration uses idempotent create/add/index guards and passed migration safety checks. - Built-in agent provisioning touches approval and authorization paths; tests cover pending approval preservation, stale retry rejection, consent gates, and config-read fallback behavior. - Reflection Coach creates managed instructions, skill, and routine resources; drift/reset behavior is covered by service tests and redacted API responses. - Non-model adapter setup now provisions a `needs_setup` built-in row before command/endpoint fields are complete; this matches the server lifecycle and is covered by the setup modal regression test. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5. Exact hosted model ID, context-window size, and reasoning-mode labels are not exposed in this runtime; tool use, shell execution, GitHub CLI/API access, and local code editing 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>	2026-07-09 16:29:30 -05:00
3 people	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>	2026-07-09 13:08:56 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7cf0d3ebb0	Require health readiness for Paperclip dev services (#9269) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents often run against managed workspace runtime services, including reusable Paperclip dev servers > - A running process and an open root URL are not enough to prove the Paperclip API is actually ready > - If the API health endpoint is still failing, agents can reuse a service that looks alive but cannot safely serve the board or API clients > - This pull request makes Paperclip dev runtime readiness probe the resolved `/api/health` endpoint > - The benefit is that runtime service reuse waits for the same health signal operators and agents depend on ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue was found. Public duplicate search found no open PR for "workspace runtime health readiness". Bug report: ### What happened? A managed Paperclip dev runtime service could satisfy HTTP readiness at the exposed base URL even when the Paperclip health endpoint was returning an unhealthy status. ### Expected behavior Paperclip dev runtime services should not be considered ready until their health endpoint succeeds. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Start a workspace runtime service named `paperclip-dev` whose base URL responds successfully. 2. Make that same service return HTTP 503 from `/api/health`. 3. Ask Paperclip to ensure the runtime service for a run. 4. Observe that the service can be reused even though the API health endpoint is not ready. ### Paperclip version or commit Current `origin/master` before this PR. ### Deployment mode Local workspace runtime service management. ## What Changed - Resolve Paperclip dev runtime readiness checks to the service health URL before polling. - Surface readiness errors with the actual health URL that failed. - Add a regression test that fails when `/api/health` returns HTTP 503 even if the service process is running. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` — 81 tests passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. ## Risks - Low to medium risk. This tightens readiness for Paperclip dev runtime services, so a service that previously looked ready while unhealthy will now fail fast instead of being reused. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, tool-enabled shell workflow. Exact hosted model variant and context window were not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-09 08:25:59 -05:00
4 people	719da5f9b5	Harden environment deletion and expose delete blast radius (#9250) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents that each have an associated execution environment (local, Kubernetes, etc.) > - Instance administrators can create and delete environments; currently the DELETE endpoint has no protection against deleting managed or in-use environments > - Deleting the managed local environment or the instance-default environment would break all agents using those environments with no path to recovery > - The endpoint also suffered a TOCTOU race: a check-then-delete pattern allowed the managed-local or default guard to pass if the environment's role changed between the read and the delete > - This pull request adds a blast-radius read endpoint so admins can preview impact, hard-blocks the dangerous deletes atomically, cleans up all dependent references after a valid delete, and fixes a concurrent creation race in ensureLocalEnvironment ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #9251 ## What Changed - **New endpoint** `GET /api/environments/:id/delete-blast-radius` (instance-admin gated): returns reference counts (agent defaults, workspace selections, issue selections, project selections, secret bindings, active leases, active setup sessions) and blocking reasons — no config, env-var values, or secret data returned. - **Atomic delete guard** `environmentService.removeIfDeletable(id)`: performs the DELETE with an inline `WHERE driver != 'local' AND NOT EXISTS (instanceSettings where defaultEnvironmentId = id)` predicate, eliminating the TOCTOU race between the app-level check and the DB write. - **Route hardening**: `DELETE /environments/:id` now calls `getDeleteBlastRadius` first (app-level check + logging), then calls `removeIfDeletable` (atomic guard). If the atomic guard returns null the route fetches a fresh blast-radius snapshot and rejects with a 409 Conflict carrying `deleteBlockedReasons`. - **Reference cleanup on valid delete**: after a successful delete, the route clears environment selections on all company execution workspaces, issues, and projects; syncs env-var secret bindings to `{}` (removing bindings for the deleted environment); syncs config secret refs to `[]` for the environment target; and removes the SSH private-key secret if one was stored. - **Race fix in `ensureLocalEnvironment`**: the insert-or-nothing path now catches a `environments_name_idx` unique-constraint violation and falls through to the existing SELECT, treating the name conflict as idempotent. - **Shared types**: `EnvironmentDeleteBlastRadius` and `EnvironmentDeleteBlockedReason` exported from `@paperclipai/shared`. - **OpenAPI**: registers the new blast-radius endpoint; updates the delete-environment response schema to document 403/404/409. - **Tests**: 56 existing environment-route and service tests continue to pass; new service-level regression tests assert the atomic guard rejects `local`-driver environments and instance-default environments and succeeds for deletable ones. ## Verification ``` corepack pnpm exec vitest run \ server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts \ server/src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts # 56 tests, all passing corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck node scripts/ensure-plugin-build-deps.mjs cd server && ../node_modules/.bin/tsc --noEmit ``` ## Risks - **Blast-radius endpoint auth**: guarded by `assertCanAccessInstanceEnvironments`, the same gate as the existing environment-list and delete routes. Non-admin callers receive 401/403 before any data is returned. - **Atomic guard may reject a delete that the app-level check passed**: this is intentional — it means the environment became protected between the read and the write. The caller receives a fresh blast-radius snapshot explaining why. - **Secret cleanup ordering**: cleanup runs after the atomic DELETE succeeds, in parallel across companies. If cleanup partially fails the environment row is already gone; partial-cleanup state is recoverable by re-running the sync operations. Risk: low — these are idempotent upsert/sync operations. - **ensureLocalEnvironment race fix**: swapping a unique-constraint error for an idempotent SELECT adds one extra query on the conflict path. This path is rare (only fires during concurrent boot) and is significantly safer than the previous behavior. - **No migration**: all changes are application-level; no schema changes required. ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic - Model: claude-sonnet-4-6 (Claude Sonnet 4.6) - Context window: 200k tokens - Mode: agentic tool use via Paperclip agent system (Claude Code) ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Priya Raman <priya.raman@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Harold Kim <harold.kim@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-08 22:04:22 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	eedc7ddef2	Make ACP the default engine for local adapters (#9238) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Adapter packages are the bridge between the control plane and local agent harnesses such as Claude Code, Codex, and Gemini CLI. > - ACP support was concentrated in a separate `acpx_local` adapter, which made ACP feel like a separate agent choice instead of an execution capability of the harness adapters. > - Claude, Codex, and Gemini now have ACP-capable harnesses, so the native adapter should own ACP selection, fallback, config, transcript parsing, and environment diagnostics. > - The standalone ACPX adapter still needs a compatibility path for existing rows, but it should not be offered as an active adapter for new agents. > - This pull request moves the shared ACP runtime into `@paperclipai/acpx-engine`, wires Claude/Codex/Gemini local adapters to prefer ACP when prerequisites are available, and retires `acpx_local` to a tombstone. > - The benefit is one adapter per harness, richer ACP transcripts by default where possible, and a migration path for existing Claude/Codex ACPX agents. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Closes #5932 — the broken default `acpx_local` Claude path is replaced by native `claude_local` ACP support, existing Claude/Codex ACPX rows migrate to native adapters, and new agents no longer choose the standalone ACPX adapter. Refs #4893 — original merged ACPX local adapter runtime that this PR replaces with native per-harness ACP engines. Refs #6590 — prior ACPX-Claude seamlessness work folded into the new native Claude ACP path. Refs #197 — related open generic ACP/Kiro adapter work; this PR does not close it because Kiro/custom generic ACP remains a separate adapter decision. Refs #7018 — related Kimi-specific `acpx_local` shell failure; this PR retires the built-in standalone adapter but does not add a native Kimi adapter. Refs #8864 — related ACPX prompt/API guidance PR; this PR moves runtime guidance into the shared/native ACP engine path instead of the old standalone adapter. Refs #8881 — related `acpx_local` POSIX shell failure from the old `acpx` pin; this PR updates ACP dependencies but does not claim custom/OMP ACP support as a first-class native adapter. Refs #8964 — related open `acpx_local` stderr cleanup PR; this PR makes the old runtime path obsolete for new agents but keeps it as a non-closing reference. Problem description: - The standalone `acpx_local` adapter duplicates Claude/Codex agent choices that already have first-class local adapters. - ACP should be an execution engine capability of each harness adapter when the underlying harness supports ACP. - Existing `acpx_local` agents should either migrate to native harness adapters or fail with an explicit retirement message instead of silently falling back to the process adapter. ## What Changed - Added `@paperclipai/acpx-engine` as the shared ACP execution, session-codec, CLI formatter, and UI parser package. - Wired `claude_local`, `codex_local`, and `gemini_local` to auto-select ACP by default when prerequisites pass, with `engine=cli` opt-out and `engine=acp` strict mode. - Added ACP config schema/UI fields, environment checks, session-codec preservation, transcript parsing, and adapter capability metadata for the native adapters. - Retired `acpx_local` to a server tombstone, removed its UI/package/runtime image surface, and added a migration for existing Claude/Codex ACPX agents. - Updated package manifests, lockfile, release tooling, docs, Kubernetes sandbox defaults, and tests. ## Verification - `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/acpx-engine typecheck` - `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck` - `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck` - `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-gemini-local typecheck` - `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/acpx-engine exec vitest run` - `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local exec vitest run src/server/acp.test.ts src/server/execute.acp-fallback.test.ts src/ui/build-config.test.ts` - `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local exec vitest run src/server/acp.test.ts src/ui/build-config.test.ts` - `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-gemini-local exec vitest run src/server/acp.test.ts src/ui/build-config.test.ts src/ui/parse-stdout.test.ts` - `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk ensure-build-deps && corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` - `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/adapter-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/adapter-session-codecs.test.ts src/__tests__/adapter-models.test.ts` - `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/adapters/metadata.test.ts src/adapters/adapter-display-registry.test.ts src/components/AgentConfigForm.test.ts src/components/AgentConfigForm.render.test.tsx src/components/transcript/RunTranscriptView.test.tsx` - `node --test scripts/bootstrap-npm-package.test.mjs scripts/release-package-map.test.mjs scripts/verify-release-registry-state.test.mjs` Note: the server typecheck script calls `pnpm` internally; this dev shell exposes pnpm through Corepack only, so I ran the two script steps manually with `corepack pnpm`. ## Risks - Migration changes existing `acpx_local` Claude/Codex agents to native adapter types and clears old ACPX task sessions/runtime state. - Custom ACP commands remain on the retired tombstone and will need a separate future adapter/plugin path. - ACP auto-selection depends on local Node and ACP server command prerequisites; remote and unsupported environments fall back to CLI unless `engine=acp` is explicit. - `@paperclipai/acpx-engine` is a new public package and needs npm trusted-publishing bootstrap before release automation can publish it. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex coding agent. Exact hosted model build and context-window size are not exposed in this runtime. Tool use included shell execution, repository editing, GitHub CLI operations, and local test/typecheck execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-08 19:05:03 -07:00
