mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 22:56:58 +01:00
42bc238aa5a1208cabecba76773e0500fcd33959
356
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
d0d242e843 |
feat(server): reopen an archived isolated execution workspace in place (#11322)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Issue execution uses isolated workspaces that hold the issue
worktree
> - A terminal issue can leave its isolated workspace archived and
unable to resume
> - The existing closed-workspace guards returned a conflict and gave
the user no self-serve recovery
> - This pull request reopens the same isolated workspace row and
rebuilds its worktree
> - The benefit is that resume, checkout, and comment actions can
continue without a new workspace row
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
A terminal issue can point to an archived isolated execution workspace.
Resume, checkout, and comment actions then stop with a conflict.
**What happened?**
A terminal issue kept its issue-to-workspace link after the isolated
workspace reached a closed status. The guarded actions returned HTTP 409
instead of restoring access.
**Expected behavior**
The next authorized resume, checkout, or comment action reopens the same
isolated workspace row. The action rebuilds the worktree and then
continues.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create an issue that uses an isolated execution workspace.
2. Move the issue to a terminal state and let the workspace archive.
3. Try to resume the issue or add a comment.
4. Observe the closed-workspace conflict.
**Paperclip version or commit**
|
||
|
Eric BrookfieldandClaude Fable 5
|
c6727e7b20 |
fix(server): don't implicitly reopen a blocked issue when the same PATCH wires blockers (#10269)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Issues coordinate that work, and first-class blockers
(`blockedByIssueIds`) are how dependent work auto-resumes when its
prerequisites finish
> - A human commenting on a blocked issue implicitly reopens it to
`todo` — a deliberate heuristic so "please continue" comments revive
parked work
> - But that heuristic evaluates the issue's *pre-update* blocker set,
ignoring blockers being wired in by the very same PATCH
> - So the natural repair action for a bare-blocked issue — one PATCH
adding `blockedByIssueIds` plus an explanatory comment — silently flips
the issue to `todo`, contradicting the dependency edit it just made
> - This pull request suppresses the implicit reopen when the request
itself declares a non-empty blocker list
> - The benefit is that structured dependency edits always win over the
conversational-comment heuristic, so blocked issues keep their intended
waiting posture and auto-resume via `issue_blockers_resolved` as
designed
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue describes this exact behavior; per the bug-report
template:
- **What happened:** On a `blocked` issue with an empty blocker set, a
board user sent one `PATCH /api/issues/:id` containing
`blockedByIssueIds: ["<unresolved-issue-id>"]` and a `comment`. The
response showed `status: "todo"` — the implicit comment-reopen fired
even though the same request wired an unresolved blocker. A follow-up
`PATCH { status: "blocked" }` was then needed to restore the waiting
posture (and because the blocker array replaces on every update, the two
fields had to be re-sent together).
- **Expected behavior:** A request that explicitly declares dependencies
is stating that the issue is waiting on other work. The implicit reopen
exists for plain conversational comments; it should not override a
structured dependency edit made in the same request.
- **Steps to reproduce:** (1) Create issue A with `status: "blocked"`
and no blockers; (2) as a board user, `PATCH /api/issues/A` with `{
"blockedByIssueIds": ["<id of an open issue>"], "comment": "wiring the
dependency" }`; (3) observe the response/issue status is `todo` instead
of remaining `blocked`.
- **Version/commit:** reproduced on `master` @ `d1b9448b5`.
- **Deployment mode:** `authenticated`, single-host (macOS launchd),
embedded Postgres.
Related (not fixed here): the family of "blocked with empty
`blockedByIssueIds` zombie" reports — Refs #9201, Refs #6523 — this bug
is one way an issue's status and blocker list end up contradicting each
other; and Refs #8062, which proposes a different auto-transition at the
status/blocker boundary.
## What Changed
- `shouldImplicitlyMoveCommentedIssueToTodo`
(server/src/routes/issues.ts) accepts an optional
`requestAddsExplicitBlockers` input and returns `false` when set,
alongside the existing suppression guards, with a comment documenting
the rationale.
- The `PATCH /api/issues/:id` call site passes
`requestAddsExplicitBlockers: Array.isArray(req.body.blockedByIssueIds)
&& req.body.blockedByIssueIds.length > 0`.
- Two route tests in `issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts`: a regression
test (comment + non-empty blocker list on a blocked issue must not flip
status) and a boundary test (comment + `blockedByIssueIds: []` still
implicitly reopens, preserving the existing clear-blockers behavior).
Deliberately unchanged: explicit `reopen`/`resume` flags still behave as
before, and the `POST /comments` route is untouched (its body cannot
carry `blockedByIssueIds`).
## Verification
- `cd server && pnpm vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts` → 74/74 pass.
- Reverting the `issues.ts` change makes the new regression test fail
with `expected 'todo' to be undefined` — it bites.
- `cd server && pnpm tsc --noEmit` → clean.
## Risks
- Low. The change is a single additional suppression guard on the
*implicit* reopen path, scoped to requests that carry a non-empty
`blockedByIssueIds` array; all other reopen behavior is untouched.
- Edge case considered: a request wiring only already-resolved blockers
plus a comment now stays `blocked` instead of implicitly reopening. This
is the conservative reading of caller intent (an explicit dependency
edit), and an explicit `status`/`reopen` in the same request still wins.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude — Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking
enabled, agentic tool use via Claude Code (CLI). Production repro,
diagnosis, fix, and tests all model-authored under human direction.
## 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 (none
applicable — behavior comment added inline)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending first CI run on this PR)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending first review pass)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
dmndbrp-ossandCoder
|
0db8480b19 |
fix(SAG-2595): land updatedSince issues-list filter on master (#9050)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issues-list REST endpoint (`GET /api/companies/:companyId/issues`) backs the digester and other pollers that ask "what changed since last time". > - The service layer supports rich filters, but there was no `updatedSince` filter — so every routine fire re-read the full backlog instead of just the delta. > - A prior commit added this filter, but it was never merged to `master`; it only ran in production because a feature branch happened to be the live checkout, and the behavior vanished when that directory was repurposed. > - This pull request re-lands just the `updatedSince` filter (route param parse + validation, service `IssueFilters` field, and the `updatedAt` predicate) as a single-purpose change. > - The benefit is that pollers can request only issues updated after a timestamp, and the fix now lives durably on `master` instead of a transient checkout. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists; describing inline per the bug report template. **What happened** `GET /api/companies/:companyId/issues` ignores an `updatedSince` query parameter, so consumers (e.g. the digester and other pollers) cannot request only the delta since a prior poll and must re-read the whole backlog on every fire. **Expected behavior** Passing `updatedSince=<ISO 8601 timestamp>` returns only issues whose `updatedAt` is strictly after that timestamp; a malformed value returns `400`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Call `GET /api/companies/:companyId/issues?updatedSince=<a future ISO 8601 timestamp>`. 2. Observe the endpoint returns the full backlog instead of an empty list (the parameter is silently ignored). ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: parse the `updatedSince` query param, return `400` for a non-parseable timestamp, and pass it into `svc.list()`. - `server/src/services/issues.ts`: add `updatedSince?: string` to `IssueFilters` and, when present and valid, add a `gt(issues.updatedAt, since)` condition to the list query. - `server/src/__tests__/issue-list-updatedsince-filter-routes.test.ts`: new route+service coverage — future timestamp returns 0 issues, a past timestamp returns only the delta, and a malformed timestamp returns 400. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/issue-list-updatedsince-filter-routes.test.ts` — 3/3 pass. - `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts` — 5/5 pass (regression check on the sibling filter path). - `tsc --noEmit` on `server/` — no new errors introduced (pre-existing unrelated `plugin-sdk` build errors on `master` are untouched). ## Risks Low risk. Purely additive: the new filter only takes effect when `updatedSince` is supplied, so existing callers that omit it are unaffected. Invalid timestamps fail fast with `400` rather than silently returning all rows. ## Model Used Claude — `claude-sonnet-4-6` (implementation) with `claude-opus-4-8` review/merge-gate; tool use + code execution enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] 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 (N/A — no UI change) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (in progress) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (in progress) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Coder (Claude) <coder-claude@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
2494a2a0fe |
perf: add repeatable issue-detail baseline rig (#10409)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The issue detail page is a core operator surface where perceived latency directly affects task navigation > - Performance work needs repeatable evidence so later optimizations can be compared against the same scenarios > - The page did not expose stable user-timing marks for its header or first useful content > - There was also no isolated seeded browser rig that measured warm navigation, cold deep links, waterfalls, or server time > - This pull request adds the instrumentation and a one-command Playwright baseline harness > - The benefit is that issue-page performance changes can be validated with reproducible median measurements instead of anecdotes ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: `ui/`, `server/`, and browser performance tooling. **Problem or motivation** The issue detail page performs a large client bootstrap and request fan-out, but the repository lacks stable user-timing boundaries and a repeatable benchmark. That makes performance changes difficult to compare and allows regressions to be judged from anecdotes instead of consistent evidence. **Proposed solution** Add stable header/content paint measures, development/QA-only lifecycle vital reporting, aggregate server timing for the issue endpoint, and a seeded Playwright command that runs warm/cold scenarios under throttled and unthrottled profiles with N≥5 median reporting. **Alternatives considered** Ad hoc DevTools recordings were rejected because they are not repeatable or reviewable. Production telemetry was rejected because this baseline should not change production data collection. A unit-only harness was rejected because it cannot capture browser bootstrap, rendering, and network waterfall costs. **Roadmap alignment** The roadmap calls for agent performance to be measurable over time. This change applies that evidence-first principle to a core operator page and does not duplicate a listed roadmap deliverable. **Additional context** The generated report includes warm and cold medians, TTFB/FCP/LCP where applicable, request and byte totals before first useful content, JavaScript bytes, and issue endpoint server timing. ## What Changed - Added `issue-detail:navigate→header-paint` and `issue-detail:navigate→content-paint` user-timing measures to the issue detail page. - Added development/QA-only TTFB, LCP, and INP console reporting without production telemetry delivery. - Added `Server-Timing` for `GET /api/issues/:id`. - Added `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/perf/issue-detail/playwright.config.ts`, which seeds an isolated instance and runs N≥5 warm/cold samples under unthrottled and Fast 4G/4x CPU profiles. - Added Markdown, raw JSON, and Chrome-trace outputs with median baseline tables and waterfall data. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `npx playwright test --config tests/perf/issue-detail/playwright.config.ts --list` - `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/perf/issue-detail/playwright.config.ts` — passed 20 samples in 9.4 minutes (5 runs × 2 scenarios × 2 profiles) for the baseline; post-review integrity reruns also exercised the corrected paths, while this shared runner intermittently killed Chromium processes, so the rig now performs one bounded browser-crash retry per sample. - Baseline medians: warm unthrottled 278/447 ms header/content; cold unthrottled 646/646 ms; warm throttled 1240/2060 ms; cold throttled 3932/3933 ms. ## Risks - Low product risk: the new browser measurements are development/QA tooling and the UI timing work does not change visible layout. - `Server-Timing` exposes only aggregate handler duration, not query contents or private identifiers. - Native INP reporting uses supported browser event timing entries and silently no-ops where unsupported. > 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-5.4, tool-assisted coding and browser execution with reasoning enabled; context-window size is not exposed in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My 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: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
b847e8b6f6 |
perf(server): reduce issue detail request overhead (#10414)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent work > - Opening an issue fans out into several authenticated issue-detail reads, so repeated work on that path directly affects perceived latency > - Those reads repeated issue and authorization lookups, returned full private JSON even when unchanged, and performed non-critical bookkeeping writes on the request path > - Interaction reads also performed lifecycle writes even though `GET` must be read-only > - This pull request adds request-scoped reuse, private conditional responses, read-only interaction access, and bounded write debouncing without crossing actor, request, or company boundaries > - The result is less database, serialization, logging, and response-body work while preserving authorization and interaction lifecycle invariants ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This is the server-only latency phase. Related work is tracked separately in #10415 (aggregate view), #10416 (warm navigation, merged into the base), and #10463 (bundle split). This pull request intentionally excludes those scopes. **What happened?** Opening an issue detail view caused avoidable server costs: repeated issue and authorization reads within one request, full private JSON responses when a representation was unchanged, writes during interaction-list reads, production debug transport setup, and immediate bookkeeping writes for cloud tenant activity and board-key usage. **Expected behavior** All successful JSON `GET /api/issues/:id/*` responses should support strong private ETags and `304 Not Modified`. Repeated work may be reused only within the current request. `GET /interactions` must not modify stored interactions. Non-critical activity timestamps may be debounced without weakening authentication or stale instance-admin cleanup. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start Paperclip in local development or self-hosted server mode. 2. Open one issue and request its detail subresources with the same authenticated actor. 3. Repeat a successful JSON request with its `ETag` in `If-None-Match`. 4. Observe `304 Not Modified`, no interaction writes from `GET /interactions`, and unchanged authorization boundaries. **Deployment mode / installation** - Local development or self-hosted server - Built from source - Core server behavior; not adapter-specific ## What Changed - Added strong ETags and `Cache-Control: private, must-revalidate` to successful JSON reads under `/api/issues/:id/*`, including standards-compliant `If-None-Match` handling. - Added request-scoped promise memoization for issue and authorization lookups; no authorization result survives the request. - Made `GET /interactions` read-only, moved supersession and terminal-state handling to mutation paths, and prevented plugin callers from accepting or rejecting interactions after an issue closes. - Removed the production debug-file logger transport while preserving development formatting. - Debounced cloud-tenant activity and board-key `lastUsedAt` persistence, while keeping stale instance-admin deletion unconditional and authentication checks per request. - Added focused tests for ETags, request isolation, authorization lifecycle behavior, interaction invariants, logger configuration, and retry-safe debounce behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/private-json-etag.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts` — 2 files, 23 tests passed. - Focused Vitest run covering request memoization, authorization, interactions, plugin orchestration, logger, cloud tenant, board auth, and issue services — 9 files, 264 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. - Scope guardrails: 21 changed files under `server/src`; no lockfile, workflow, migration, UI, aggregate-view, or bundle-split changes. ## Risks - Strong ETags hash each successful serialized JSON response. This adds a small CPU cost but avoids transferring unchanged bodies. - Debounced bookkeeping timestamps can lag by the bounded debounce interval. They are non-critical usage metadata; authentication still runs per request, and stale instance-admin deletion remains unconditional. - Legacy pending interactions on terminal issues are projected as expired by reads and are finalized only by mutation paths. The stored record remains unchanged on `GET` by design. - No database schema or migration changes are included. > This is a focused performance correction and does not duplicate a planned core feature in `ROADMAP.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.3-codex` for the initial implementation and `gpt-5.6-sol` for isolation, verification, and PR preparation, with reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, and GitHub CLI access. The runtimes did not expose authoritative context-window sizes. ## 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: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
scotttong
|
815e49bb7c | feat: make chat-style tasks the default experience (#11101) | ||
|
LeonSGPandAndrew Aymeloglu
|
6a4e2e1b8c |
fix(routes): return 409 for routine checkout conflicts (#3790)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents and relies on issue checkout as the core task-claiming primitive > - The issue checkout route is the HTTP boundary that translates service and database outcomes into agent-usable API responses > - Routine-linked issues are protected by the partial unique index `issues_open_routine_execution_uq`, which covers only rows whose `execution_run_id` is set > - `svc.checkout` sets `execution_run_id`, so a concurrent claim moves the row into that index and can raise a 23505 mid-request > - Unhandled, that surfaces as a 500 and crashes the agent run instead of being a recoverable conflict > - Drizzle wraps driver failures in its own `Failed query: ...` error, so the Postgres error carrying `code` and the constraint name is reachable only through `cause` > - This pull request translates that violation into a 409 at the checkout route, detecting it through the cause chain the way `isReviewPathRecoveryIdempotencyConflict` already does > - The benefit is that agents handle routine execution contention through the normal heartbeat conflict path instead of failing on an internal server error ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #3660 Related pull requests found while searching for duplicates: - #3699 — an earlier attempt at this same route-level fix, closed unmerged. Same shape, and its check has the flat-error bug described under Verification. - #3633 — related work on postgres.js `constraint_name` handling in conflict detection. - #5662 — covers the adoption path (`assertCheckoutOwner`) that this pull request does not. ## What Changed - Added `server/src/db-errors.ts` with `isUniqueViolation(error, constraintName?)`, which walks the `cause` chain (depth-capped) and accepts the postgres.js `constraint_name`, the node-postgres `constraint`, or the driver message as evidence of SQLSTATE 23505. - Wrapped `svc.checkout()` in `POST /issues/:id/checkout` with a narrow try/catch that uses that helper to return **409 Conflict** for `issues_open_routine_execution_uq`, and rethrows every other error unchanged. - Added `server/src/__tests__/db-errors.test.ts` covering the wrapped and bare error shapes, both constraint field names, the message fallback, non-matching constraints, non-unique-violation codes, and a self-referential cause chain. ## Verification - The new unit test includes the wrapped case `{ cause: { code: "23505", constraint_name: ... } }` that a flat `error.code` check fails, so it is a real regression guard rather than a restatement of the implementation. - The wrapped shape is what this codebase observes in practice: `server/src/__tests__/plugin-tenant-isolation.test.ts` asserts `cause?.code === "23505"` against embedded Postgres, `packages/db/src/pipelines-schema.test.ts` asserts that constraint failures throw `Failed query`, and `server/src/services/recovery/review-path-recovery.ts` walks the same chain. - CI (verify, e2e, policy) exercises this change against current master through the pull request merge ref. - Not verified locally: no monorepo install or typecheck was run in this environment. ## Risks - Low. One route gains a catch that matches a single constraint and rethrows all other errors, so no unrelated failure can be swallowed. - The 409 body `{ error: ... }` matches the other 409 responses this route already returns. - Scope limit: this covers the checkout route only. The adoption path reached through `assertCheckoutOwner` (heartbeat, plugins, and pipelines routes) can still surface the same violation as a 500; #5662 targets that path. - `isUniqueViolation` is new and intentionally generic. Existing flat 23505 checks elsewhere in the server are left untouched by this pull request. ## Model Used - Original change: OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class tool-using coding agent in the Codex CLI environment; exact backend model revision is not exposed in that runtime. - Follow-up revision (cause-chain detection plus tests): Anthropic Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), tool-using coding agent with extended thinking and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [ ] 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 - [ ] 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: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
814cb33676 |
