4 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	2dd9811e8b	Own agent hiring and termination in a lifecycle module (#15631) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Agent creation, approval, pause, and termination change whether an agent can work. > - These changes currently use separate service and database paths. > - Some agents need setup after their record exists and before their harness can run. > - This PR adds one module that owns those state changes and their transactions. > - The module records progress and retries incomplete work after a server restart. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** A hire can become active before its execution environment is ready. Direct agent state writes also bypass one common lifecycle boundary. Termination does not have a durable step for resource cleanup. **Proposed solution** Use agent lifecycle commands for hiring, approval, pause, resume, and termination. Keep proposed hires pending until approval. Prepare each approved hire, test its saved harness configuration, and then permit work. Wait for required plugin work before completing a step. **Alternatives considered** A general database commit hook would expose transaction details to callers. A timer alone would delay each new hire. This module owns each command transaction and starts its worker after commit. A periodic scan recovers work after a process stops. **Roadmap alignment** This change adds the lifecycle boundary for the existing agent and plugin systems. It does not add a user interface or a provider implementation. It replaces the lifecycle delivery approach in #15391. Related proposals include #11475 and #13099; this change does not add their external executor protocols. ## What Changed - Add durable approval, preparation, verification, pause, resume, stop, and cleanup states. - Keep agent creation, lifecycle state, configuration writes, and agent record deletion behind `modules/agent-lifecycle`. Keep validation, credential rules, reads, onboarding, invitations, general approvals, and company data deletion in their services. - Commit a hire before the remaining onboarding or invitation work. Serialize requests with the existing dedicated database connection helper. Reuse the hire after a failed attempt. - Keep accepted work in the run queue during setup. Require execution and cleanup evidence before completing pause or termination. - Retain the original credential owner when approving migrated hires. - Start lifecycle work after each command commits. Use database leases and revision checks for retries and late results. - Add a generic required plugin method and capability. Store the required plugin IDs for each agent. Track host and plugin completion separately. - Keep harness verification and credential rules in services. Supply their results to lifecycle through explicit ports. Reject failed logins and incomplete probes. - Remove reverse imports from lifecycle adapters into services. Share record queries and validation below both layers. - Use one hire decision path for agent IDs and approval IDs. Resolve the approval and agent change in one transaction. Expose policy reconciliation on the command object. - Save configuration and verification invalidation through one module operation. Ordinary commands own their transaction. Restrict the shared transaction integration to its listed callers. Reject identity, company, accounting, timestamp, and unknown fields. - Require completed termination before deleting agent records. The company deletion service calls the module through a separate deletion interface. - Save an approved secret before applying its agent binding. A failed binding leaves the secret approved. A retry reuses it. - Remove old permission and metadata export files. Move hire configuration rules out of lifecycle persistence. - Report failed worker steps and scans with operation context and known error codes. Omit provider messages, stacks, and configuration values. Document ordinary application use and extension rules. - Recover expired native owners only after execution stops. Retry cleanup of failed retained leases. Wait for setup in the live smoke script. - Keep manual, budget, and company pause reasons separate. Guard execution status writes with the ready state. - Add a migration, boundary checks, regression tests, and a lifecycle guide. Keep the current UI. - Limit periodic policy checks to 100 eligible agents per minute. Continue from the last agent ID. Exclude pending hires and agents in termination or a final state. Keep explicit company and budget updates immediate. ## Verification - Latest head `ccc3c86b0` aligns the shared status update schema with the PATCH route. All 15 shared tests, 104 server route/OpenAPI tests, 2 CLI tests, and shared/server/CLI TypeScript checks pass. The Greptile comment is fixed. CI is running; no new Apex review was requested for this small fix. - Rebase `75708ac94` rebases onto master at `2eb5187e4`. The backup test uses the shared 90-second timeout from master; the older timeout commit was removed. The affected backup test passes. - Agent budget edits now pass the target agent ID through enforcement. All 50 affected tests, server TypeScript, and 11 boundary tests pass. Both configuration update paths have regression coverage. CI is running on the latest head. No new Apex review was requested for these small fixes. - Rebase `9b568666a` preserves the run-control extraction and delivery-work startup changes from master. All 559 affected tests, server TypeScript, and 11 boundary tests pass. CI and Apex review are running on the final head. - The policy scan fix passes 56 lifecycle and diagnostic tests, 24 policy and caller tests, and 11 boundary tests. A regression test checks the page limit, interval, excluded states, and cursor wraparound. - Rebase `fd4698750` passes all 611 tests in eight affected lifecycle, route, and heartbeat suites. Server TypeScript and all 11 module boundary tests pass. The company deletion rollback and concurrent hire tests are included. - Follow-up `00aac7646` fixes the failed decision deletion test and the public update schema. All 126 affected server tests, 8 shared tests, 2 CLI tests, and 11 boundary tests pass. Shared, server, CLI, and UI TypeScript checks pass. - Server TypeScript passes: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`. - All 11 boundary tests pass: `node --test scripts/check-module-boundaries.test.mjs`. The repository boundary scan also passes. - All 68 lifecycle, failure diagnostic, and harness verification tests pass. Tests reject forbidden fields through the root command, combined transition command, and restricted transaction integration. They also check invalid fields returned by configuration preparation. - Failure tests cover host work, plugin work, claims, renewals, deferrals, and scans. Log tests check known error codes and exclusion of private error contents. - All 355 tests in 10 existing caller suites pass. These tests cover secret approval, pairing, pending hires, credentials, company