Dotta	4a7a732476	feat(skills): add company skill fork prechecks (#9235) ... Adds company skill fork precheck metadata, fork result/reassignment contracts, selected-agent reassignment during fork creation, and targeted server/shared test coverage.	2026-07-08 14:22:39 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f616b6746c	fix(server): clean heartbeat run scratch directories (#9234) ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-08 13:38:36 -05:00
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>	2026-07-08 11:07:36 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	88bf71b84e	Reject projectless isolated git worktree tasks (#9231) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is an open-source platform for orchestrating AI agents; agents run inside execution workspaces that range from a shared container to full git worktrees cloned from a project repository. > - Isolated git-worktree workspaces require a project to determine which repository to clone — without a project the worktree base path cannot be computed. > - A task pinned to `isolated_workspace` + `git_worktree` with no project was previously accepted at creation time but failed late at dispatch with the opaque `workspace_validation_failed` / `git_worktree_base_agent_home` error — only after the heartbeat attempted to provision the workspace. > - Fail-closed validation should happen in two places: (1) explicit create/update pins that contradict the requirement are rejected at the HTTP layer with a structured 422; (2) rows that reach the heartbeat dispatcher with this invalid combination (e.g. through inheritance or a retroactively-removed project) are blocked before any heartbeat run or adapter spawn. > - This PR adds the shared detection policy, the create/update guard in the issues service, and the heartbeat pre-dispatch guard, together with focused unit tests for all three layers. > - The benefit is deterministic early failure with a clear remediation message instead of a late, cryptic runtime error. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No upstream public GitHub issue — describing the problem inline (bug-report format). **What happened?** Creating an issue with `executionWorkspaceSettings: { mode: "isolated_workspace", type: "git_worktree" }` and no `projectId` was accepted without error. The issue then became blocked at dispatch time with the opaque message `git_worktree_base_agent_home` / `workspace_validation_failed` — surfaced only after the heartbeat attempted to provision the workspace. **Expected behavior** The platform should reject the invalid combination at create/update time with a structured 422 that includes a clear remediation message, before any heartbeat resource is consumed. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Call `POST /api/issues` (or `PATCH /api/issues/:id`) with `executionWorkspaceSettings: { mode: "isolated_workspace", type: "git_worktree" }` and omit `projectId` (or set it to `null`). 2. Observe: request succeeds (200/201). 3. Assign the issue to an agent and watch it enter `blocked` with a cryptic `workspace_validation_failed` error at dispatch. **Related prior fix** — Refs #4844 (`fix(validator): reject static cwd combined with git_worktree strategy`) — same validation area, different dimension (static cwd vs. missing project). **Paperclip version / commit** Latest `master` (pre-this-PR). **Deployment mode** Standard (app-global server). ## What Changed - **`execution-workspace-policy.ts`** — new shared `detectWorkspaceWorktreeRequiresProject` function returning a stable `workspace_worktree_requires_project` policy violation when an isolated git-worktree task has no project, project workspace, or reusable execution workspace; exports canonical remediation text used by both the HTTP guard and the heartbeat guard. - **`issues.ts`** — create and update paths check the new policy before persisting; explicit pins to `isolated_workspace` / `operator_branch` + `git_worktree` with no project are rejected with a 422 including the policy code and remediation text. - **`heartbeat.ts`** — pre-dispatch preflight checks the same policy for rows that reach the heartbeat with the invalid combination (e.g. through inheritance); such rows are marked `blocked` with a skipped wakeup request, durable issue comment, and activity log before any heartbeat run or adapter spawn. - **`execution-workspace-policy.test.ts`** — focused policy-layer unit tests for detection logic and remediation text. - **`issues-service.test.ts`** — create/update 422 guard tests for the new policy. - **`heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts`** — pre-dispatch blocking test for inherited/ambiguous invalid rows; also fixes a cleanup race in the existing test suite. ## Verification ```sh pnpm exec vitest run \ server/src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts \ server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts \ server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck # Targeted regression pnpm exec vitest run \ server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts \ -t "blocks projectless isolated git-worktree issues before dispatch" ``` All three test files and typecheck passed locally before this PR was opened. ## Risks **Low risk.** The policy detection function is pure with no side effects. The create/update guard only triggers on explicit `isolated_workspace` or `operator_branch` + `git_worktree` pins combined with a missing project — it does not fire on inherited settings (handled by the heartbeat preflight), so there is no false-positive rejection risk for valid tasks. The heartbeat guard fires before any resource is provisioned; the only behavioral change for already-invalid rows is that they receive a clear `blocked` status and durable comment instead of a late cryptic error. ## Model Used Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`), 200k context window, tool use enabled (agentic coding). Used to implement all server-side changes and tests in this PR. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-08 10:31:37 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	11177c2665	Fix resolved blocker wake reconciliation (#9229) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is an open source platform for managing AI agent companies — agents pick up issues, do work, and release checkouts in a heartbeat loop > - Issue dependency resolution is handled by `issue_blockers_resolved` wakes: when a blocking issue reaches `done`, dependent blocked issues should be woken so they can resume > - The workspace-finalize path maintained its own special-case loop to retry missed dependency wakes at run completion, duplicating logic that already exists in the shared level-triggered reconciliation backstop > - Additionally, the resolved-blocker reconciliation sweep was gated behind the broader liveness auto-recovery escalation setting — so instances that disabled auto-escalation creation also lost the baseline reconciliation sweep > - This PR routes the workspace-finalize retry through the shared backstop and decouples the reconciliation sweep from the escalation creation gate > - The benefit is simpler code (one authoritative path instead of two), and correct behaviour on instances where escalation creation is disabled ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing GitHub issue. Describing inline: **Bug (blocker wake reconciliation):** `issue_blockers_resolved` wakes can be missed when: 1. A `workspace_finalize` heartbeat retries dependency resolution using its own inline loop instead of the shared level-triggered backstop, making them diverge over time. 2. The `blockedByIssueIds` dependency is set (or the issue is moved to `blocked`) *after* the blocker already reached `done` — the PATCH-time wake fires on a non-blocked issue and the dependency reconciliation never catches up. 3. An assignee briefly becomes `null` between the blocker reaching `done` and the reconciliation sweep running — the sweep skips the issue and never retries. Related PRs: - Refs #8009 — adds dedup for `issue_blockers_resolved` re-fires (complementary; prevents over-firing; this PR ensures under-firing is caught) - Refs #6522 — `auto-unblock dependents with no assignee` (related no-assignee edge case) ## What Changed - **`server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`** — remove the inline dependency-wake retry loop from the `workspace_finalize` path; delegate to the shared `reconcileResolvedDependencyWakeups` helper instead - **`server/src/services/recovery/service.ts`** — split the resolved-blocker wake reconciliation sweep out from under the `liveness_escalation_auto_recovery` feature flag; the sweep runs unconditionally while escalation *creation* remains behind the flag - **`server/src/__tests__/issue-dependency-wakeups-routes.test.ts`** — regression: `blockedBy` set after blocker already done still triggers a reconciliation wake - **`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts`** — regression: assignee-null churn before reconciliation; stale skipped dependency wakes do not suppress a fresh reconciliation wake ## Verification ``` pnpm exec vitest run \ server/src/__tests__/issue-dependency-wakeups-routes.test.ts \ server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts ``` 23 tests, all passing locally. `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` clean. ## Risks Low risk. Bounded blast radius: - The reconciliation sweep only considers non-hidden `blocked` issues with an agent assignee - Uses keyset pagination with an existing 500-candidate cap - Reuses dependency readiness/finalize gating logic unchanged - Skips issues with existing active/queued runs and pending interactions - Deduplicates against live/completed `issue_blockers_resolved` wakes (skipped/cancelled wakes intentionally do not suppress a fresh reconciliation) - Observability: healed reconciliations emit `issue.blockers_resolved_wake_emitted` activity and log the healed issue ids and source ## Model Used Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`) with tool use and extended context. Paperclip AI agent 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-08 09:32:12 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	562567fcd6	[codex] Improve work timeline activity story (#9222) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The work timeline helps operators understand when agent and user activity actually happened across a project. > - The timeline view needs clearer interaction context so activity is easier to inspect and reason about. > - The existing story coverage did not fully exercise the denser activity states needed to review this UI safely. > - This pull request expands the work timeline data shape, service behavior, UI rendering, tests, and Storybook story so the activity timeline is easier to verify. > - The benefit is a more inspectable timeline for project activity, backed by targeted server and UI coverage. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue found, so this PR describes the feature inline following the feature request template. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and `ui/`. **Problem or motivation** Project operators need a clearer timeline view that shows when work activity happened, how much agent time is represented inside the selected window, and enough realistic activity states for safe visual review. Sparse mock data and unbounded summary calculations make it harder to trust the timeline when inspecting historical or capped windows. **Proposed solution** Enrich the work timeline activity data returned by the service, render clearer top-level timeline summary stats, clamp duration calculations to the returned window, prorate token totals for partially visible spans, and add Storybook/test coverage with realistic timeline activity data. **Alternatives considered** Keeping the existing sparse timeline story was considered, but it would leave dense activity layouts and selected-window summary behavior under-reviewed. Counting full span usage for partially visible spans was also considered, but it makes historical windows report activity outside the displayed range. **Roadmap alignment** Searched `ROADMAP.md` for timeline/activity references and found no conflicting planned core work. **Additional context** This PR does not include migrations and does not commit generated design screenshots or images. ## What Changed - Extended shared work timeline activity types and server timeline service behavior. - Updated the timeline page and work timeline chart for richer activity rendering. - Clamped timeline runtime summary calculations to the returned window and prorated summary token usage for clipped spans. - Added and updated targeted server/UI tests for timeline activity behavior. - Added Storybook timeline mock coverage and Storybook preview setup needed by the story. ## Verification - `git rebase origin/master` completed cleanly after fetching `paperclipai/paperclip:master`. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/work-timeline-service.test.ts ui/src/components/timeline/WorkTimelineChart.