feat(server): allow agents to resolve review confirmations (#10939)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue reviews use thread confirmations to record explicit verdicts > - The server allowed users to resolve review confirmations but rejected all agent actors > - This one-way rule prevented an eligible agent reviewer from completing a review > - The existing review policy already defines which actor can submit a verdict > - This pull request applies that policy to agent confirmation verdicts on writable issues > - The benefit is a consistent review gate for users and agents with preserved audit attribution ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Builds on: #10931 (merged into master before this PR) - Refs #8617 ## What Changed - Allow eligible agents to accept or reject pending review confirmations on issues they can write. - Allow a creator agent to withdraw its own pending review confirmation when the review policy permits it. - Reuse the review verdict policy check for users and agents. - Require an explicit, same-run review-confirmation binding so unrelated board-only confirmations stay protected. - Preserve board-only tool action confirmations and existing user attribution. - Add route and service tests for agent accept, reject, withdrawal, human-only denial, and user attribution. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts` (256 passed after rebasing onto master and the atomic binding fix) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - The change expands who can resolve pending review confirmations. The existing issue write checks and review policy limit this access. - Tool action confirmations remain board-only. - The pull request depends on the review policy helper from #10931, which is now merged into master. > 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`. The roadmap marks Agent Reviews and Approvals as shipped. This pull request fixes a narrow server behavior gap in that shipped capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-5.6-sol`, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose the 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f554d67377 |
fix(server): add explicit review verdict policies (#10931)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issues use `in_review` to request a final decision from an authorized writer > - The server rejected an assignee agent that tried to close its own review, even when the issue had no independent-review rule > - This rejection stopped the default agent workflow and did not represent the configured execution-stage rules > - Paperclip needs an open default and explicit issue-level constraints for teams that require an independent or human verdict > - This pull request removes the unconditional rejection and adds `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only` review policies > - The benefit is a working default path with opt-in, authenticated verdict controls ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10635, #4429, and #10671. The related public work covers execution-stage independence, self-approval fallback behavior, and durable review paths. This change is distinct. It controls who can resolve an issue review verdict. It keeps configured execution stages active. ## What Changed - Added a nullable `review_policy` issue column. Null has the same meaning as `anyone`. The migration does not backfill existing issues. - Added shared create, update, response, and compact issue contracts for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Removed the unconditional agent self-approval rejection for `in_review` issues. - Added one reusable verdict-actor check for terminal status changes and pending interaction accept or reject actions. - Used the authenticated principal type for `human_only`. Agent keys and run tokens remain agent principals. - Used the latest transition into `in_review` to identify the requester for `not_creator`. - Added actionable 403 responses that name the policy, the allowed actor, and the next step. - Kept the configured execution-stage transition and signoff behavior. - Added focused contract, helper, status-route, interaction-route, and execution-stage regression tests. - Updated the implementation specification for the new issue field. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 42 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed across server, CLI, plugin SDK/examples, plugin wiki, and UI. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - SecurityEngineer review approved the authenticated-principal checks and accepted policy-relaxation tradeoff with no required changes. - Greptile reviewed the latest head at 5/5 with zero inline comments or follow-ups. - The latest-head GitHub rollup passed build, typecheck, server/workspace tests, serialized suites, canary, e2e, and external security checks. ## Risks - The migration adds one nullable text column. It has no default and no backfill. - `not_creator` reads the latest recorded transition into `in_review`. It denies the verdict when it cannot identify the requester. - Agents can change or relax `reviewPolicy` when they have issue write access. This is intentional for this issue-level control. - Null and `anyone` do not add a database query to the verdict path. - Configured execution-stage checks still run after the issue-level policy check. > This work aligns with the completed "Agent Reviews and Approvals" and "Enforced Outcomes" roadmap items. It does not add a new roadmap capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed to the agent. The run used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub CLI access. ## 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> |
||
|
|
e43f187cad |
feat(secrets): add human-approved secret proposals (#9934)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Agents can encounter credentials during work. > - Directly creating live secrets or bindings would bypass human governance. > - Proposal records must remain inert and separate from live secret resolution until an authorized human approves them. > - Approval must reuse the existing secret-create and protected agent-config write paths. > - This pull request adds the propose, review, approve, and reject lifecycle. > - The benefit is that agents can safely hand credentials into Paperclip without exposing plaintext or gaining authority to activate them. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Follow-on to #9921, which established run-bound agent secret access. **Problem / motivation:** Agents can receive credentials during work. There is no governed way for them to propose a credential or binding without exposing plaintext in work artifacts or immediately creating live access. **Proposed solution:** Store agent-authored proposals outside live secret tables. Encrypt each proposed value and register exact-value redaction when Paperclip receives it. Require an authorized human to approve or reject each proposal. Approval executes through the normal write paths as the human approver. Binding proposals can target only the proposer or its downward reporting chain under the restrictive V1 policy. **Alternatives considered:** We rejected live secrets with a `proposed` status. That design would put untrusted rows in resolver, list, and sync paths. It would also allow uniqueness squatting. We rejected direct agent binding writes because a binding is an agent-config write and must keep the existing human permission gate. **Roadmap alignment:** This change extends the run-bound agent secret-access foundation in #9921 with a governed proposal workflow. ## Security Verdict Q0 SecEng verdict: **PASS-with-required-changes**. The review accepted the separate proposal-table design and required the implementation to: - fail closed unless both encryption and exact-value run redaction registration succeed; - scrub ciphertext idempotently on reject, withdraw, and expiry, with audit-visible state; - treat agent justification as hostile input and foreground action, target, provenance, and approver permissions; - snapshot and re-check the target agent plus reports-to chain at approval to prevent org-chart laundering; - make cascade approval atomic and fail closed if either secret creation or binding authorization fails; - deny low-trust, `skill_test`, `task_bridge`, and non-run-bound sources consistently; and - execute approval through the normal human secret/config write paths, including protected-change gates. Those requirements are implemented and covered by focused service, route, and UI tests. Residual V1 risk remains the accepted 14-day encrypted retention window. Proposal-time redaction also cannot clean a value that leaked before the propose call. ## What Changed - Added `company_secret_proposals`, migration `0207`, shared proposal contracts, and a state-machine service for create, approve, reject, withdraw, cascade, expiry, and ciphertext scrubbing. - Added run-bound agent proposal routes and board review routes. The routes derive provenance from authentication and enforce source restrictions, company isolation, chain-of-command checks, approval-as-approver, wake-on-resolution, and dual audit trails. - Added durable per-run exact-value redaction registration so proposal values remain redacted on later read surfaces. - Added the Secrets **Proposals** tab and agent configuration **Proposed access** rows. The UI shows fingerprint and length only. It also frames agent justification as untrusted input, runs permission preflight, supports approve and reject actions, and confirms cascades. - Updated OpenAPI, agent skill guidance, API reference documentation, and focused server and UI regression coverage. - Rebased the branch onto current `master` and renumbered the proposal migration after `0206`. ## QA Acceptance Results Q5 QA verdict: **PASS — 9/9 acceptance criteria met**, with one Minor non-blocking follow-up. - **AC1:** proposed values never echo, never appear in live lists/resolvers, and expose only fingerprint + length to board reviewers. - **AC2:** restrictive `self_and_reports` matrix passes: self/downward allowed; upward/lateral denied. - **AC3:** secret approval uses the normal create path, honors rename overrides, records proposer/approver provenance, and scrubs ciphertext. - **AC4:** approved bindings materialize and resolve through the target agent's runtime list/fetch routes. - **AC5:** pending-secret bindings require cascade; cascade succeeds atomically and permission failures leave nothing applied. - **AC6:** reject, withdraw, dependent rejection, and expiry paths scrub ciphertext and preserve reasons/audit state. - **AC7:** token/source and approver denial matrix passes through live checks plus focused route tests. - **AC8:** proposal lifecycle events and reused `secret.created`/config-write events form the required dual audit trail; origin-issue notification and wake are queued. - **AC9:** both review surfaces render and execute correctly; UI approval materializes the binding. QA also confirmed zero plaintext occurrences for all exercised proposal values in server logs. The single finding is that the company-level `bindingTargetPolicy` toggle is not wired yet. V1 is hardcoded to the restrictive `self_and_reports` policy. The matrix is correct and the follow-up is tracked separately, so QA classified it as non-blocking. ## Verification - Focused server proposal and redaction suite: 83 tests pass. - Focused proposal review UI suite: 54 tests pass. - Embedded-Postgres migration reapply test: 1 test passes with the documented 30-second timeout. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passes, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes with all gates clean. - Q5 exercised the complete propose, review, approve, bind, and runtime-resolve flow over real HTTP, JWT, and database paths. It verified 9/9 acceptance criteria. ## Risks - Proposal ciphertext is retained encrypted for up to 14 days while pending. Terminal-state and expiry scrub paths reduce but do not remove server-compromise risk during that window. - The V1 target policy is restrictive but not yet company-configurable. A separate follow-up owns that change. - A new migration can require another renumber if another migration lands before maintainers merge this pull request. > 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. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed. The agent used reasoning, repository editing, terminal execution, Paperclip API, and GitHub CLI capabilities. Q3 UI work also records Claude Opus 4.8 assistance in its commit trailers. ## 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 or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Opus 4.8
