Align immediate terminal-run cleanup with stranded recovery reconciliation so recovery issues are blocked in place instead of receiving generic retry copy. Update the heartbeat recovery test expectation for the in-place guard notice.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Switch sandbox and SSH shell wrappers away from login-shell invocation, harden bridge shutdown races, and make the SSH fixture compatible with local macOS/Git 2.21 environments.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
- Remove duplicate secret name/key display in table row; show name only
- Replace mode and status badges with plain text (status uses color only)
- Drop provider vault second line from table
- Change 'Owned by Paperclip' reference to 'Owned'
- Gray out GCP and Hashicorp vault sections with 'Coming soon' label
- Replace inner sheet TabsList with PageTabBar for consistent tab style
- Rename 'Rotate' → 'Update value' for managed secrets
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so issue
threads are a core operator surface for reviewing work.
> - The issue detail page is the place where humans read agent messages,
user comments, and execution context together.
> - That thread originally rendered oldest-first, which made recent
activity harder to see during active review.
> - Reversing the thread order changes navigation expectations,
timestamp placement, and the "Jump to latest" affordance, so the UI
behavior needed to move as a coherent set.
> - Because this is a visible core-product behavior shift, it also
needed a safe rollout path instead of becoming the default immediately.
> - This pull request adds the newest-first issue thread behavior behind
an Experimental setting, updates the thread UI to match that mode, and
keeps the legacy oldest-first experience unchanged by default.
> - The benefit is that reviewers can opt into a more recent-first issue
workflow without forcing a global behavior change on every Paperclip
instance.
## What Changed
- Reversed issue thread rendering so the newest comments and messages
appear first when the experiment is enabled.
- Moved the plain comment timestamp into the card header in newest-first
mode and kept the legacy timestamp placement for oldest-first mode.
- Moved the `Jump to latest` control to the bottom of the thread in
newest-first mode while leaving the existing top placement for the
legacy mode.
- Added the `Enable Newest-First Issue Thread` experimental instance
setting and wired issue detail to read that toggle.
- Added regression coverage for thread order, timestamp placement,
jump-button placement, and the issue-detail experiment toggle behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
- Focused checks that also passed during issue review:
- `pnpm vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` in `ui/`
- `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts` in
`server/`
- Manual review path:
- Enable `Instance Settings > Experimental > Enable Newest-First Issue
Thread`
- Open an issue with comments/messages and confirm newest activity
renders first, timestamps move into the header, and `Jump to latest`
sits below the thread
- Disable the experiment and confirm the legacy oldest-first behavior
returns
## Risks
- Low risk: the behavioral change is gated behind an instance-level
experimental toggle and defaults off.
- The main regression risk is thread navigation drift between the two
modes, especially around anchor scrolling and the `Jump to latest`
affordance.
- There is some UI coupling between issue-detail query state and
experimental settings fetches, so future changes in that area should
keep both modes covered.
- Screenshots are not attached in this PR body; verification is
described with automated coverage and manual steps instead.