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Timeline.test.tsx` — latest run: 3 files passed, 28 tests passed. - Greptile review completed at 5/5 with no unresolved Greptile threads after fixes. - GitHub checks completed green on the latest head SHA; Storybook visual regression was skipped by the workflow. - `pnpm check:token-gates` currently fails locally on existing `origin/master` violations in `ui/src/components/ActivityCharts.tsx` and `ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.tsx`; this PR does not modify those files. ## Risks Low to moderate risk. The change affects the work timeline service response shape and timeline UI rendering, so regressions would likely show up as missing/incorrect timeline activity display. Targeted service and UI tests cover the changed behavior. No migrations are included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex running GPT-5 as a tool-enabled coding agent with local shell and GitHub CLI access. Exact runtime model ID/context-window size was not exposed by the environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-08 08:59:24 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	555391fed7	fix: run restart recovery, workspace self-heal, quota-aware retries, failed-run metrics (#9183) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents run in heartbeat runs orchestrated by the server; run lifecycle, retry scheduling, and the dashboard's run-activity metrics are the subsystems involved > - A spike in "failed" tasks traced to three causes: server restarts killing in-flight runs and mislabeling them as failures, deterministic workspace-validation loops when a worktree's branch diverged, and provider quota/usage-limit errors being classified as generic transient failures (putting agents into error state and polluting metrics) > - Killed-then-recovered runs and quota waits are not product failures, so both the runtime behavior and the reporting needed to distinguish them > - This pull request drains runs gracefully on shutdown with idempotent restart retries, self-heals workspace branch mismatches, adds a quota-aware failure class with reset-time retry, separates recovered restart kills from true failures on the dashboard, and documents restart hygiene for operators > - The benefit is fewer spurious failures, automatic recovery instead of manual repair, and dashboard metrics that reflect real failure rates ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists; describing the bug inline per the bug-report template: **What happened?** In-flight heartbeat runs are marked `failed` when the server restarts, even though a retry later succeeds. Worktrees whose checked-out branch diverges from the issue branch fail workspace validation on every subsequent run with no recovery path. Provider quota/usage-limit responses are treated as generic transient upstream errors, putting agents into an error state and retrying before the quota window resets. The dashboard counts all of these as true failures, inflating failure metrics. **Expected behavior** Graceful shutdown should interrupt (not fail) running runs and chain exactly one recovery retry. Workspace validation should repair recoverable branch mismatches automatically. Quota errors should get their own error class with the retry scheduled at the provider reset time and the agent left idle. The dashboard should report recovered restart kills separately from true failures. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a heartbeat run, then restart the server (SIGTERM) while it is in flight — the run lands as `failed` with a process-loss error code even when its retry succeeds 2. Check out an issue whose worktree branch has diverged (e.g. after a force-moved branch) — every subsequent run fails `workspace_validation_failed` deterministically 3. Drive an agent into a provider usage-limit window — the run fails as a generic transient upstream error and the agent enters an error state instead of idling until the reset time **Paperclip version or commit** master (base c07e650cd) **Deployment mode** Self-hosted dev plane (Linux, node server + embedded Postgres) ## What Changed - Graceful shutdown (SIGTERM hook) now marks in-flight runs `interrupted` instead of `failed` and enqueues an idempotent process-loss retry (pre-insert existence check on `retryOfRunId` prevents duplicates; bursts chain exactly one retry per interrupted run) - Run-liveness classification routes `interrupted` to `needs_followup` rather than `failed` - Workspace validation self-heals branch mismatch / missing-branch states instead of failing deterministically on every run - New `provider_quota` error class: session/usage-limit responses schedule the retry at the provider reset time and leave the agent idle (not errored); fixes a case where a quota-terminated run with subtype `success` was misclassified as failed; HTTP 529 remains transient - Dashboard run-activity query separates recovered restart kills from true failures via a recursive CTE over `retry_of_run_id` (ancestors of a succeeded retry count as recovered), adds a per-day failed-by-error-code breakdown, and binds the window start as a timestamptz string - Activity charts UI: amber "Recovered" segment with legend and per-day error-code tooltip; success-rate chart counts recovered runs as successes - New ops runbook: `docs/deploy/dev-plane-restart-hygiene.md` ## Verification - Greptile follow-up fixes on `992705edd`: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts` (209 tests); `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`; `git diff --check` - Post-rebase CI fixes: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts`; `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` (227 tests); `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `npm test` server suites covering the changes: `heartbeat-process-recovery`, `heartbeat-stop-metadata`, `heartbeat-retry-scheduling` (95 tests), quota parse + execute/retry-scheduling suites (100 tests), workspace self-heal suites (200 tests), dashboard run-activity tests (3 tests) — all green, typecheck exit 0 - Dashboard CTE cross-checked against a real development database: two restart-burst days moved from 17 to 8 and 19 to 6 true failures once recovered kills were separated, matching manual retry-chain inspection - Screenshot verification of the real ActivityCharts component (recovered segment + tooltip) during QA ## Risks - Behavioral shift: runs killed by a restart no longer surface as `failed`; anyone consuming raw run statuses will see `interrupted` (new status value) — dashboards/queries in this repo were updated accordingly - Retry chaining on repeated restarts is bounded (one chained retry per interruption) but a pathological restart loop still delays work rather than failing it; the runbook covers operator hygiene for that case - Dashboard query adds a recursive CTE; cost is bounded by the day-window row count and was verified against production-sized data - No schema migrations; low migration risk ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic) — claude-fable-5 via Claude Code / Paperclip agent harness, extended thinking with tool use; implementation commits also produced with Codex CLI (GPT-5 class) agents under the same harness ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-07 20:30:09 -05:00