|
f950952de7 |
fix: reliably show plans in the Plan pane and restore sticky plan confirmation CTAs (#10930)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Chat-style tasks show an agent's plan in a dedicated "Plan" pane, and a plan confirmation lets the user accept or request changes to that plan > - When an agent asked for confirmation but never actually published the plan document (it only wrote the plan in a comment or a question), the Plan pane rendered empty, and the confirmation call-to-action that used to sit pinned at the bottom of the pane had disappeared > - A user asked to confirm a plan they cannot see, with no visible CTA, is stuck — the feature silently fails > - This pull request closes the gap on both sides: it prevents plan confirmations that don't point at a real, latest plan revision, it teaches agents to publish the plan document before confirming, and it restores the sticky confirmation action bar and an explanatory empty state so the pane never goes silently blank > - The benefit is that when a plan is expected, it reliably shows up in the right pane with reachable accept/revise actions ## Linked Issues or Issue Description <!-- No public GitHub issue exists; describing in-PR per the bug template. --> **Bug report** - **What happened:** A task in planning mode could present a plan confirmation while the Plan pane stayed empty (no plan document rendered), and the plan-card confirmation CTAs that were previously pinned to the bottom of the Plan pane no longer appeared. - **Expected behavior:** When a plan is expected, the plan document appears in the Plan pane; when a plan is genuinely missing, the pane explains why rather than showing nothing; and the accept/request-changes CTAs stay visible and reachable while the plan scrolls. - **Steps to reproduce:** Put a task in planning mode with the chat-style task view enabled, have an agent create a plan confirmation without first publishing the `plan` document, and open the Plan tab — the pane is blank and the confirmation actions are missing. - **Deployment mode:** Local dev and self-hosted; UI + server. Related PR (not a duplicate): #9609 "Pin pending confirmations by composer" pins confirmations in a different surface (the composer); this PR restores the Plans-pane action bar and the server/agent guarantees behind it. ## What Changed - **Server:** Reject a `request_confirmation` whose target is a plan document unless a plan document exists and the target points at its *latest* revision, so a confirmation can never reference a plan the pane cannot render (`readPlanTarget` is now exported for reuse). - **Agent instructions:** The CEO and default agent instruction bundles now spell out a plan-publish contract — publish the `plan` document, re-`GET` it and capture `latestRevisionId`, then create the confirmation targeting that revision; never present a plan only in a thread comment or via `ask_user_questions`. - **UI — sticky CTAs:** Restore the plan confirmation action bar pinned to the bottom of the Plans tab so accept/revise stay reachable while the plan scrolls. - **UI — diagnostics:** Keep the Plan tab visible whenever an issue is in planning mode (even before a plan document exists) and show an empty state explaining why the pane is empty instead of rendering nothing. - **UI — annotations:** Add a `panelPlacement="inline"` mode so the plan-document annotation panel renders in document flow instead of as a floating side panel when hosted in the narrow task properties pane. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 CLEAN - `pnpm typecheck` → clean (all packages) - UI: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/issue-properties/IssuePlanConfirmationActionBar.test.tsx src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx` → 69 passed - Server: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts` → 60 passed - Manual: with a planning-mode task, the Plan tab stays visible, shows the plan document (or a diagnostic empty state), and the confirmation CTAs stay pinned at the bottom. Visual note: snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated — per `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". The `storybook-visual` label is intentionally not added. ## Risks Low-to-moderate. The server change adds a validation gate on plan-document confirmations: an interaction that targets a stale or nonexistent plan revision is now rejected with a 422 instead of being created. This is the intended guarantee, but any caller that relied on creating such confirmations will now need to publish the plan document first (which the updated agent instructions cover). UI changes are additive to the Plans tab and gated by the existing chat-style-task experimental flag. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, with tool use (file editing, shell, test execution). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
72b509c895 |
Recognize delivered workspaces and reap terminal worktrees (#10908)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip separates workspace provisioning lifecycle from whether the work was actually delivered. > - Git ancestry alone cannot recognize squash merges or deliveries into a branch other than the workspace base. > - A merged pull request linked from a terminal issue is stronger delivery evidence for those cases. > - The read contract should expose that evidence without changing persisted workspace schema. > - Cleanup must remain conservative: terminal descendants, delivered work, and no active run checkout are all required. > - Reusing the existing cleanup primitives keeps service shutdown, lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival behavior consistent. > - Focused regression coverage locks in both the honest read signal and the fail-closed reaper guards. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Execution workspace close-readiness payloads and terminal workspace cleanup. **Current behavior** Delivered squash-merged or cross-branch workspaces can remain `active` and report a permanent “not merged” warning because git ancestry does not contain their original commits. **Proposed behavior** Read payloads distinguish PR-confirmed delivery, ancestry delivery, unmerged work, and unknown state. Fully terminal delivered workspace trees are archived only when no active run holds the checkout. **Reason and benefit** Operators and automation receive an honest delivery signal, while shipped worktrees stop looking active forever and genuinely unmerged work retains its warning. **Breaking changes** The workspace payload gains a derived field. Existing fields and persistence remain unchanged; no database migration is required. **What happened?** A delivered workspace can remain `active` and warn that it is not merged forever after its issue ships through a squash or cross-branch pull request. **Expected behavior** Pull-request delivery should be represented honestly, and a fully terminal delivered workspace should become cleanup-eligible when no run holds its checkout. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an issue workspace with commits ahead of its configured base. 2. Deliver those commits with a squash merge or into a different target branch. 3. Mark the source issue and descendants done, then read workspace close readiness. Before this change, the workspace remains active with a “not merged” warning indefinitely. ## What Changed - Added the derived `deliveryState` workspace contract: `merged_via_pr`, `merged_by_ancestry`, `unmerged`, or `unknown`. - Extracted a shared GitHub pull-request merge classifier and reused it for merge confirmations and workspace delivery checks. - Suppressed false ancestry warnings when a terminal issue has ground-truth merged-PR evidence. - Added an idempotent terminality reaper with descendant-terminal, active-run, and delivered-work guards. - Restricted PR delivery evidence to the source issue, then required live merged state plus matching GitHub repository, head branch, and current workspace HEAD; persisted status, stale PRs, lexical mentions, inbound references, and descendant PRs cannot authorize cleanup. - Preserved workspaces with modified or untracked files even when their committed HEAD was delivered. - Bounded both long-lived pull-request state caches to 1,000 entries with oldest-entry eviction. - Routed eligible workspaces through existing runtime shutdown, lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival machinery with exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks plus non-forced removal. - Added regression coverage for delivery derivation, warning behavior, reaper guards, scheduler wiring, and squash/cross-branch delivery. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 63 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts --reporter=verbose` after review hardening — 43 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts --reporter=dot` on the final local head — 73 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 15 passed - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` — server 3,662 passed (4 skipped), UI 3,599 passed, CLI 327 passed, shared 415 passed, and skills catalog 20 passed; the aggregate DB stage ran both source and built copies of one unrelated embedded-Postgres migration test and both reached its 5-second timeout - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/status-card-migrations.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — isolated aggregate-timeout verification passed in 3.99 seconds - `NODE_ENV=production pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks The reaper intentionally fails closed when issue terminality, pull-request state, git ancestry, or checkout ownership cannot be proven. GitHub lookups can delay classification and cleanup but cannot cause an unproven workspace to be archived. Automated terminal archival holds exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks across validation and removal, skips configured destructive hooks, and uses non-forced removal so dirty writes fail closed. Reopening a source issue does not restore an archived workspace; it emits an audit event so a human or agent can re-provision explicitly. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. Reasoning, tool use, repository editing, test execution, and GitHub CLI access were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5
|
e8ae5286eb |
feat(issues): explain cross-task agent writes with attribution, audit receipts, and actionable denials (#10843)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents write to tasks they do not own. They comment, they change
fields, and the control plane now permits this by default for
standard-trust agents on any task they can read
> - This makes a task thread ambiguous. A reader sees a comment from an
agent that is not the assignee, but no surface says whose authority that
write rode
> - The same gap applies to field edits. The activity stream named the
verb, but it did not show the before value, the after value, or the
reason the write was permitted
> - The remaining refusals are also opaque. An agent that hits a wall
receives a 403 with no boundary name, no actor who can act, and no
sanctioned path. One real incident spent a full detour to find the
workaround
> - This pull request adds the three surfaces that make open cross-task
writes legible: an attribution chip, a field-level audit receipt, and an
actionable denial contract shared by the API and the UI
> - The benefit is that a reader can answer "who did this, on whose
authority, and was it allowed?" on the task itself, and a blocked writer
is told what to do next
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists for this work, so the enhancement is described
here.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Cross-task agent writes are permitted, but they are not explained. A
task thread can hold comments from agents that are not the assignee, and
the activity stream can hold field changes made by those agents. Neither
surface names the responsible user behind the write. When a write is
refused, the error text does not name the boundary or the way forward.