> I checked [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md). This is a scoped issue-thread UX
improvement and rollout gate, not a duplicate of a roadmap-level planned
core feature.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via the local `codex_local` Paperclip adapter,
GPT-5-based coding agent with terminal tool use and local code execution
in this repository worktree.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Adapters expose a Test action that probes the configured runtime —
install, resolvability, hello — to give operators a fast yes/no on
whether an environment is healthy
> - The Codex test path was running its hello probe directly without
going through the managed-runtime preparation that production runs use,
so a healthy production setup could still report a probe failure
> - The plugin worker manager wasn't surfacing terminated workers
cleanly, leaving the runtime probe waiting on a dead worker until the
request timed out
> - This pull request routes the Codex test probe through
`prepareAdapterExecutionTargetRuntime` (so it sees the same managed
Codex home production sees), exposes `commandCwd` on
`createCommandManagedRuntimeClient` so callers can target a per-probe
directory without leaking the workspace `remoteCwd`, and propagates
plugin-worker termination as a usable error instead of a hang
> - The benefit is the Codex Test action mirrors production behavior
end-to-end, and probes against a terminated plugin worker fail fast
instead of timing out
## What Changed
- `packages/adapter-utils/src/command-managed-runtime.ts`: rename the
`remoteCwd` knob to `commandCwd` so callers can target a per-probe
directory without inheriting the workspace cwd; matching test coverage
in `command-managed-runtime.test.ts`
- `packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-callback-bridge.{ts,test.ts}`:
small fixes to keep callback bridge stop semantics deterministic
- `packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/test.ts`: thread the Codex
hello probe through `prepareAdapterExecutionTargetRuntime` +
`prepareManagedCodexHome` so the probe sees the same managed home
production sees; new `test.remote.test.ts` covers the remote probe path
- `packages/adapters/cursor-local/src/server/execute.ts`: small
probe-side cleanup that aligns with the new commandCwd contract
- `server/src/services/plugin-worker-manager.ts`: surface plugin-worker
termination as a structured error so callers fail fast; new
`plugin-worker-terminated.cjs` fixture and
`plugin-worker-manager.test.ts` cases pin the behavior
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run --no-coverage --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
--project @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local --project
@paperclipai/adapter-cursor-local --project @paperclipai/server` —
1749/1750 passing (1 unrelated skip)
- `pnpm typecheck` clean
## Risks
Low–medium. The `remoteCwd → commandCwd` rename is a parameter renaming
on an internal helper used only by adapter test/execute paths in this
repo. The plugin-worker-terminated path was previously a hang; failing
fast may surface latent timeouts as explicit termination errors in
callers that already expected them.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context)
## 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 — new tests cover
commandCwd, plugin-worker termination, and Codex remote test path
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots — N/A (no UI)
- [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
---
> **Stacked PR.** Sits on top of #5444 which adds the per-run runtime
API surface this PR builds on. Cumulative diff against `master` includes
that PR's content; the files touched by *this* PR's commit are listed
under "What Changed" above. Will rebase onto `master` and force-push
once #5444 merges.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The issue graph and liveness recovery system decide whether assigned
work is executable or parked
> - Assigned issues created without an explicit status could silently
land in backlog, making parents look blocked with no productive wake
path
> - The server, shared validators, recovery analysis, and UI all need to
agree on that execution semantic
> - This pull request makes assigned issue creation default to `todo`,
flags assigned backlog blockers, and surfaces the state in the board
> - The benefit is that parked assigned work becomes intentional and
visible instead of creating silent liveness stalls
## What Changed
- Adds contract tests for assigned issue creation defaults.
- Defaults assigned issue creation to `todo` when status is omitted
while preserving explicit `backlog` parking.
- Exposes `resolveCreateIssueStatusDefault` through shared validators.
- Teaches liveness/blocker attention paths to distinguish assigned
backlog blockers.
- Adds UI notices, row/header badges, and issue detail safeguards for
assigned backlog blockers.
- Adds Storybook fixtures and execution-semantics documentation for the
assigned-backlog behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-assigned-backlog-contract-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueAssignedBacklogNotice.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx` — 50 passed, 23 skipped.
- Skipped tests were embedded Postgres suites on this host with the repo
skip message: `Postgres init script exited with code null. Please check
the logs for extra info. The data directory might already exist.`
- Pairwise merge check against the issue-controls PR branch completed
without conflicts via `git merge --no-commit --no-ff` in a temporary
worktree.
- Screenshots for assigned-backlog UI states:
[light](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-light.png),
[dark](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-dark.png).
- Follow-up checks: `pnpm --filter /ui typecheck`; `pnpm --filter
/mcp-server build`; `pnpm --filter /mcp-server test`; `pnpm exec vitest
run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`; focused UI component
tests.
- Remote PR checks on head `6300b3c`: policy, verify, serialized server
shards 1/4-4/4, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Greptile Review, and Snyk all
passed.
## Risks
- Medium: changes status defaulting for assigned issue creation when the
caller omits status. Explicit `backlog` remains supported, and
server/shared tests cover both paths.
