mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-11 05:11:49 +01:00
20fc37778f1deabbbad688a6eab7eb158da405f4
9
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
683fa4725e |
fix(evals): refresh native runtime and pin reviewed catalog repairs (#18780)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people inspect and manage their agents’ work. > - The timeline must report canonical ownership history, and OpenCode tool failures need bounded diagnostics. > - The measured candidate also had independently reproduced question-navigation and oracle defects. > - This change promotes the reviewed production fixes and pins one immutable, qualified source composition. > - Original queries, model, counts, clocks, privacy controls and qualification holds remain intact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18775, #18777, #18779, #18711, #18713, #18718, #18699, #18798, #18799. **What happened?** The measured candidate predates merged native-runtime fixes and contains fixture defects. The timeline omitted recorded reassignment/removal history. Finish-input errors lacked a closed correlation and shape witness. **Expected behavior:** project recorded ownership transitions without inventing facts, distinguish successful native execution from failed verification steps, and retain content-free finish diagnostics. **Steps to reproduce:** repeat an unchanged assignee while editing another field; then reassign or unassign it. Only recorded transitions should appear. Invalid OpenCode finish input should produce a correlated rejection witness without values or schema text. Related #18699 adds gated company OTLP diagnostics. This change uses the existing local callback; it adds no exporter or capture policy. ## What Changed - Promote canonical timeline creation, reassignment and removal projection from #18777. Initial child ownership requires a recorded fresh-creation receipt; delegation requires a readable recorded parent. Unknown legacy facts fail closed. User actors/owners require active company membership; agent actors/targets must exist in that company. Spans, events and edges share that admission filter. Remove the introduced all-history absence query and use guarded indexed UUID lookups. - Add the shared/OpenAPI `unassigned` event kind, preserving newer main contracts and issue-route/service code through reviewed semantic joins. Existing UI consumers remain generic; no new visual marker is claimed. - Add bounded OpenCode finish diagnostics: schema digest, hashed call identity, closed shape enums and validation category. A throwing sink does not change admission or cancellation. - Pin immutable candidate `fd5e3b1e5a379524c0d1651ed8273e75ffd86541`, composed from combined #18777 source `b734393eff0d7ef85b7ad8abd556d2a66ca3a4e6` plus the reviewed MCP diagnostic delta. It preserves actually merged #18775 `97c07d149b5670088faf15317dcf603c75e2af87` and #18779 `a352c057d475067b4fe67375f06785287dfbe0ce`, and merged runtime fixes #18711, #18713 and #18718. - Qualify narrative handling for adjacent repair/verification sentences, intervening native-failure wording, and negated repair objects. Questions, denials and hypotheticals retain their controls. Preserve Previous question beside the qualified Entity type import; separately restore the already-called `internalResultLink` goal helper binding. That import is a runtime fixture repair, not a type-only change. - Include the narrow older-baseline CI typecheck closure and causal heartbeat test observers in the candidate. All four default typecheck projects execute. Main already includes the protected upstream tooling and newer heartbeat fixture, so neither is overwritten with an older candidate file. - Preserve all 244 identities, original queries, model, native/human counts and clocks, including the explicit prior Studio accounting exception. The full catalog stays on its candidate branch; the 196/244 gate and historical SDK runtime holds remain. ## Verification The primary’s f478 retry repeated the real composer-hidden five-second assertion (1 failure,18 passes,1 skip). Investigation established a setup readiness gap: an outer route response can delay mounting the chat thread beyond the assertion. The successor adds the existing real-thread `aria-busy="false"` readiness barrier before the unchanged composer assertion. The original120-second scenario and digest, unread, source-link, history, and reply checks are unchanged. The full owning browser scenario passed naturally in10.2s and with its first real chat response held6000ms in12.0s. This synchronizes fixture setup; the underlying AWS late-mount latency remains unproved. **Current main gates passed:** exact head `823dab49fcd8470140c178771e5c0c6b78725e97` has [successful normal CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41724620555), including both required aggregates, fresh Greptile 5/5 and zero unresolved review threads. Paperclip Review is neutral with a completed substantive 5/5 and no actionable defect. The current optional Superagent Security Scan is neutral/inconclusive: Security Graph context retrieval returned HTTP503, so its assessment did not start. That result supplies no security PASS credit. The primary source PR retains its separate current-head gate before Root sequences normal protected merges. - Reviewed MCP controls: 130 on main and 129 on the older candidate. Meaningful parent comparisons failed before implementation/correlation correction. Controls cover actual offered schema identity, null/omitted admission, bounded rejection categories and throwing-sink cancellation. - Exact unchanged production postimages retain 