**Subsystem affected**
Issue detail UI (comment thread and activity stream), the issue write
authorization responses in the server, and the shared copy contract that
both consume.
**Current behavior**
- An agent comment on a task the agent does not own looks the same as an
assignee comment.
- An `issue.updated` activity row states the verb only. It does not show
the field-level before and after values, the responsible user, or the
authorization reason.
- A refused write returns a short message such as an ownership error.
The message does not state which rule fired, who is able to perform the
action, or which alternative path is sanctioned.
**Proposed behavior**
- An agent comment on a task the agent does not own carries a chip that
reads "for {user}". The chip names the responsible user. Its tooltip
states that the author is not the assignee and cannot exceed that user's
permissions.
- Each `issue.updated` row shows a receipt: the changed fields with
before and after values, the responsible user, and the authorization
reason. This applies to board edits as well as agent edits.
- Each refusal states three things: the boundary that fired, who is able
to act, and the sanctioned path. The API error body and the in-app
notice use the same words, because both read one shared contract.
Related pull requests, found by searching this repository:
- Refs #10837 — merged. It added the default-open cross-task write rule,
the comment attribution data, and the per-run containment cap that this
pull request makes visible.
- Refs #10114 — open. It proposes a narrower authorization change in the
same area.
- Refs #7998 — open. It proposes append-only cross-assignee comments as
an alternative to opening writes.
## What Changed
- Adds `packages/shared/src/issue-write-denial.ts`. This is one copy
contract for eight ways an issue write can be refused: not visible,
responsible-user ceiling, responsible user unavailable, excluded actor
class, assignee run lock, per-run cross-task cap, missing run context,
and rejected attribution. Each entry names the boundary, who can act,
and the sanctioned path.
- Maps server authorization decisions onto that contract in
`server/src/routes/issues.ts` and
`server/src/services/cross-issue-influence-limit.ts`. The flattened
`error` string carries all three obligations, and `details.code` lets
the UI render the same words. The two cap codes keep the names they
already ship under.
- Adds `CommentAttributionChip`. It renders "for {user}" beside the
author name on agent comments where the author is not the assignee. It
renders nothing when no responsible user is recorded, so older rows stay
clean. It is wired into both `IssueChatThread` and the flagged
`TaskChatThread` redesign.
- Adds `IssueFieldChangeReceipt`. It renders the change receipt under
`issue.updated` rows in the activity stream. Ids resolve to agent and
user names where the directory is loaded. Server-truncated text is
labelled as a preview, so the receipt never implies that it shows a
whole value.
- Adds `IssueWriteDenialNotice`. It renders the shared copy in the app,
keyed off the denial events the server logs on a task.
- Adds a public `/ux-lab/cross-issue-collaboration` page. It renders all
three surfaces and their edge cases for review without a seeded thread.
This follows the existing `ux-lab` pages.
## Verification
Automated, all green:
```
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run src/issue-write-denial.test.ts # 17 tests
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueWriteDenialNotice.test.tsx \
src/components/IssueFieldChangeReceipt.test.tsx src/components/CommentAttributionChip.test.tsx \
src/lib/issue-change-receipt.test.ts src/lib/comment-attribution.test.ts # 46 tests
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cross-issue-influence-limit.test.ts \
src/__tests__/issue-comment-attribution-audit-routes.test.ts \
src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts \
src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts # 98 tests
```
`tsc --noEmit` passes for the shared, ui, and server packages.
Manual, in a browser:
1. Start the UI only: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vite`.
2. Open `/ux-lab/cross-issue-collaboration`. No session is needed,
because `ux-lab` routes are public.
3. All three surfaces were captured at 1440x900 in light mode and dark
mode, and at 390x844. The page reported no errors.
4. The chip tooltip was opened by a hover and by a keyboard focus.
Rendering the page found defects that the tests had missed. Three copy
and contrast defects were fixed, and two of them are now pinned by a
test. A design review then found three layout defects, which are also
fixed: the denial notice orphaned its label when a value wrapped, the
receipt icon wrapped onto its own line at narrow widths, and the chip
tooltip was reachable by hover only.
## Risks
Low risk, and additive.
- Every new surface renders nothing when its data is absent. Comments
without a recorded responsible user show no chip, and activity events
without a receipt show no receipt, so existing rows do not change.
- No migration is included. The data these surfaces read already ships.
- The wire values of the two per-run cap denial codes are unchanged.
Only the human-readable text changes, plus six codes that had no
`details.code` before.
- The denial copy is read by agents as well as people. If wording must
change later, one shared module is the only place to change it.
- Roadmap check: this extends the completed "Activity log & action
attribution" area rather than duplicating planned core work.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-5[1m]`, 1M context
window, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. It ran as
an agent in Claude Code and drove a real browser to capture the review
screenshots.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
|
2ebc236b08 |
fix(server): accept parentIssueId alias in GET /issues (#4032)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents coordinate through the server API. They find sub-tasks by filtering the company issues list by parent. > - `GET /api/companies/:companyId/issues` accepts `?parentId=`. Many callers send `?parentIssueId=` instead, which the handler never read. > - The mismatch is silent. The filter is dropped and the full company list comes back, so agents fetch everything and filter client-side. Issue #3846 reports this. > - `parentIssueId` is not an arbitrary spelling. It is the field name the wakeup payloads in this same route file already use, so callers expect it. > - This pull request accepts `parentIssueId` as an alias for `parentId` at the route boundary, on both the issues list and `issues/count`. > - The benefit is that parent filtering works for both spellings, and the list and its count cannot disagree. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #3846 Related: #3870 proposes the same alias for the list route. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: `listFilters.parentId` in `GET /companies/:companyId/issues` now reads `req.query.parentId ?? req.query.parentIssueId`. - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: `blockedCountFilters.parentId` in `GET /companies/:companyId/issues/count` reads the same alias, so the list and its count agree. - `server/src/__tests__/issues-parent-id-alias.test.ts`: new regression test for alias resolution, precedence, and absence. ## Verification - Run `pnpm run test:run -- server/src/__tests__/issues-parent-id-alias.test.ts`. - The test covers four query shapes: `?parentId=`, `?parentIssueId=`, both present (short form wins), and neither present (filter unset). - Existing callers are unaffected. The UI client `ui/src/api/issues.ts` only sets `parentId`. Nullish coalescing falls back only when the primary key is absent. - The service layer applies the filter with `if (filters?.parentId)` in `server/src/services/issues.ts`. This pull request does not change it. ## Risks - Low risk. The change only widens accepted query input. Both spellings resolve, and the short form still wins. - `?parentId=` with an empty value stays falsy and unfiltered, exactly as before. - This route has no validation middleware, and these list filters are not in the published OpenAPI surface. No contract needs an update. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), extended thinking with tool use, run by the maintainer's triage agent. It rebased the original commit onto current `master`, extended the alias to `issues/count`, and wrote the regression test. @scokeepa authored the original one-line route change. ## 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 and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [ ] 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: josangmun <cmeia.ai02@cmeia.co.kr> Co-authored-by: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com> |
||
|
|
678728f650 |
feat: maintained in_review review-path contract + stalled-review actions (#10675)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents move issues to `in_review` and rely on a "review path" (an interaction, an approval, a monitor, or a named reviewer) to tell them who decides next. > - That review path can silently disappear. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction, a monitor is exhausted, or a run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with nobody reviewing it and no visible action. > - Such issues become invisible zombies. Nobody knows a decision is owed, so the work stalls forever. > - This pull request makes the review path a maintained invariant, exposes a `reviewAttention` surface, and gives every stalled review three inline actions in the UI. > - The benefit is that an `in_review` issue always shows who reviews it, or shows an amber "nobody is reviewing this" notice with one-click Approve, Request changes, and Send back to work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request describes the problem inline. The tracking issue is internal. **Subsystem affected** The review and attention loop that agents and humans share: the `in_review` status, the `reviewAttention` surface, the /decisions attention feed, and the issue-page review panel. **Problem or motivation** Agent-owned issues in `in_review` can lose their last review path. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction. A monitor is exhausted. A run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with no reviewer and no visible action. It becomes an invisible zombie and the work never progresses. **Proposed solution** Maintain the review path as a server invariant. Expose a `reviewAttention` field that says what is under review, who decides, and since when. Render a persistent review panel on the issue page and inline actions on the /decisions feed. Keep human PATCHes into `in_review` ungated, but record the requesting user so the panel never renders empty. **Alternatives considered** A pure background auto-recovery sweep. This stays opt-in and is not enough on its own, because it is invisible to the human. A bare status banner. This is rejected, because it gives no action to resolve the stall. **Roadmap alignment** This improves the core review and attention loop that both agents and humans use every day. ## What Changed - **Server — maintained review-path invariant:** when an issue enters or sits in `in_review`, the server derives and persists a review path (interaction, approval, monitor, or the requesting user) and recovers a stale path with one bounded wake instead of leaving the issue pathless. - **Server — `reviewAttention` surface:** a new field describes what is under review (bound target with links), who decides, since when, and whether the review is stalled. Stalled agent-assigned reviews are now included in the attention feed. - **Server — inline stalled-review decisions:** secured routes let a permitted responder Approve (→ `done`), Request changes (→ `todo` + wake carrying the note), or Send back to work (→ `todo` + wake) directly from the attention feed. - **Server — resume-intent wake:** an `in_review -> todo` transition now wakes the assigned agent so a resumed review is not dropped. - **Server — user-entry symmetry:** user PATCHes into `in_review` stay ungated (no 422 for humans) and record the requesting user, who becomes the named responder when no other path exists. - **UI — review panel:** a persistent `IssueReviewPanel` renders above the thread whenever status is `in_review`. The covered state shows the bound target, responder, and outcomes and hoists the pending interaction/approval card. The stalled state shows the amber notice plus the three actions. - **UI — decisions card actions:** the same three actions render inline on the /decisions `AttentionQueueRow`. - **UI — responsive fix:** the stalled action row stacks to full-width buttons at phone width and returns to a horizontal row at `sm` and up. New 390px stories capture the phone layout. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueReviewPanel.test.tsx src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx src/lib/attention.test.ts src/api/issues.test.ts` — 91 tests pass. - Server suites added and updated: `issue-review-attention`, `issue-stalled-review-decision-routes`, `review-path-recovery`, `recovery-observability`, and related route/liveness tests (run by CI). - A designer reviewed the UI at 390px and desktop in light and dark themes on both the issue-page panel and the /decisions card. The stalled action row stacks cleanly at phone width with no overlap and keeps the horizontal row on desktop. ## Risks - **Migration:** adds migration `0200` (next after master `0199`, no renumber). It extends the agent-wakeup-requests schema and is additive. - **Behavioral shift:** `in_review -> todo` now dispatches a wake. This is intended (resume intent) and covered by tests. - **Authz:** the inline decision routes are permission-gated. Only a permitted responder sees and can trigger the actions. - Overall risk is moderate and contained to the review and attention loop. ## Model Used - Claude, Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f91a6e27c0 |