import, built-in agents, managed agents, instructions, and skills. - The branch is rebased onto `origin/master` at `2eb5187e4`. The queue guards and cancellation lock fix use the extracted heartbeat queue. Agent cancellation uses the extracted run-control file. The source diff scan found no secrets or private URLs. - Earlier checks cover approval retries, rollback, late verification results, policy holds, deletion rollback, concurrent company deletion, and queue admission during setup. - Before the rebase, CI passed on `00aac7646` and Greptile Apex rated it 5/5 with no open comments. CI and a new Apex review are pending for the rebased commit. The branch has no merge conflicts. - The full local build and native Dot suite were not run. The host has no Cargo. No live provider test was run. ## Risks - Background policy recovery takes more than one minute when more than 100 agents are eligible. Explicit company and budget updates still reconcile immediately. - The restricted configuration integration keeps an agent reference and its dependent records in one transaction. It cannot change a budget or invoke a lifecycle transition. A periodic scan starts pending setup after that transaction commits. - Secret approval and binding use separate transactions. A failed binding can leave an approved secret with no agent binding. - New approved hires remain unavailable until setup and verification complete. Existing clients see `paused` during these steps. This PR does not change the UI. - Migration `0320_daily_onslaught.sql` maps existing statuses and pause reasons. It does not create external resources or claim that an existing harness passed verification. - Use a coordinated server update for this migration. Older server versions can write legacy status without the new lifecycle checks. - A failed onboarding or invitation request can leave a committed hire. A retry reuses that hire and completes the remaining records. - Deletion requires completed termination. Company deletion can require another request while cleanup is pending. - Required plugins must make repeated calls safe and reject older revisions. A disabled or removed required plugin blocks completion until it is restored. - A new hire can run a second harness test after the existing UI test. Some adapters can charge for this test. - No live provider test was run. Provider implementation and resource backfill remain separate work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code tools, and local test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have described the issue in this PR with the feature request field labels - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented risks - [x] Targeted local tests pass - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the new commit - [x] Greptile Apex is 5/5 with no open comments on the new commit - [x] I will address review comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 09:05:12 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	b58ce27a02	fix: isolate execution workspace summaries (#10790) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip gives operators a summary for each workspace. > - An execution workspace detail page used the parent project-workspace summary slot. > - Two execution workspaces under one project workspace could therefore show the same summary. > - This pull request gives each execution workspace its own summary scope. > - It also limits the summary snapshot and generated issue to that execution workspace. > - The benefit is that a new or parallel execution workspace cannot inherit unrelated status. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An execution workspace detail page read and refreshed the summary slot for its parent project workspace. Parallel execution workspaces could show the same status and include issues from each other. **Expected behavior** Each execution workspace must have one isolated summary slot. Its generated snapshot must include only issues assigned to that execution workspace. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create two execution workspaces under one project workspace. 2. Add different issues to each execution workspace. 3. Generate the summary in the first execution workspace. 4. Open the second execution workspace. 5. Observe that the old implementation could reuse the first summary. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this pull request. **Deployment mode** The issue affects both local trusted and authenticated deployments. ## What Changed - Added `execution_workspace` to the shared summary-slot scope contract. - Validated execution-workspace ownership and stored generated summary issues on the correct execution workspace. - Limited execution-workspace snapshots to issues with the matching execution workspace ID. - Updated the execution workspace page to use its own summary slot. - Updated Summarizer instructions, routine options, catalog metadata, documentation, and regression tests. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/summary-slot.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts ui/src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx` — 30 focused tests passed; the embedded-Postgres server tests were run outside the process-restricted sandbox. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog validate` — passed with 17 catalog skills. - [Latest-head GitHub Actions](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/31491475405) — all 22 jobs passed on `beea14cbaf`, including typecheck, build, server/workspace tests, serialized suites, e2e, canary, and aggregate verification. One unrelated adapter cleanup test initially hit an `ENOTEMPTY` temp-directory race; its single permitted rerun passed. - Greptile — 5/5 confidence on `beea14cbaf`, 12 files reviewed, zero comments added, and zero unresolved threads. ## Risks - Low risk. The new scope is additive. - Existing project and project-workspace summary slots keep their current keys and behavior. - A summary generated for an execution workspace now excludes sibling workspace issues by design. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The deployment does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window value. It used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub tooling. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-11 08:56:32 -04:00