63 Postgres/public-route controls, nine plan controls and the focused index-plan proof. Owner OpenAPI passes 32 controls; main’s newer contract passes 33. Earlier setup/sandbox failures remain recorded; unchanged database controls were not replayed. - Narrative owner controls pass 216, retaining all prior 207 controls. The independent peer passes 144 balanced cases; earlier 108 and 39-case matrices remain retained. Actual consumer parent failures reproduced the review findings before repair. - Main’s server NoEmit passed on its protected baseline; only two pin files changed afterward. The candidate’s prior full server and four-project checks passed. All server/package/script/root-lock inputs remain byte-identical; the changed Runner project’s guard passes on the current source. Compatibility driver controls pass 47 and six owning suites pass 82. The one explicitly reviewed Docker-only unit omission concerns an unimported image-build feature; all four intended project guards still execute. - Pin/adapter/contract controls pass 47. All 242 expanded declarations, the two legacy dispatch rows, and all 244 singleton private policies retain their authenticated identities. Descriptor, launcher and private-protocol bytes remain exact; declaration loading invoked zero fixture callbacks. - All 506 SDK input blobs match the meaningfully compiled `6abe5739` source vector. Prior real shared/SDK builds measured declaration/map changes and zero runtime-JavaScript changes; a compiled consumer accepts the new kind and rejects an unknown kind. The reviewed registry remains unchanged. Default source proof, 51 SDK controls, 20 custody controls and 16 UI consumer controls remain qualified; runtime/compiler/parser/Zod/canary pins and held runtime grades are unchanged. - The full Mac heartbeat run on prior observer source retained **58 passes / six failures in 802.78s**. Two nonassignee controls subsequently pass focused checks. Four late timeout causes remain unresolved locally; no flakiness/infrastructure cause or complete local pass is claimed. [Actual AWS CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41712023737/job/126182620050) ran this exact heartbeat file with **64 passes in 107.209s**. Its server/package inputs are unchanged in the current narrative-only successor. The source-identical f478 heartbeat file also passed all64 AWS tests in105.812s; source inputs remain unchanged. Current main ordinary CI passed; the primary source PR must independently close its latest-head ordinary CI gate. - Historical main [run 41713049555](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41713049555) recorded six synchronized runner-shutdown failures and cancellations; the shutdown cause is unknown. A separate chat passive-control assertion observed one `db.transaction` call where zero was expected. Finite local probes passed 2+2 but did not establish a cause or late stack. No external publication, cleanup cause, source fix or flakiness is inferred. The primary’s separate composer-visibility CI failure also remains an inconclusive historical result; no guessed fix is credited. No old-head retry was used. - Earlier UI/inbox fixture failures and the CLI startup timeout remain historical. UI/inbox repairs are now upstream in #18799/#18798 and main preserves those files verbatim. The CLI timeout cause remains unknown. Broader local repository/Rust qualification is not claimed; fresh hosted CI supplies broader coverage. - All four actual repair merges, an exact merged-tree/diagnostic source join, and fresh controller/source/private-policy/active-run guards precede the ten-case TestOps measurement. No paid or model eval was launched for this PR; the original three passes/seven failures remain unchanged. ## Risks The next ten-case model result is unproved. Earlier MCP timeout and continuation-shape causes remain unknown; diagnostics provide future evidence without relaxing validation or rewriting grades. Prior local/CI failures are retained, including the unresolved chat assertion and local heartbeat timeouts. Initial ownership requires canonical in-window audit facts. Missing legacy facts remain unknown. The additive `unassigned` contract is synchronized across shared/OpenAPI/server consumers, with no new UI marker. SDK runtime holds and the broader 196/244 qualification gate remain. Normal protected merges require fresh checks and resolved feedback; no CODEOWNER or branch-protection bypass is authorized here. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` through Codex. Capabilities used: repository analysis, code changes, source validation, and local test execution. The context-window size is not exposed by this 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 — current focused/type/pin controls pass; the prior full Mac heartbeat failures remain disclosed and receive no local PASS credit - [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 — current main normal CI and required aggregates passed; optional neutral reviews and separate primary gate are disclosed above - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups — exact current main head; full thread pagination verified - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
1ef3b08714 |