feat(issues): contain cross-issue agent side effects (#10837)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane that coordinates autonomous agent work. > - Agents need to collaborate on issues beyond their current assignment. > - Cross-issue comments and updates are useful, but an unbounded run can create cascading side effects. > - The control plane must preserve company-wide collaboration while containing each run's influence. > - Comment attribution must also show the responsible user and the acting agent in audits. > - This pull request adds run-bound cross-issue containment, attribution, and agent-class wake rules. > - The benefit is safer collaboration without restoring issue-assignee ownership restrictions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Agent-authenticated issue comments, updates, reopen behavior, and assignee wake routing. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server routes and services, shared contracts, database schema and migration, and implementation documentation. **Current behavior** An authenticated agent can collaborate across company issues, but one heartbeat run has no per-run side-effect boundary. Comment records also do not persist the responsible user separately from the acting agent. **Proposed behavior** Require a valid heartbeat run for agent cross-issue comments and updates. Audit each attempt and cap a run at 20 cross-issue effects. Keep the cap in log-only mode until it automatically changes to enforcement at 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. Preserve same-issue writes. Use agent-class wakes for agent comments. Keep same-run completion comments from reopening completed work. Record the responsible user on agent-authored comments and activity. **Reason and benefit** Agents can collaborate on other issues without an assignment gate, while each run has an atomic and inspectable side-effect limit. Operators can identify both the acting agent and the responsible user. **Breaking changes** After 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC, the twenty-first cross-issue comment or update from one heartbeat run returns a containment error. Agent cross-issue writes without valid run context are rejected. The migration is additive and backfills existing agent-authored comment attribution where the source data is available. ## What Changed - Added an atomic per-run counter for cross-issue agent comments and updates. - Added audit events for allowed and rejected cross-issue effects. - Added the automatic log-only to enforcement flip at 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. - Added responsible-user attribution to agent-authored comments, activity records, shared types, and validators. - Added an additive migration and migration coverage for existing comments. - Updated reopen, resume, and wake behavior so agent comments create agent-class wakes and same-run completion comments remain inert. - Updated the implementation specification and regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/cross-issue-influence-limit.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-attribution-audit-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts packages/db/src/issue-comment-on-behalf-migration.test.ts` — 97 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration safety checks. - `pnpm test:run` — server batch: 3,364 passed and 2 skipped; UI batch: 3,504 passed. One unrelated CLI doctor test warned because this agent runtime injects static AWS credentials. - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` — 8 tests passed and confirmed the CLI failure was ambient-environment sensitive. - `pnpm build` — passed. ## Risks - The fixed enforcement timestamp changes production behavior automatically on 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. Audit logs before that time provide rollout visibility. - The per-run counter serializes on the heartbeat-run row. This prevents concurrent attempts from racing past the cap but adds a small lock scope for cross-issue writes. - Existing comments can only be backfilled when their acting run or agent attribution is recoverable. > 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 in the Codex agent runtime. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. Reasoning, shell tools, code editing, and test execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My 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> |
||
|
|
ded813ad6f |
feat(interactions): add governed agent addressees (#10252)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane that lets humans govern companies of AI agents. > - Issue-thread interactions are the structured handoff point for confirmations, questions, suggested tasks, and other governed decisions. > - Those interactions previously assumed that only board users could resolve them, preventing one agent from explicitly addressing another agent for a response. > - Agent resolution needs company-level governance, auditable resolver identity, safe terminal-state handling, and attention routing so authorization is enforced server-side rather than inferred from UI behavior. > - This pull request adds governed agent resolution, withdrawal and terminal expiry semantics, explicit agent addressees, lifecycle reconciliation, and attention-feed filtering. > - The benefit is that agents can participate in structured decisions without weakening board control, company isolation, wake behavior, or audit invariants. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Issue-thread interactions across database, shared contracts, server authorization/services, adapter callbacks, agent skill guidance, API docs, and UI governance surfaces. ### Problem or motivation Structured interactions were board-only, had no explicit agent addressee, and lacked durable withdrawal/terminal-expiry semantics. That made peer-agent decisions impossible to authorize and audit safely. ### Proposed solution Persist requested/effective resolver policy and addressee identity, enforce company governance and eligible agent resolution, reconcile addressee lifecycle changes, expose withdrawal and terminal expiry, and route attention to the intended active agent with board fallback. ### Alternatives considered Implicitly authorizing the issue assignee or mentioned agents was rejected as ambiguous and difficult to audit. Using comments alone was rejected because it loses structured outcomes and continuation behavior. ### Roadmap alignment Supports the ROADMAP direction for lightweight leadership-agent communication that still resolves into governed decisions and work objects. ### Additional context Public GitHub issue/PR search found no duplicate implementation; open PR search for interaction resolver governance and agent addressees only returned this PR. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped interaction resolver governance contracts and persistence. - Add requested/effective resolver policy, resolver identity, withdrawal, and terminal-expiry behavior. - Add explicit `addresseeAgentId` validation, authorization, persistence, lifecycle reconciliation, API documentation, and skill guidance. - Route pending addressed interactions to the intended invokable agent and fall back to board attention when that agent becomes ineligible or is deleted. - Preserve sandbox callback identity fields required by governed resolution paths. - Add migrations `0193` and `0194` plus route, service, attention, adapter, CLI, and UI coverage. - Add governance state and company settings UI, including responsive mobile behavior and distinct withdrawn/expired audit presentation. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm test:run` — feature/server and UI workspace suites passed; one unrelated CLI AWS doctor test observed injected static AWS credentials and warned instead of passing. - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts --project paperclipai` — 8 tests passed, confirming the failure was environment-sensitive. - `pnpm build` — passed. - Latest rebased head `e24cece6be9f1877bdbac7691bcb44fd583c0161` completed all GitHub CI jobs successfully. ## Risks - Migrations add interaction and company-governance fields; numbering is conflict-free on current `master`, additive statements are idempotent, and migration safety checks pass. - Agent authorization behavior expands beyond board-only resolution, but defaults remain board-only and coverage exercises company boundaries, resolver eligibility, lifecycle invalidation, wake behavior, withdrawal, expiry, and attention fallback. - Attention routing depends on current agent invokability; reconciliation and read-time filtering prevent stale addressees from retaining visibility or resolution authority. > 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` with reasoning, terminal tool use, code execution, Git/GitHub integration, and Paperclip control-plane tools. Context-window metadata was not reported by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change 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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
dfcda67650 |