- Medium: liveness classification changes can affect blocker attention
labels; focused service and UI tests cover the new assigned-backlog
state.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool-enabled
Paperclip heartbeat environment. Context window and internal reasoning
mode are not exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Issue operators need clear controls for execution settings, model
overrides, and recovery retries
> - Existing issue properties hid useful adapter override state and did
not expose a board-triggered retry for scheduled heartbeat recovery
> - Scheduled retries also need to respect the same safety gates as
normal execution instead of bypassing budget, review, pause, dependency,
or terminal-state checks
> - This pull request adds the issue property controls and retry-now
surfaces together because they share the issue details/properties UI
> - The benefit is that operators can inspect and adjust issue execution
settings and safely trigger pending scheduled recovery without hidden
control-plane behavior
## What Changed
- Adds editable issue assignee model override controls in
`IssueProperties`, with focused coverage.
- Removes the stale workspace tasks link from issue properties.
- Adds a scheduled retry `retry-now` backend path and shared response
types.
- Adds main-pane and properties-pane scheduled retry UI, backed by a
shared `useRetryNowMutation` hook.
- Adds suppression coverage for budget hard stops, review participant
changes, subtree pause holds, unresolved blockers, terminal issues, and
company scoping.
- Updates the `IssueProperties` test harness with toast actions required
by the retry-now hook.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueScheduledRetryCard.test.tsx` — 31 passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-scheduled-retry-routes.test.ts` — exited 0,
but this host skipped the embedded Postgres route tests with: `Postgres
init script exited with code null. Please check the logs for extra info.
The data directory might already exist.`
- Pairwise merge check against the assigned-backlog PR branch completed
without conflicts via `git merge --no-commit --no-ff` in a temporary
worktree.
### Visual verification screenshots
Storybook story: `Product/Issue Scheduled retry surfaces /
ScheduledRetrySurfaces`.
## Risks
- Medium: this touches issue execution/retry behavior, so CI should run
the embedded Postgres route tests on a host that can initialize
Postgres.
- Low-to-medium UI risk around duplicated retry-now entry points; both
surfaces share one mutation hook to keep behavior consistent.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool-enabled
Paperclip heartbeat environment. Context window and internal reasoning
mode are not exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The issue thread is the operator's durable audit trail for what
changed and why
> - Workspace changes and stale disposition notices need to be visible
in that same timeline without noisy or misleading rendering
> - The local branch already contained backend activity details,
timeline conversion, and UI rendering work for those events
> - This pull request isolates the issue-thread activity work into a
standalone branch against `origin/master`
> - The benefit is a focused audit-trail PR that can merge independently
of the sidebar/operator UI polish branch
## What Changed
- Adds readable workspace-change activity details to issue update
activity events.
- Surfaces workspace-change events in issue chat/timeline rendering.
- Makes the existing issue comment migration idempotent.
- Folds and renders stale disposition notices inline so they match
activity-log styling and spacing.
- Adds focused route, timeline, and issue-thread system notice coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-timeline-events.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx` — 3 files
passed, 22 tests passed.
- Confirmed the PR changes 9 files and does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`
or `.github/workflows/*`.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-closed-workspace-routes.test.ts` — 1 file
passed, 4 tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-timeline-events.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx
server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` — 5 files passed, 54 tests
passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui
typecheck`.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` after adding the Storybook
screenshot fixture.
- Captured Storybook screenshots for the new UI rendering paths:
- Collapsed stale notice + workspace-change row:
`docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5356/issue-thread-notices-collapsed.png`
- Expanded stale notice details:
`docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5356/issue-thread-notices-expanded.png`
### Screenshots
Collapsed stale notice with workspace-change row:
Expanded stale notice details:
## Risks
- Moderate risk: this touches issue activity serialization and
issue-thread rendering, both of which are central operator surfaces.
- Migration risk is low: the only migration change makes an existing
migration idempotent.
- No new migrations are introduced, so there is no cross-PR migration
ordering requirement.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, shell/tool-use enabled, used to
split the existing branch, verify the isolated PR branch, and create
this PR.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip relies on issue identifiers, execution policies, and agent
heartbeat rules to keep autonomous work auditable.
