When automatic retries for stranded todo/in_progress work are exhausted,
create an explicit `stranded_issue_recovery` child issue assigned to an
invokable manager (reportsTo chain, then CTO/CEO, then the original
assignee). Link it as a first-class blocker on the source, wake the
recovery owner, and surface the next action in a source-issue comment
instead of leaving the work silently blocked.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Adapter execution and retry classification decide whether agent work
pauses, retries, or recovers automatically
> - Transient provider failures need to be classified precisely so
Paperclip does not convert retryable upstream conditions into false hard
failures
> - At the same time, operators need an up-to-date model list for
Codex-backed agents and prompts should nudge agents toward targeted
verification instead of repo-wide sweeps
> - This pull request tightens transient recovery classification for
Claude and Codex, updates the agent prompt guidance, and adds Codex
model refresh support end-to-end
> - The benefit is better automatic retry behavior plus fresher
operator-facing model configuration
## What Changed
- added Codex usage-limit retry-window parsing and Claude extra-usage
transient classification
- normalized the heartbeat transient-recovery contract across adapter
executions and heartbeat scheduling
- documented that deferred comment wakes only reopen completed issues
for human/comment-reopen interactions, while system follow-ups leave
closed work closed
- updated adapter-utils prompt guidance to prefer targeted verification
- added Codex model refresh support in the server route, registry,
shared types, and agent config form
- added adapter/server tests covering the new parsing, retry scheduling,
and model-refresh behavior
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/parse.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local
packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/parse.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/adapter-model-refresh-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/adapter-models.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts`
## Risks
- Moderate behavior risk: retry classification affects whether runs
auto-recover or block, so mistakes here could either suppress needed
retries or over-retry real failures
- Low workflow risk: deferred comment wake reopening is intentionally
scoped to human/comment-reopen interactions so system follow-ups do not
revive completed issues unexpectedly
> 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 tool use and code execution
in the Codex CLI 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 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