feat(auth): default-open visible issue writes (#10804)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents coordinate through company-visible issues, comments, child tasks, and assignments. > - The current authorization rules give these write channels different and narrow ownership grants. > - Those differences prevent standard-trust agents from coordinating on work that they can already read. > - A responsible human user must still bound every agent action. > - This pull request gives the four issue-write channels one default-open rule based on issue visibility. > - The benefit is consistent multi-agent coordination without weakening company, user, trust-scope, or run-lifecycle controls. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves authorization for comments, issue updates, child creation, and assignment on company-visible issues. **Subsystem affected** `server/` REST API authorization and issue routes. **Current behavior** Standard-trust agents can read company-visible issues, but narrow ownership, parent, or mention grants can still deny related writes. Each write channel also applies a different rule. **Proposed behavior** Allow standard-trust agents to comment, update fields, create child issues, and assign work when they can read the target issue and the responsible user is also authorized. Keep company boundaries, low-trust scopes, checkout conflicts, status rules, pause gates, budget gates, and explicit reopen rules unchanged. **Reason and benefit** Agents can coordinate on visible company work without relay issues or unnecessary manager runs. One shared rule also makes the authorization model easier to test and maintain. **Breaking changes** This intentionally broadens write access for standard-trust agents on visible issues. Existing company boundaries and governance controls remain in force. Related prior approaches: Refs #10233 and Refs #9768. This change unifies the comment case with visible issue updates, child creation, and assignment while preserving the responsible-user ceiling and excluded trust scopes. ## What Changed - Added a shared default-open authorization decision for visible issue writes. - Applied the shared rule to comments, issue updates, child creation, and assignment. - Preserved low-trust, `skill_test`, `task_bridge`, responsible-user, checkout, lifecycle, pause, and budget controls. - Preserved explicit resume/restore authority for direct peer lifecycle transitions on blocked, completed, and cancelled issues. - Added regression coverage for cross-company denial, user intersection, excluded scopes, comment-read structure, closed issues, child creation, assignment, and peer updates. - Updated the V1 implementation contract for the shared rule. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts --reporter=dot` — 217 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` — passed. - Independent security review covered broken access control, object-level authorization, excessive agency, cross-company access, responsible-user intersection, excluded scopes, and lifecycle controls; its peer lifecycle-transition finding is fixed with regression coverage. ## Risks - Standard-trust agents gain broader write influence on issues that they can already read. - Future issue-visibility controls must keep `issue:read` as the canonical authorization hook. - Regression tests cover company boundaries, responsible-user intersection, excluded scopes, active checkout conflicts, closed-issue behavior, and non-transitive mention authority. > 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 through Codex. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment revision or context-window size. Agentic reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and test execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My 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
|
95d33e1788 |
fix(inbox): archive tasks completed by human users (#10668)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Mine inbox gives each human user a personal work queue. > - A human user can complete a task from the board. > - The status update did not update the user's inbox archive state. > - The completed task therefore stayed in the user's Mine inbox. > - This pull request archives the task for the human user who completes it. > - Agent completion does not change another user's inbox archive state. > - The benefit is that manual completion removes the task from Mine without an extra action or comment. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** When a human user changed a task status to `done`, the task stayed in that user's Mine inbox. **Expected behavior** The status change should archive the task from that user's Mine inbox. The operation should not add a task comment. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task that appears in Mine. 2. Change the task status to `done`. 3. Return to Mine. 4. Observe that the completed task is still present. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** All deployment modes with a board user and the Mine inbox. **Access context** Board (human operator). ## What Changed - Archive the completed task for the board user who changes its status to `done`. - Persist the status update, inbox archive, and archive audit atomically. - Publish live and plugin activity only after the owning transaction commits, including recovery, decision, and approval completion paths. - Keep agent-driven completion from changing a human user's inbox archive state. - Add database-backed regression tests for the archive, audit, Mine filter, rollback, event publication, recovery, and agent paths. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts` passed all 7 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts` passed all 44 tests. - Five directly affected server test files passed all 74 tests; decision and comment-route suites passed all 105 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the final fix. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. - The initial repo-wide `pnpm test:run` passed 3,223 tests; one unrelated plugin orchestration wake-reason test failed and reproduced in isolation. - All latest-head GitHub Actions gates are green, including all server and E2E shards. - Greptile reviewed the latest commit at 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. - Public GitHub search found no duplicate issue or pull request. ## Risks - Low risk. The behavior only runs on a board user's transition into `done`. - Reopening and completing the task again updates the existing per-user archive row. - Agent status updates do not archive a human user's inbox. - Transactional callers must supply a post-commit activity queue; covered completion paths do so and tests exercise rollback and publication order. - This bug fix does not duplicate planned core work in `ROADMAP.md`. > 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 from the GPT-5 model family assisted with this change. The runtime does not expose the exact serving model ID or context window. Reasoning, repository tools, code execution, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API access were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
dcac49a4fd |
feat(workspaces): defer isolated setup until runtime start (#10653)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Isolated workspaces give each task a safe and reproducible checkout. > - The existing setup cloned the development database before an agent needed to run the app. > - This made worktree creation slower and heavier for tasks that never start a service. > - Runtime services already use one server start path for heartbeat, operator, and startup recovery flows. > - This pull request moves heavy setup to that start path and keeps worktree creation lean. > - The benefit is faster isolated workspace creation with the same reliable runtime setup when a service starts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related pull request: #10652 covers the initial deferred database-seeding slice. This pull request supersedes it with end-to-end runtime provisioning and safe cleanup. **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves isolated worktree creation, runtime service startup, and isolated instance cleanup. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: CLI worktree setup, server runtime orchestration, shared workspace contracts, and development scripts. **Current behavior** Paperclip seeds an isolated development database during worktree creation. It can also leave an isolated instance directory after workspace teardown. This work happens even when no runtime service starts. **Proposed behavior** Paperclip creates the worktree with a lean eager setup. It runs an idempotent runtime provision command before the first managed service spawn. Concurrent starts share one provision attempt. Teardown removes the isolated instance safely. **Reason and benefit** Many agent tasks only edit and test code. They do not need a running Paperclip instance. Deferring the database seed reduces workspace startup cost while preserving automatic setup for tasks that start the app. **Breaking changes** None. The new runtime provision command is optional. Existing workspace behavior is unchanged when it is absent. ## What Changed - Split Paperclip worktree setup into a lean eager script and an idempotent runtime provision script. - Added `runtimeProvisionCommand` to project, issue, realized workspace, and persisted workspace contracts. - Added a per-workspace provision mutex before local service spawn for heartbeat, operator, and startup recovery flows. - Added a persisted `provisioning` service state and the `workspace_runtime_provision` operation phase. - Kept provision time outside the service readiness timeout and made failed attempts visible and retryable. - Reclaimed isolated instance data during safe workspace teardown. - Serialized deferred database seeding across processes and bound teardown to the instance root captured in persisted workspace metadata. - Added tests for config flow, concurrency, retry, no-op behavior, readiness timing, scripts, CLI commands, and cleanup. - Documented the eager and runtime provisioning contracts. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm test:run` (server: 3,201 passed; UI: 3,345 passed; the CLI phase exposed one environment-sensitive AWS doctor assertion because the agent runtime injects static AWS credentials) - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts -t 'passes AWS doctor checks when non-secret provider config is present'` - Focused runtime tests cover serialized provisioning, retry after stderr failure, absent-command no-op behavior, operation logging, persisted state order, and readiness timeout exclusion. - Focused CLI and cleanup tests cover concurrent seed serialization, stale-lock fail-closed behavior, persisted instance ownership, and rewritten sibling pointers. ## Risks - A faulty runtime provision script blocks service startup. Paperclip records stderr, marks the service failed, and retries on the next start. - Concurrent service requests share an in-process provision attempt, while the seed command uses an atomic filesystem lock across processes. A stale lock fails closed and requires an operator to verify no seed is running before removing it. - Isolated instance cleanup is destructive. The cleanup service validates ownership and path containment before removal. > 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-5.6-sol`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The service does not expose the context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
ddbcf53e31 |
fix(server): refuse agent delegation cycles back to an open ancestor's creator (#10658)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents decompose work by creating child issues assigned to other agents > - When two agents each lack a capability the other assumed (e.g. neither can push to GitHub), each can "resolve" its blocker by delegating the same step to the other: A creates a child for B, B creates a grandchild back for A > - Nothing detects the cycle; the chain of blocked issues grows and no signal reaches the human who could actually fix the capability gap > - This pull request refuses agent-initiated child creation when the child's assignee is the creator of a still-open ancestor in the same chain — a mechanical, semantics-free cycle signal > - The benefit is that the hot-potato dies at creation time with an actionable error instead of growing a dead chain ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #10642 (write-time counterpart: #10648 refuses assignment to paused agents; the credential-gap *preflight* side is tracked separately in #10644) ## What Changed - `issueService.findOpenAncestorCreatedByAgent(parentIssueId, agentId, {maxDepth})`: bounded walk up the parent chain looking for a still-open (not done/cancelled) ancestor created by the given agent. - Agent-initiated issue creation with a parent (both the create-with-`parentId` route and `POST /issues/:id/children`) now refuses with a structured 409 (`code: delegation_cycle`, naming the ancestor) when the new child would be assigned to the agent that created a still-open ancestor: that agent delegated the work into this chain, so assigning it back is a cycle. The message states the alternatives — complete the work, leave the child unassigned, or escalate to a board operator. - Deliberately unaffected: human actors (deliberate re-routing is their call), closed ancestors (re-engaging the creator of finished work is normal), and accepted-plan decomposition (its children come from a human-approved plan). ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-assignee-invokability-routes.test.ts` — cycle refused with 409 and no create call; the same child allowed when no open ancestor matches; board actors never consult the guard. - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — new embedded-Postgres coverage: ancestor found through the chain, closed ancestors ignored, depth bound honored (114 total). - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` — unchanged (79). - `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate: a new 409 for a creation shape that previously succeeded. The blocked shape (agent assigns new work to the creator of an open ancestor) is the cycle signature; the legitimate "hand a subtask to the parent's assignee" pattern is unaffected because it keys on assignee, not creator. Watchdog and plan-decomposition flows are exempt or unaffected as described. - The walk adds at most `maxDepth` (10) single-row lookups per agent child creation with an assignee. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