> - Safety checks need to reject ambiguous agent handoffs, and
identifier parsing needs to support Cloud tenant prefixes.
> - Agent instructions also need to make final-disposition rules
explicit so work does not stall in vague states.
> - This pull request isolates backend correctness and governance
hardening from the UI and recovery-system-notice branches.
> - The benefit is safer in-review transitions, better identifier
compatibility, and clearer agent operating contracts.
## What Changed
- Fixed run-aware confirmation ordering and interrupted-run state
cleanup.
- Added Cloud tenant identity bootstrap and alphanumeric issue
identifier support across shared parsing and server routes.
- Guarded agent-authored `in_review` updates unless a real review path
exists.
- Tightened heartbeat disposition instructions in adapter
utilities/default AGENTS/Paperclip skill.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-references.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-identifier-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` initially had the first
execution-policy test hit Vitest's 5s timeout under the parallel bundle
while the rest passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts
--testTimeout=20000` passed with 10/10 tests.
- Follow-up: `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed.
- Follow-up: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed.
- Follow-up: `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts` passed.
- Follow-up: `pnpm vitest run ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-reference.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-timeline-events.test.ts` passed.
## Risks
- Medium control-plane risk: in-review update validation changes agent
behavior. The error message is explicit and tests cover allowed review
paths.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with
shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies.
> - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board
users and agents coordinate execution.
> - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead
of immediate implementation work.
> - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution
comments from planning-oriented issue work.
> - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI
affordances for standard vs planning mode.
> - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed,
discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing
the normal issue workflow.
## What Changed
- Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB,
shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and
adapter heartbeat payloads.
- Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for
`issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations.
- Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction
behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested
follow-up issues.
- Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail
composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles.
- Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual
verification spec for planning-mode surfaces.
- Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable
planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config
tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts`
## Screenshots
Desktop planning detail:
Desktop planning row:
Desktop staged standard toggle:
Mobile planning detail:
Mobile planning row:
## Risks
- Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The
migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied
an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final
numbered migration safely.
- Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter
heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by
defaulting missing values to `standard`.
- UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused
component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning
display and toggle behavior.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with
shell/tool use. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this
runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators need to find work, documents, agents, projects, comments,
and activity across a company without jumping through separate surfaces.
> - The existing Command-K flow was useful for fast navigation but not
enough for deeper company-wide discovery.
> - Search also needs company-scoped backend contracts, query cost
controls, and indexed document matching so it stays safe as company data
grows.
> - This pull request adds a full company search API and a dedicated
board search page that Command-K can hand off to.
> - The benefit is a single searchable control-plane surface with richer
result context, recents, highlights, and test coverage across server and
UI behavior.
## What Changed
- Added a company-scoped search endpoint/service with query validation,
rate limiting, text matching, fuzzy title matching, and result typing
shared through `@paperclipai/shared`.
- Added idempotent search migrations for document search indexes and
fuzzy matching support.
- Added the full `/companies/:companyKey/search` UI, search result row
components, highlighted snippets, recent searches, and sidebar/Command-K
handoff.
- Added Storybook coverage for search surfaces and Vitest coverage for
server search behavior, rate limiting, route generation, Command-K
behavior, and the search page.
- Addressed Greptile findings by renaming the no-match SQL helper,
applying search pagination after cross-type merge sorting, and
lazy-initializing the default search service so unrelated route-test
mocks do not need to know about it.
- Merged current `public-gh/master` and renumbered the search migrations
behind upstream `0078_white_darwin`: search indexes are now
`0079_company_search_document_indexes` and fuzzy matching is
`0080_company_search_fuzzystrmatch`.
## Verification
- `git fetch public-gh master`
- `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD`
- `git diff --name-only public-gh/master...HEAD | rg '^pnpm-lock\.yaml$'
|| true` produced no output before opening the PR.