Dotta	83f5f59842	[codex] Hide goals sidebar link behind experiment (#9189) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board sidebar is the primary navigation surface for operators scanning companies, projects, tasks, agents, and related control-plane tools. > - Goals still has a route and product surface, but keeping the top-level sidebar link always visible makes it part of the default navigation whether or not that surface is ready for every operator. > - Instance experimental settings already provide a controlled place to expose optional UI surfaces while they are being evaluated. > - This pull request adds a dedicated experimental setting for restoring the Goals sidebar link. > - The benefit is a quieter default sidebar with an explicit escape hatch for operators who still need the Goals entry point. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this internal task, so the feature request is described inline. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: `ui/`, `server/`, and `packages/shared`. **Problem or motivation** The Goals route remains available, but the top-level Goals sidebar entry makes that surface part of the default operator navigation. While the goals surface is still being evaluated, operators need a quieter default sidebar without losing an escape hatch for teams that still rely on the link. **Proposed solution** Add a boolean instance experimental setting, `enableGoalsSidebarLink`, default it to `false`, and render the Goals sidebar link only when the setting is enabled. Expose the toggle in Instance Experimental Settings so operators can restore the link without changing routes or rebuilding the app. **Alternatives considered** - Remove the Goals route entirely: rejected because this task only asks to hide the sidebar entry point and preserve access for teams evaluating goals. - Keep the sidebar link always visible: rejected because it does not provide the requested quieter default navigation. - Hard-code a local UI flag: rejected because instance experimental settings already provide the expected operator-controlled pattern. **Roadmap alignment** Checked `ROADMAP.md`; no overlapping goals/sidebar/experimental roadmap entry was found. **Additional context** The `/goals` route is preserved. This PR only gates the sidebar navigation item. ## What Changed - Added `enableGoalsSidebarLink` to the shared instance experimental settings type and validator, defaulting to `false`. - Normalized the new setting in the server instance settings service. - Hid the Goals sidebar nav item unless the new setting is enabled. - Added a Goals Sidebar Link toggle to the Instance Experimental Settings page. - Updated shared, server, sidebar, and settings page tests for the new setting. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/instance.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` - `git merge-tree --write-tree HEAD origin/master` - Searched for duplicate/related PRs by title and `enableGoalsSidebarLink`; none found. - Checked `ROADMAP.md` for overlapping goals/sidebar/experimental entries; none found. ## Risks Low risk. The main behavior shift is that operators who depended on the sidebar Goals link need to enable the new experimental toggle. The `/goals` route itself is not removed. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based Paperclip CodexCoder session with repository tool access and command execution. Exact API model identifier and context window were not exposed by the Paperclip harness. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-07-07 16:48:33 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	bb87047fe6	Add auto-forward execution workspace branch reconciliation (#9172) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages execution workspaces for AI agent runs, each associated with a git branch so the agent always works in a known code state. > - Workspace runtime reconciles an agent's checkout branch against the workspace's recorded branch when a heartbeat resumes; without forward-ancestry detection, any divergence fails closed and blocks the run. > - When the workspace branch has moved forward (e.g. after a feature merge), the recorded branch is an ancestor of the current HEAD — a safe, forward-only case that the previous implementation refused even though it carries no safety risk. > - The gap means legitimate forward-advancing deployments require manual operator intervention to unblock agents every time, creating operational friction and interrupting automated workflows. > - This pull request adds a flag-gated reconcile-forward path that detects when the current branch is a strict forward descendant of the workspace branch and auto-reconciles, while preserving fail-closed behavior for all non-forward or flag-off cases. > - It also threads the active execution workspace id through restore and finalize call sites so the reconcile verdict can be persisted durably across heartbeats. > - The benefit is that agents resume automatically from forward-advancing workspace branches without operator intervention, while adversarial and backward branch changes continue to fail closed. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This PR adds an auto-forward reconcile path for execution workspace branch tracking. When a workspace's recorded branch is a strict ancestor of the current HEAD (a forward-only advancement), the runtime now auto-reconciles rather than hard-blocking. The feature is gated behind an explicit runtime flag, defaults to off, and falls back to fail-closed behavior for all non-forward or flag-off cases. The prior implementation treated all branch divergences identically: any mismatch between the recorded workspace branch and the current HEAD failed closed. This prevented agents from resuming after routine forward deployments (e.g. after a feature branch merges into the workspace branch), requiring manual operator action to unblock every affected run. ## What Changed - Added `reconcileForward` flag-gated path in workspace runtime reconciliation logic that allows auto-reconciliation when the workspace branch is a strict ancestor of the current HEAD. - Threaded active execution workspace id through `restore` and `finalize` call sites so reconcile verdicts are persisted durably. - Added `plainLanguageReason` and `ancestryVerdict` evidence fields to the reconciliation result structure for operator visibility. - Stabilized a branch containment test that exposed a late run-linked activity FK cleanup race during the focused Vitest rerun. - All new paths remain fail-closed when the flag is off or when the branch relationship is not strictly forward. ## Verification ```bash pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck pnpm exec vitest run \ server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts \ server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts \ server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts git diff --check origin/master..HEAD ``` All 3 test files / 98 tests pass. Typecheck passes for both shared and server packages. > **Note:** This is a stacked PR on top of PR #9170 (Add execution workspace branch reconciliation route). The diff shown targets that branch; the combined change builds on the reconciliation route infrastructure it provides. ## Risks - **Flag-off default:** The reconcile-forward path is off by default. No behavior change for existing workspaces unless the flag is explicitly enabled by an operator. - **Ancestry check correctness:** The forward-only guard uses git ancestry verification; a branch that is not a strict ancestor of HEAD remains fail-closed. Adversarial or concurrent branch resets are not auto-reconciled. - **FK cleanup race (stabilized):** A late run-linked activity FK cleanup race in the containment test was exposed during the Vitest rerun. The stabilization commit addresses the non-deterministic ordering without changing production behavior. - **Stacking dependency:** This PR must not be merged before PR #9170 merges, as it is built on top of the reconciliation route infrastructure. ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic - Model: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`) - Context: 200k token context window - Mode: Agentic tool use with code execution and git operations ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-07 14:12:17 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	f17202b571	Add execution workspace branch reconciliation route (#9170) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is an open-source app that lets teams run AI agents for work tasks; each agent session uses an execution workspace — a git checkout — to track the agent's active code state. > - Every execution workspace has an expected target branch (`PAPERCLIP_WORKSPACE_BRANCH`). The workspace git HEAD should always point to that branch so agents commit in the right place. > - When workspace git HEAD diverges from the expected branch — for example after a harness branch-name fix or an accidental `checkout -b` during a CI-retrigger — the discrepancy must be corrected before agents can continue safely. > - Operators (board users) need a controlled, audited path to reconcile a workspace's live branch back to the expected target, with an override escape-hatch for cases where the normal forward path is blocked. > - This pull request adds a board-only `POST /api/execution-workspaces/:id/reconcile-branch` service operation and route that validates safety preconditions, resolves matching recovery-action fingerprints, posts source-issue audit comments, and records the reconciliation outcome. > - The benefit is that operators can correct branch divergence through the API with a full audit trail, instead of via raw database edits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Context below follows the feature-request template format. **Subsystem affected** server/ — REST API & orchestration services; packages/shared — request validation. **Problem or motivation** Execution workspaces have an expected branch record that must match the checked-out worktree branch. When the live git branch and stored branch record drift apart, operators currently lack a first-class, audited API to reconcile the record. The fallback is manual database repair or workspace replacement, both of which are risky and hard to audit. **Proposed solution** Add a board-only execution workspace branch reconciliation operation. `forward` mode re-inspects the server-side git state and only updates the branch record when the stored branch is an ancestor of the checked-out branch. `override` mode is a break-glass path that requires board access and an operator reason. Both modes require a clean, idle workspace, write audit details, post a source-issue audit comment, and resolve the matching workspace-validation recovery action. **Alternatives considered** Manual database edit (no durable audit trail and easy to mistype), recreating the workspace (heavier operational disruption), or trusting client-supplied ancestry evidence (unsafe because the server must verify the git state itself). **Roadmap alignment** This is incremental hardening for execution-workspace recovery and operator controls. It does not duplicate a public roadmap item. **Additional context** The endpoint is intended for operator recovery, not normal agent control flow, so the generated OpenAPI metadata and runtime route both classify it as board-only. ## What Changed - Added `reconcileExecutionWorkspaceBranchSchema` discriminated-union validator (`forward` with optional reason, `override` requiring a non-empty reason string) to `packages/shared/src/validators/execution-workspace.ts` - Exported `ReconcileExecutionWorkspaceBranch` type and the new schema from the shared package index - Added board-only reconcile-branch service operation in the execution workspaces service: safety checks, recovery-action fingerprint resolution, source-issue audit comment, and outcome recording - Added clean-worktree and stopped-runtime-service preconditions before branch-record mutation. - Marked the reconcile route as board-only in OpenAPI generated auth metadata. - Added `POST /api/execution-workspaces/:id/reconcile-branch` route wired to the new service operation with board-permission gate - Extended `execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts` and `execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` to cover: safety-check rejection, override-reason validation, audit-comment posting, and recovery-action fingerprint resolution (2 files / 19 tests) ## Verification ```sh pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ``` ## Risks - **Board-only gate:** the operation is gated behind the board permission; no agent can trigger it without operator authorization. - **Override requires reason:** the `override` mode requires a non-empty reason string so every bypass is audited. - **Idempotent recovery-action resolution:** re-running with the same fingerprint is safe; duplicate resolution is a no-op. - **No execution-state mutation:** the route records a reconciliation intent and updates the branch record; it does not restart the workspace or modify running agent state. - Overall risk: **low**. ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic - Model ID: `claude-sonnet-4-6` (Claude Sonnet 4.6) - Context window: 200 K tokens - Capabilities: tool use, code execution, multi-turn context Follow-up safety commit: - Provider: OpenAI - Model ID: `codex` / GPT-5 with 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 (`feat/execution-workspace-branch-reconciliation-route`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-07 13:41:23 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	390627b46e	[codex] Suppress worktree heartbeat scheduling (#9163) ... Suppress heartbeat scheduling in worktree and restore runtimes while keeping routine ticks and setup cleanup active. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-07 09:27:46 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	09f503f216	[codex] Surface AWS secret provider create errors (#9161) ... Preserve sanitized AWS Secrets Manager create errors and make rollback/cleanup failures explicit. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-07 09:26:41 -05:00