feat(ui): integrate agent personas across the app (#13171)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A stable agent persona is useful only when the same identity appears across the app. > - Lists, task messages, selectors, and activity feeds need inexpensive static avatars. > - Onboarding and agent headers need a larger character with expressions and pointer tracking. > - This pull request connects the persona foundation to those existing views and preserves onboarding draft assignments. > - Full-page stories and Linux checks make the placements and performance contract reviewable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Agents need a stable visual identity in lists, tasks, onboarding, and configuration. External tools also need an image URL for that identity. **Proposed solution** Assign each agent a permanent palette from a fixed ClipLab character library. Store the assignment on the agent. Render and cache preset PNG URLs on demand. Use static images in dense views and one animated character in larger placements. **Alternatives considered** A generated image bundle requires a separate asset build. A live renderer in every avatar adds unnecessary work in large lists. Arbitrary uploaded images do not provide the requested shared character system. **Roadmap alignment** This improves agent identity across existing control-plane views. It preserves agent permissions, company boundaries, and status labels. ROADMAP.md has no separate ClipLab persona milestone. Related approaches: #2422 adds configurable image URLs and DiceBear generation; #5578 adds optional uploaded avatars. This work uses a fixed, versioned character library and preset URLs. ## What Changed - Replace agent icons with static persona images across lists, the sidebar, org charts, tasks, comments, selectors, activity, and dashboard views. - Put one animated character in the agent header. Let it follow the pointer across the page, with reduced-motion and touch fallbacks. - Add larger padded characters to agent creation. Keep the palette stable across draft refreshes and connection retries, then reveal it after success. - Pass appearance through shared projections rather than fetching each agent separately. - Add real full-page Storybook examples for the agent list, overview, task, dashboard, new-agent dialog, and connection page. - Add Linux screenshot, clipping, density, and 500-avatar performance checks. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and token gates pass on the rebased tree. Persona lifecycle tests pass. - The rebased feature passes 38 Linux screenshot/performance checks, including both display densities, corner pointer positions, and the no-WebGL/no-live-download contract for 500 avatars. - The final Linux persona suite passes all 38 visual, lifecycle, density, and full-page checks using the standard Storybook configuration and real on-demand avatar endpoint. - Final local focused verification: 45 avatar/native-recovery tests pass; UI identity/routine tests, typecheck/build, token gates, and Storybook build pass. - Current-head CI passes: full workspace/server tests, all serialized server groups, typecheck/release checks, build, canary validation, and end-to-end shards. The build passed after retrying a native-runner concurrency-test failure; its three targeted cases also pass locally. - Manual inspection covered stable identities in the app, header placement, full-page mouse tracking, onboarding size, and task/dashboard placements. ### Screenshots Linux captures use synthetic Storybook fixtures. Full-page captures use reduced motion. The live character, mouse tracking, and disposal are checked separately. <details> <summary>Agent overview with the character in its header</summary> <img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/8c68f42b268ada22b67d79d0fe1bb0a2f84ec25c/screenshots/full-page-agent-overview.png" width="900" alt="Agent overview with the character in its header" /> </details> <details> <summary>Task messages and assignee identity</summary> <img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/8c68f42b268ada22b67d79d0fe1bb0a2f84ec25c/screenshots/full-page-task.png" width="900" alt="Task messages and assignee identity" /> </details> <details> <summary>Larger onboarding character with room for expressions</summary> <img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/8c68f42b268ada22b67d79d0fe1bb0a2f84ec25c/screenshots/full-page-meet-your-next-agent.png" width="900" alt="Larger onboarding character with room for expressions" /> </details> <details> <summary>Dashboard agent activity</summary> <img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/8c68f42b268ada22b67d79d0fe1bb0a2f84ec25c/screenshots/full-page-company-dashboard.png" width="900" alt="Dashboard agent activity" /> </details> ## Risks - This PR depends on #13170, the persona foundation. Merge the foundation first, then retarget this PR to master. - Many placements change from icons to character silhouettes. Human avatars and authoritative agent status labels retain their existing behavior. - Only one character can render live per view. Reduced motion, hidden/offscreen content, touch input, and renderer failures use the defined fallbacks. - The full-page stories use fixture data. They do not contact a real company or complete real provider sign-in. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact model identifier and context window are not exposed in this session. Used code editing, shell execution, browser inspection, and Linux visual testing. ## 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: Tonio <tonework@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ab15aff390 |