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Search.test.tsx ui/src/components/CommandPalette.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/company-routes.test.ts` passed: 5 files, 25 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
&& pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts && pnpm
--filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after Greptile pagination
fixes.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the CI mock fix.
- After resolving the migration conflict with current
`public-gh/master`: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm
exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts && pnpm
--filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed.
- DB migration numbering check passed as part of `@paperclipai/db`
typecheck.
- UI states are covered by the added Storybook stories in
`ui/storybook/stories/search.stories.tsx`.
- GitHub reports the PR merge state as `CLEAN` on head `18e54fa8`.
- GitHub PR checks are green on head `18e54fa8`: policy, verify,
serialized server shards 1/4 through 4/4, e2e, canary dry run, Snyk, and
Greptile Review.
## Risks
- Search ranking and snippets are new user-facing behavior, so reviewers
should check whether result ordering feels right on real company data.
- Search touches broad company data, so company scoping and query
cost/rate-limit behavior should be reviewed carefully.
- The migrations add search indexes/extensions; they are idempotent with
`IF NOT EXISTS` for users who may have applied an earlier branch
migration number.
> ROADMAP.md checked. This PR adds a focused board search surface and
does not duplicate an open roadmap item.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git/GitHub CLI
session with medium reasoning effort. Existing branch commits were
produced across prior agent sessions; this packaging pass verified,
opened the PR, addressed Greptile findings, resolved migration conflicts
after upstream PRs landed, and got PR checks green.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane operators use repeatedly to supervise
agent companies.
> - Common operator workflows depend on fast scanning of inboxes, issue
sidebars, workspaces, cost totals, and runtime services.
> - Several small UI and service gaps made those workflows slower or
less clear.
> - This pull request groups the operator-facing QoL changes that can
stand alone from recovery and adapter work.
> - The benefit is a denser, clearer board experience for issue triage
and workspace operation.
## What Changed
- Added inbox assignee/project grouping and issue list token/runtime
totals.
- Improved issue properties with removable blocker chips and workspace
task links.
- Improved execution workspace layout, runtime controls, issues tab
default, and stopped-port reuse behavior.
- Added mobile markdown/routine dialog fixes, page title company names,
sidebar polish, and dashboard run task label cleanup.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts`
## Risks
- Medium UI risk because this touches several operator surfaces. The
branch is intentionally grouped around workflow/QoL files and keeps the
file count below the Greptile limit.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with
shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents across several adapter
implementations.
> - ACPX is a local adapter path that can proxy Claude and Codex-style
execution.
> - Its configuration needed stronger schema defaults, provider-aware
model handling, and better UI support.
> - Plugin authors also need clear docs for managed resources.
> - This pull request improves ACPX adapter configuration and documents
plugin-managed resources.
> - The benefit is a more predictable adapter setup path without
changing unrelated control-plane behavior.
## What Changed
- Improved ACPX config schema, execution config handling, UI build
config, and route coverage.
- Added ACPX model filtering support and tests.
- Updated the agent config form and storybook coverage for ACPX
model/provider behavior.
- Expanded plugin authoring documentation for managed resources.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/acpx-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/adapter-routes.test.ts
ui/src/lib/acpx-model-filter.test.ts`
## Risks
- Low-to-medium risk: adapter configuration behavior changes can affect
ACPX users, but the change is isolated to ACPX/plugin-doc surfaces and
covered by targeted adapter tests.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with
shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Agent runs can end productively while the source issue still lacks a
durable final disposition.
> - That leaves the control plane unsure whether to resume, escalate, or
close the work.
> - Issue comments also need a presentation contract so system-authored
recovery notices can render as first-class thread messages without
overloading normal comments.
> - This pull request adds successful-run handoff recovery, comment
presentation metadata, and system notice rendering.
> - The benefit is stricter task liveness with clearer operator-facing
recovery state.
## What Changed
- Added successful-run handoff decisions, wake payloads, escalation
behavior, and recovery tests.
- Added issue comment presentation metadata with migration
`0078_white_darwin.sql` and shared/server/company portability support.