3 people	e3f8380e70	feat(skills): make summarize-status actions-first (#10117) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Its built-in Summarizer keeps status slots useful for people overseeing issue trees > - Those summaries need to tell the reader what they must do now to unblock progress > - The existing skill instead imposed rigid Decide:/Review:/Recent work: sections, cost commentary, and restrictive issue-fetch guidance > - This pull request rewrites the summarize-status instructions to lead with 1–3 specific, concrete unblock actions while letting the model use its judgment for the remaining context > - The benefit is a shorter, clearer summary that is immediately actionable without changing slot writes or the streaming status protocol ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9713 The built-in summarizer currently prioritizes a fixed reporting template over the reader's immediate unblock actions. Summaries should instead open with the 1–3 specific actions the reader needs to take right now, then provide only the context needed to act. This prompt-only update preserves all summary-slot mechanics and protocols. ## What Changed - Rewrote the bundled `summarize-status` skill to open with 1–3 specific, concrete, actionable items needed right now to unblock the work. - Removed the rigid Decide:/Review:/Recent work: template, the Cost discipline section, and the restrictions against fetching issue detail. - Kept slot-write mechanics and the streaming `STATUS`/sentinel protocol unchanged. - Updated all materialized copies and tests for the same skill text: the `SKILL.md` source, regenerated catalog manifest hashes, compiled fallback string, summarizer built-in `AGENTS.md` and routine, summary generation-issue instructions, and the two tests pinning those strings. - Although the diff touches eight files, every file is either the same skill text in another materialized form or a test asserting it. No behavior outside the summarizer's prompt text changes. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` — 20/20 tests pass. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts server/src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts` — 46/46 tests pass. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — clean. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts` — 16/16 tests pass after the Greptile consistency fix. - Latest-head GitHub checks — 25 terminal checks, all successful, neutral, or skipped. ## Risks - Low risk: this intentionally changes generated summary wording and prioritization, but does not change APIs, persistence, slot-write behavior, or the streaming protocol. - The branch name contains an internal task identifier because it was pre-created and pre-pushed for this assigned change; the PR title and body do not expose the internal ticket. > 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-5.6-sol`, high reasoning mode, with repository, terminal, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-23 15:59:44 -05:00
3 people	1f1f545238	feat: add built-in summarizer and summary slots (#9713) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to organize, govern, and understand AI-agent work > - Operators need concise, current status views across projects and execution workspaces without manually reading every issue and run > - Paperclip already has auditable issues, documents, built-in agents, routines, and live run events, but no first-class summary-slot workflow connecting those systems > - A built-in Summarizer can generate status prose through ordinary governed tasks while summary slots provide stable, revisioned destinations for that output > - The UI needs to show current summaries, generation progress, failures, revisions, and streaming draft status in the places operators already work > - This pull request adds the end-to-end summary-slot data, API, agent, orchestration, and UI surfaces behind an experimental setting > - The benefit is decision-oriented status context that remains company-scoped, auditable, retryable, and inexpensive by default ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. **Problem** Operators currently have to reconstruct project and workspace status by reading many issues, runs, and comments. This makes it hard to identify decisions, review queues, recent work, and the next event worth watching. **Proposed capability** Add an experimental summary system with revisioned summary slots for projects and workspaces, a paused-by-default built-in Summarizer agent, governed generation tasks, live draft status, and reusable UI cards. **Expected behavior** - Summary data remains company-scoped and revisions remain auditable. - Generation runs through normal issue/agent orchestration and deduplicates active requests. - Only the linked built-in Summarizer generation task can author a slot revision. - Operators can generate, retry, inspect revisions, and follow draft progress from project and workspace views. - The feature remains opt-in and background generation remains paused by default. ## What Changed - Added summary-slot schema, idempotent migrations, shared contracts, validators, API paths, and service tests. - Added company-scoped summary-slot routes for reading revisions, requesting generation, and guarded Summarizer writes with activity logging. - Added terminal generation finalization, failure reasons, assignment wakeups, and orchestration integration. - Added the paused-by-default built-in Summarizer bundle, low-cost runtime defaults, status-summarization skill, and stale-summary routine. - Added summary cards, revision selection, retry/configuration states, live draft streaming, transcript chunk handling, and project/workspace integrations. - Updated Claude local parsing for streamed status output and expanded server, adapter, shared, database, catalog, and UI coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/summary-slots-schema.test.ts packages/shared/src/summary-slot.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slot-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts server/src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.status.test.tsx ui/src/components/useSummaryDraftStream.test.tsx ui/src/lib/summary-draft-stream.test.ts ui/src/lib/run-log-chunks.test.ts ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.hook.test.tsx` — 113 tests passed - `pnpm test:run` — server and UI suites passed; one CLI AWS doctor test was affected by inherited `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID`/`AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`, and passed when those host credentials were removed - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` with inherited AWS credential variables removed — 8 tests passed - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` currently reports nine `#9627` comment references introduced by current `master`; none are in this PR diff ## Risks - Database risk is limited by incrementally ordered, idempotent migrations and migration safety checks. - Summary generation creates normal issues/runs, so misconfiguration can produce failed slots; the UI exposes retryable failure reasons and agent configuration entry points. - Streaming draft parsing depends on the documented `STATUS:` protocol; final persisted revisions remain the source of truth. - The feature is experimental, opt-in, and its built-in routine is paused with no background token spend by default. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.3 Codex with reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip control-plane integration. Earlier branch commits also record Claude model co-authorship where applicable. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-17 11:03:07 -05:00