feat: add experimental persistent agent chat (#13284)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Conversations must use the same tasks, controls, and execution history. > - Users need an ongoing chat with an agent without managing task properties. > - Agents should clarify and plan work, then hand execution to assigned project tasks. > - This pull request combines the reviewed Agent Chat stack for one squash merge. > - The benefit is persistent conversation with normal task governance and shared UI. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Task lifecycle, agent runtime tools, shared task UI, and browser/paid runner tests. **Problem or motivation** Users need one persistent conversation with each agent. A separate chat store or renderer would duplicate task behavior and bypass existing controls. **Proposed solution** Use a task-backed chat per company, user, and agent. Reuse the task composer and transcript. Clarify and plan in chat, then create assigned project tasks with the relevant plan. Keep Agent Chat behind its own disabled-by-default experimental setting. **Roadmap alignment** This implements the task-backed direction in [CEO Chat](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/master/ROADMAP.md#-ceo-chat). Related proposals: #2504 and #9693. Related request: #7981. The maintainer requested one squash merge of the complete stack. Consolidates the reviewed runtime [#13281](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13281), backend [#13282](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13282), and UI [#13283](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13283) layers with this PR's E2E coverage. All four layers passed CI and received Greptile 5/5 before consolidation. This PR targets master and includes the complete feature. ## What Changed - Add personal canonical chat tasks with ordinary company visibility, immutable identity, idempotent first sends, and an idle waiting state. - Process `/new` in queue order. Preserve history, release a chat pause, and fence old provider context and delayed writes. - Keep chat lifecycle rules across recovery, finalization, assignment, task lists, and rollups. - Support research and plan revision in chat. Hand plans to ordinary assigned project tasks before execution starts. Reject new chat subtasks. - Add repository-aware project creation and discovery tools, including multiple repository IDs and GitHub URLs, authorization, idempotency, and durable project-created cards. - Reuse task UI components for chat, with starred/recent agent navigation and a separate `enableAgentChat` experimental flag. - Add deterministic browser tests and 24 paid chat cells across four Codex/Claude profiles, with validated reports and screenshots. - Integrate current master recovery, controller lease, queued-message, and task UI changes. Gate chat interruption and deferred promotion on ownership/feature policy. Guarantee lease renewal and active controls are stopped even if teardown fails. - Preserve master's migration 0273 and generate chat migration 0274 with idempotent replay for development databases. ## Verification - Prior exact heads of all four PRs passed Linux CI, including build, typecheck, general/serialized tests, and browser E2E. Each had Greptile 5/5 and no unresolved findings. - Integrated local verification passed: full repository typecheck and production build, Storybook build, token gates, 340 focused UI tests, all 20 deterministic chat browser tests, two migration replay tests, 88 focused chat/queue/native/controller tests, and provider/session regressions including real lease expiry. These include the three lifecycle regressions for the final admission/teardown fixes; server typecheck also passes. Current head `1268eda16cc2af892055917e7292f068820be135` has Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings and passing security scans. All final-head CI gates passed: build, full Runner verification, typecheck/release registry, canary, all general/serialized test shards, and all browser E2E shards ([CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34696739927)). Local PostgreSQL startup contention required serialized retries; skipped fixtures do not count as passing coverage. - The earlier paid campaign passed all 24 chat cells and retained 32 screenshots: [report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-34648511170-1/index.html?report=agent-chat#suite-agent-chat). It tested `abacbdfd2f660709ec37312cdb758284c8399d04`; it is prior evidence, not a paid run of this integrated head. - Manual check: enable Agent Chat in Experimental settings, open an agent, clarify and revise a plan, then hand off to an assigned project task. Stop a reply, send `/new`, and verify fresh context with retained history. Disable the setting and verify agent shortcuts/new chat turns are blocked. ## Risks - Queue/session integration can affect retries and delayed writes. Tests cover ownership, cancellation, reset boundaries, idle recovery, and ordinary task behavior. - Migration 0274 adds conversation fields and constraints. Replay is idempotent and preserves existing development chat history. - This combines the previously reviewed stack at the maintainer's request. Agent Chat remains off by default and is separate from Conference Room. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 Astra (`gpt-6-astra`), with reasoning, code execution, browser tools, and parallel review. The exact context-window size is not exposed in this session. Codex and Claude also ran as test subjects in the linked paid campaign. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6a3cbe1c58 |