Dotta	88ce6d3575	Speed up issue detail payloads (#9125) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Operators spend a lot of time in issue detail pages and agent activity views while supervising work > - Those views were receiving large embedded project, workspace, runtime-service, and heartbeat context payloads > - Large payloads make issue comments and page loads slower, especially on active issues with workspaces and runtime metadata > - This pull request trims the issue detail and activity ledger response shapes to the fields those views need > - The benefit is faster issue detail loading without changing the underlying project, workspace, or run persistence model ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this exact problem, so this PR describes the bug inline using the bug report template fields. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip (or can reproduce on `master`). - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself — not in my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? Issue detail and related activity responses could include bulky embedded metadata such as project environment values, workspace metadata, stopped runtime services, and heartbeat context snapshots. On active issues with workspaces and long activity history, that makes issue comments and page loads slower than needed. ### Expected behavior Issue detail endpoints should return bounded, UI-oriented embeds that avoid shipping large or sensitive internal blobs when the full object graph is not needed. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create or open an issue with a project workspace and execution workspace. 2. Ensure the workspace has runtime services and heartbeat runs with context snapshots. 3. Inspect `GET /api/issues/:id` and the issue activity ledger payloads. 4. Observe that the response includes large embedded project/workspace/runtime/run fields unrelated to rendering the issue detail page. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced against current `master` lineage before this change. ### Deployment mode Local dev / server API behavior. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific (core API payload shape). ### Database mode Not database-related; no migration. ### Access context Board and agent-facing issue detail consumers can both benefit from smaller payloads. ### Node.js version Not version-specific. ### Operating system Not OS-specific. ### Relevant logs or output Not applicable. ### Relevant config (if applicable) Not applicable. ### Additional context Related search: - Searched public GitHub issues for `currentExecutionWorkspace metadata runtimeServices issue detail`; no matching issue found. - Searched public GitHub PRs for `compact currentExecutionWorkspace metadata runtimeServices`; no matching PR found. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII (usernames, file paths, API keys, tokens, company names) and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Added compact response shaping for issue detail project, project workspace, execution workspace, and runtime-service embeds. - Dropped large project `env`, workspace `metadata` / embedded runtime service lists, execution workspace `metadata`, and non-active runtime services from `GET /api/issues/:id` responses. - Removed heartbeat `contextSnapshot` from the activity ledger query result. - Added focused route and activity-service tests covering the compact response shape. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check public/master..HEAD` - Confirmed the branch is based on current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and contains no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. ## Risks Low to medium risk. The persisted data model is unchanged, but consumers relying on the full embedded project/workspace/runtime metadata from `GET /api/issues/:id` will now need to fetch the dedicated resource endpoint instead of depending on the issue detail payload. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with repository file access, shell command execution, GitHub connector usage, and local test execution. Context window and exact hosted model variant are not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-07-07 06:28:54 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	19454ce385	Deduplicate open watchdog review wakes (#9148) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Watchdogs keep issue execution moving by waking agents or creating recovery paths when work stalls. > - Open review states should generate useful follow-up, not repeated duplicate wake requests for the same unresolved review condition. > - Duplicate wakes create noise and can make the control plane look busier without increasing progress. > - This pull request deduplicates open watchdog review wake scheduling and covers the behavior with scheduler tests. > - The benefit is cleaner review wake behavior and fewer redundant agent runs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. Inline bug report: **Pre-submission checklist** - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip (or can reproduce on `master`). - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself — not in my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. **What happened?** Watchdog scheduling could enqueue duplicate open review wake requests while the same unresolved review condition was already pending. **Expected behavior** A watchdog should avoid scheduling redundant review wakes for the same unresolved condition while preserving legitimate wake paths. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an issue state that requires an open watchdog review wake. 2. Run the watchdog scheduler once and observe a wake request. 3. Run the scheduler again before resolving the original review condition. 4. Observe whether a duplicate wake is created. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at the PR base. **Deployment mode** Local dev (`pnpm dev`) and server deployments running watchdog scheduling. **Installation method** Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`). **Agent adapter(s) involved** - [x] Not adapter-specific (core bug) **Database mode** Not database-related beyond scheduler persistence. **Access context** Agent wake scheduling and board-visible review state. **Relevant logs or output** Covered by the added scheduler regression test. **Relevant config (if applicable)** Not applicable. **Additional context** This suppresses duplicate wake scheduling only while the open review state is still unresolved. **Privacy checklist** - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII (usernames, file paths, API keys, tokens, company names) and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Added deduplication logic for open watchdog review wake scheduling. - Added scheduler regression coverage for duplicate open review wake suppression. ## Verification - `/srv/paperclip/home/paperclipai/paperclip/node_modules/.bin/vitest run server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts` ## Risks Low-to-medium risk. The change intentionally suppresses duplicate wake scheduling, so reviewers should confirm no legitimate repeated wake path depends on creating multiple open requests for the same unresolved review state. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5 coding agent with repository tool use and local shell execution. Context window was not surfaced 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-07 05:54:23 -05:00