- Rendered recovery/system notices in issue chat with dedicated UI
components, fixtures, tests, and storybook/lab coverage.
- Included the current recovery model-profile hint patch so automatic
recovery follow-ups use the cheap profile.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts
ui/src/components/SystemNotice.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/system-notice-comment.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx`
## Risks
- Migration-bearing PR: merge this before any other branch that might
later add a migration.
- The branch touches both recovery services and issue-thread rendering,
so review should pay attention to recovery wake idempotency and comment
metadata compatibility.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with
shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The agent live-run route lets operators trigger a manual heartbeat
invocation so an agent can pick up a specific issue or step out of band
> - The current route flow drops the caller's scope (issue/run context)
when forwarding the manual invoke into the heartbeat service, so the
resulting run loses the targeting the operator specified
> - This pull request threads the operator-supplied scope through the
manual invoke path on both the server route and the UI client, with a
regression test that confirms the scope round-trips
> - The benefit is manual heartbeat invokes from the live-run UI
actually pick up the scoped issue/run instead of falling through to the
agent's default routine
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/agents.ts`: forward the operator-supplied scope
into the manual invoke heartbeat service call
- `server/src/__tests__/agent-live-run-routes.test.ts`: new test
verifying the manual invoke path preserves scope
- `ui/src/api/agents.ts`: pass scope through the live-run client API
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run --no-coverage
server/src/__tests__/agent-live-run-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm typecheck` clean
## Risks
Low. The change is purely additive on the route surface — handlers that
did not previously pass scope continue to work; handlers that did pass
it now have it preserved instead of dropped.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context)
## 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 — new test covers
the preserved-scope path
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots — N/A (internal API change, no visible UI shift)
- [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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies.
> - Routines are the scheduled/recurring work surface that keeps a
company operating without manual kicks.
> - Operators need routine edits to be auditable and recoverable,
especially when routines control assignments, prompts, triggers, and
webhook secrets.
> - Documents already have revision-style safety, but routines did not
have equivalent history or restore semantics.
> - This pull request adds append-only routine revisions across the
database, shared contracts, server routes, and board UI.
> - The benefit is safer routine iteration: users can inspect history,
compare changes, restore older definitions, and avoid overwriting newer
edits.
## What Changed
- Added `routine_revisions` storage, latest revision pointers on
routines, shared types, validators, and API docs for routine revision
history.
- Added server service/route support for listing routine revisions,
conflict-aware routine saves, and append-only restore operations.
- Added a History tab on routine detail with revision preview,
structured change summaries, description line diffs, dirty-edit
blocking, restore confirmation, and restored webhook secret surfacing.
- Extracted the line diff helper from `DocumentDiffModal` into
`ui/src/lib/line-diff.ts` for reuse.
- Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and renumbered the
routine revision migration to `0077_unusual_karnak` after upstream
`0076_useful_elektra`.
- Made the `0077` routine revision migration idempotent so installs that
already applied the branch-local `0076_unusual_karnak` can safely
advance.
- Updated the plugin SDK test harness routine fixture with the new
revision fields required by the shared `Routine` contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared
packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/lib/line-diff.test.ts
ui/src/components/RoutineHistoryTab.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/workspace-routines.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx`
passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck` passed after
updating the SDK test harness fixture.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` passed; this refreshed
local generated SDK output needed by plugin example typechecks.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
## Risks
- Medium migration risk: this adds routine revision storage and
backfills existing routines. The migration is ordered after upstream
`0076` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` / duplicate-object guards to tolerate
earlier branch-local migration application.
- Restore behavior intentionally appends a new revision instead of
mutating history; callers expecting an in-place rollback need to follow
the new latest revision pointer.
- Restoring webhook triggers recreates webhook secret material, so users
must copy newly surfaced secrets after restore.
- Conflict-aware saves now reject stale routine edits when the client
sends an older `baseRevisionId`.
> 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, with shell/tool use in a local
git worktree. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Screenshots: not attached in this draft PR; the new UI flow is covered
by component tests listed above.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Dotta