fix(ui): load the full selected timeline window (#9576)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The timeline page visualizes company activity across a selected date window > - The UI requested only the first paginated issue batch even when the selected zoom covered seven or thirty days > - A busy company could therefore render an incomplete timeline while the controls implied the full window was loaded > - The timeline query needs to exhaust the API pagination for the selected date range and combine each page without duplicating shared timeline records > - This pull request adds a paginated window loader, merges the returned timeline data, and covers the multi-page behavior with a regression test > - The benefit is that the visible timeline matches the selected zoom window instead of silently omitting later issues ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I searched existing open and closed issues and pull requests; no matching report or implementation was found. - [x] I reproduced the behavior against the pre-change `master` implementation. - [x] I confirmed the error originates in Paperclip's core timeline UI, not an adapter, provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? Selecting the default seven-day timeline range loaded only the first API page (up to 500 issues). Companies with more activity therefore displayed incomplete data even though the controls showed the full selected window. ### Expected behavior The timeline should load all issue pages that fall within the selected date window. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Open the company timeline for a date range containing more than 500 issues. 2. Keep the default seven-day range or select another multi-day preset. 3. Observe that only the first page of issue-backed timeline data is shown. ### Paperclip version or commit Pre-change `master`. ### Deployment mode Local dev source build. The behavior is not adapter-specific and is independent of database mode and access context. ### Privacy checklist - [x] No logs, configuration, personally identifiable information, or user data are included. ## What Changed - Added pagination parameters to the timeline API client contract. - Added a timeline window loader that requests every issue page and deduplicates actors, spans, events, and edges while preserving pagination metadata. - Switched the timeline query to use the complete-window loader. - Added a regression test proving a 501-issue window loads both API pages and combines their records. - Preserved delegation events and edges when parent and child issues fall on different API pages, with a server regression test. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/work-timeline-service.test.ts ui/src/pages/Timeline.test.tsx` — 16 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. - Remote CI: build, typecheck, both e2e shards, canary, policy, security, every general/serialized test shard, and the aggregate `verify` gate passed on head `24784b28e9`. ## Risks - Low risk: the change is isolated to timeline data loading and has no schema or API endpoint changes. - Large date windows now make sequential requests for all issue pages, increasing request count for very active companies; the 500-item page size bounds each response. - Merged records rely on stable identifiers or composite event/edge keys; the regression test covers cross-page combination and deduplication 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 using GPT-5.4 with reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, and test execution. The runtime does not expose the exact 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> |
||
|
|
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> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
a6b7b12fd7 |
Harden work timeline security filters (#8923)
Squash merge PR #8923.
Verified before merge:
- PR head:
|
||
|
|
60f7fb4223 |
PAP-12424 Work Timeline — Phase C: frontend Gantt page (Direction C) (#8880)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Operators need to *see* how work actually flowed across their agents over time — who was invoked, what they worked on, and how work was delegated between them > - The dashboard shows point-in-time state but nothing reconstructs the temporal, cross-actor picture of heartbeat runs and delegations > - A read-only company work-timeline endpoint was landed first (server aggregation over runs/issues/activity); it had no frontend > - This pull request adds the Gantt-style **Work Timeline** page that renders that endpoint, plus the small additive server contract change it needs (shared DTOs + a task title on each span) > - The benefit is a single dense view — actor rows, concurrency lanes, delegation connectors, zoom and a mini-map — that makes agent activity legible without an N+1 fetch storm from the client ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue. Problem, in-PR: - **Gap:** the company work-timeline aggregation endpoint has no UI. There is no way to visually inspect how heartbeat runs unfolded over time or how work was delegated between agents. - **Solution:** a dashboard-adjacent Gantt-style page at `/:companyPrefix/timeline`, linked from the sidebar's "Work" section, rendering runs as bars on per-actor rows with delegation connectors, kickoff chips, zoom, a lens filter, and a mini-map. - Built with React + custom inline SVG (no chart dependency; consistent with the existing Tailwind/Radix stack). ## What Changed - **Frontend Gantt page** (`ui/src/pages/Timeline.tsx`, `ui/src/components/timeline/WorkTimelineChart.tsx`): actor rows (agents/system only — humans never get a row), overlapping runs packed into concurrency sub-lanes, bars = heartbeat runs with a left colour tab for issue identity, truncated task title + timing/status on hover, click-through to the task. - **Human activity markers & human rows** for kickoff/delegation involving people, without giving humans their own run lane. - **Kickoff avatar chips** at each bar's leading edge; straight agent→agent delegation connectors (dashed for retries/changes-requested); in-progress runs extend to a dashed "now" line and fade out. - **Zoom** (hour/day/week, auto-fit), full-window **mini-map** with a draggable brush, **lens filter** (Everyone / per-user, server-side), and colour **by task / by status**. - **Pure layout/transform module** (`ui/src/lib/timeline/layout.ts`) — packing, kickoff derivation, connector resolution, scales — unit-tested in isolation. - **Server contract (additive):** moved the `WorkTimeline*` DTOs into `@paperclipai/shared` so the aggregation service and the UI consume one contract; added `issueTitle` to each span so the tooltip shows the task title with no N+1 client fetch. - Sidebar link, query keys, API client (`ui/src/api/workTimeline.ts`), and a Storybook story with fixtures. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` ✅ - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` ✅ · `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` ✅ - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/timeline/layout.test.ts src/components/timeline/WorkTimelineChart.test.tsx` ✅ (15/15) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/work-timeline-service.test.ts` ✅ (5/5) — the DTO move + `issueTitle` are additive; existing service tests use `objectContaining` and still pass. - Rendered `WorkTimelineChart` headless against a real slice of company activity via a Storybook story; manual browser QA of the live page passed on the feature branch. ## Risks - **Low risk.** The change is UI-only plus an additive server DTO refactor (types relocated to `@paperclipai/shared`, one new optional field). No schema/migration changes, no change to endpoint behaviour beyond the extra `issueTitle` field. The page is behind its own route and does not alter existing views. ## Model Used - Claude, Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), via Claude Code with extended thinking and 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 searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above (only the merged endpoint PR #8875 is related; no duplicates) - [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 ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
dea7c4e274 |
[codex] add company work timeline endpoint (#8875)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators need visibility into who initiated work, which agents ran, and how tasks were delegated across a company. > - The existing control plane stores the raw data across issues, heartbeat runs, comments, approvals, interactions, and activity logs. > - There was no single company-scoped API response that reconstructed those records into timeline actors, spans, events, and edges for a Gantt-style view. > - This pull request adds that aggregation endpoint behind the same company and issue read authorization model used elsewhere. > - The benefit is that UI work can consume one bounded endpoint instead of reimplementing timeline joins client-side. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. ## Problem or motivation Paperclip stores enough execution and delegation data to show work over time, but consumers need a single endpoint that aggregates it consistently. ## Proposed solution Add `GET /api/companies/:companyId/timeline` with date and entity filters, bounded windows, pagination, actor normalization, run spans, human events, and delegation/assignment edges. ## Alternatives considered Querying each source separately from the UI would duplicate ACL and attribution logic and make client rendering depend on storage details. ## Roadmap alignment This supports operator visibility and auditability, and does not duplicate a listed roadmap item. ## What Changed - Added a `workTimelineService` that aggregates issue candidates from runs, activity, comments, approvals, interactions, and recently touched issues. - Added `GET /api/companies/:companyId/timeline` with `from`, `to`, `userId`, `goalId`, `projectId`, `issueId`, `limit`, and `offset` query parameters. - Enforced company-scope access plus per-issue `issue:read` filtering before emitting spans, events, or edges. - Added 31-day window capping, in-progress span handling for null `finishedAt`, retry/continuation metadata, user-lens subtree filtering, and activity-log run attribution fallback. - Added embedded-Postgres tests for aggregation joins, route behavior, ACL filtering, window capping, and user-lens closure. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/work-timeline-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec tsc -p server/tsconfig.json --noEmit` Additional smoke attempted: - `pnpm dev:once` did not start the local app because the existing embedded instance has pending migration drift: Postgres rejected a foreign key on `pipeline_case_blockers.company_id` because that column does not exist. I did not manually alter the embedded database. ## Risks - Medium risk: this introduces a new aggregate endpoint over several tables, so query volume should be watched on very large companies. - The endpoint caps windows and paginates issue candidates to keep the first version bounded. - ACL behavior is fail-closed per issue: unreadable issues are filtered before response rows are emitted. - No migrations or schema changes are included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex coding agent, with tool use for repository inspection, editing, local Vitest execution, TypeScript checking, git, and GitHub CLI 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 - [ ] 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> |