0f12721ee9 |
fix(server): let board users cancel issues with an active review stage (#10655)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server enforces an issue execution policy. It gates status changes while a review or approval stage is active. > - A board user could not cancel a task while an agent reviewer held the active stage. The API returned "Only the active reviewer or approver can advance the current execution stage". > - Board users own the board. They must always be able to edit and cancel any task. > - This pull request adds a board override to the execution stage transition. A board cancel clears the pending stage state and proceeds instead of raising an error. > - The benefit is that board users can always stop work, even while a review is pending or the stored stage state has drifted. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. Description follows `bug_report.yml`: **What happened?** A board user set a task to `cancelled` while the task had an active reviewer stage held by an agent. The PATCH failed with "Task Update Failed... only the assigned approver or reviewer...". The same failure occurred when the stored stage state had drifted: the server silently forced the task back to `in_review` instead of honoring the cancel. **Expected behavior** A board user can always edit and cancel any task. A board cancel must clear the pending review stage and apply the requested status. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a task assigned to agent A with agent B configured as reviewer in the execution policy. 2. Let agent A hand the task off so the review stage becomes active. 3. As the board user, set the task status to Cancelled. 4. The update fails with the reviewer-only error. Related work: #5487 touches the execution-policy approver UI. It does not address the board cancel path. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: the issue PATCH route now passes `allowBoardOverride` when the actor is a board user. - `server/src/services/issue-execution-policy.ts`: when `allowBoardOverride` is set and the requested status is not `in_review` or `in_progress`, the transition clears `executionState` and proceeds. This applies both while a stage decision is pending and when the stage state has drifted, so a board cancel is no longer rejected or silently flipped back to `in_review`. - Reviewer gating is unchanged for everyone else: a board user who is the active participant still uses the normal approve / request-changes flow, and non-participant agents still receive the 422 guard. - Assignee-only board updates on an `in_review` task keep the stage state coherent: reassigning to an eligible stage participant re-pends the stage with them as the current participant, while reassigning to a non-participant (or unassigning) dissolves the review back to `in_progress` instead of persisting an `in_review` issue with no execution state or an ineligible participant. - New unit tests and route tests cover board cancellation of an active review stage and of a drifted pending review, plus reviewer swap, non-participant reassignment, and unassignment during an active review. ## Verification - In `server/`: `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts` — 2 files, 73/73 tests pass on top of current `master`. - In `server/`: `pnpm run typecheck` passes. ## Risks - Low risk. The override branch runs only for board actors and only for target statuses other than `in_review` and `in_progress`. Cancelling clears `executionState`, so a later reopen starts from a fresh stage state. Agent-facing flows and reviewer gating are unchanged. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5`, running in Claude Code (Claude Agent SDK) with extended thinking and agentic 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 - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
ada47be764 |
fix(server): refuse agent-initiated issue assignment to paused agents (#10648)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents can create and assign issues to other agents, and commonly escalate to their org-chart manager (`reports_to`) when they hit something outside their authority > - Issue assignment already refuses terminated and pending-approval assignees, but accepts paused assignees from any actor > - A paused agent never runs, so agent-initiated escalations to a paused manager become invisible dead letters — accepted silently, never picked up, never surfaced > - This pull request refuses paused assignees when the assigning actor is an agent, at the single normalization helper all four assignment paths flow through > - The benefit is that agent-routed work can no longer silently vanish into a paused agent's queue ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #10641 ## What Changed - `normalizeIssueAssigneeAgentReference` (used by issue create, both child-create routes, and issue update) now throws a 409 when an **agent** actor assigns to a **paused** agent, with a message naming the alternatives: assign an invokable agent, leave the issue unassigned, or escalate to a board operator. - Board/user actors are unchanged and may still assign to paused agents deliberately — the pause state is visible in the UI, and staging work for a later unpause is a legitimate workflow. Terminated / pending-approval / invalid-org-chain refusals are unchanged for all actors. - This matches the existing precedent for watchdogs ("Cannot assign watchdog to an agent that is not invokable") using the same conflict-error shape. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-assignee-invokability-routes.test.ts` — new coverage: agent PATCH → paused assignee 409 (no update call), agent child-create → paused assignee 409 (no create call), agent assignment to an invokable agent still 200, board assignment to a paused agent still 200. - Neighboring suites unchanged: `issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes`, `issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes`, `issue-create-deduplication-routes`, `issue-watchdogs-routes` (97 tests). - `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`. ## Risks - Low. The only behavior change is a new 409 for agent actors assigning to paused agents — previously a silent dead-letter. Agents that relied on this (escalation flows) now get an actionable error instead; human workflows are untouched. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
627728bdde |
feat: add authoritative issue PATCH receipts (#10478)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents update tasks through the issue API. > - The update response did not state which values changed. > - Blocker updates also did not echo the scalar blocker IDs. > - Agents therefore used an extra GET request to confirm a successful write. > - This pull request adds an authoritative change receipt and an optional small response. > - The benefit is fewer API calls with a clear and compatible write contract. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and the UI issue cache. ### Problem or motivation A successful issue PATCH returned the updated issue, but it did not identify the effective changes. Blocker writes returned relation summaries without the scalar IDs. Agents could not distinguish a confirmed clear operation from missing data. The response must confirm committed field and blocker changes while existing UI clients continue to receive the full issue by default. ### Proposed solution Add a `changes` receipt. Add a conditional `blockedByIssueIds` echo. Support `Prefer: return=minimal`. Keep the full response as the default. ### Alternatives considered Make the small response the default for agent tokens. This would create different response contracts by actor type, so this pull request does not use that design. ### Roadmap alignment This is a focused control-plane reliability improvement. It does not duplicate an open roadmap milestone. ## What Changed - Compute committed issue row and relation changes in the issue service. - Omit no-op fields and truncate changed long text values to 200 characters. - Echo blocker ID arrays for blocker set and clear requests. - Add the opt-in `Prefer: return=minimal` response and `Preference-Applied` header. - Keep receipt metadata out of React Query issue caches. - Add route and embedded Postgres tests for the new contract. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "returns authoritative update receipts for row fields and blocker relations"` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Low compatibility risk. The default response only adds receipt fields. - Minimal mode is opt-in. Existing clients do not receive a smaller body. - The receipt excludes `updatedAt` because the response already returns it as the freshness anchor. - Prose API and agent workflow guidance will follow after the server contract is available. > 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 based on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID, context window size, and reasoning mode are not exposed to the agent. The agent used repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [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> |
||
|
|
b4a7a12985 |
feat: make recovery updates quieter (#10542)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The recovery subsystem restores work after an agent run stops or loses state > - Recovery notices currently use the same visual weight as normal work comments > - Recovery agents can also post long narratives that obscure the useful hand-off > - The server must identify recovery output because agents cannot set presentation controls > - This pull request adds compact recovery notices, structured action references, and brief recovery prompts > - The benefit is a quieter issue thread that still keeps recovery state inspectable ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and `packages/adapter-utils`. **Problem or motivation** Recovery notices and recovery-run comments can dominate an issue thread. Operators must scan routine recovery narration before they find the work hand-off. **Proposed solution** Give routine recovery output a compact system-notice presentation. Derive the presentation on the server so agents cannot hide arbitrary comments. Keep the successful missing-state summary fully visible because that comment is the recovery deliverable. **Alternatives considered** The UI could detect recovery text. That approach is fragile and does not provide structured action references. Agents could also set presentation directly, but that would weaken the current board-only security boundary. **Roadmap alignment** This change refines the completed “Self-healing runs & automatic recovery” and “Enforced Outcomes” roadmap areas. It does not add a competing roadmap capability. **Additional context** The scope covers shared comment validation, server recovery notices, agent-comment derivation, and recovery prompt text. No database migration is needed because presentation data already uses JSON. ## What Changed - Add the `compact` issue-comment presentation density to shared constants, types, and validation. - Give recovery escalation, waiting, and in-place notices compact titles and structured recovery-action metadata. - Use recovery-action metadata for notice deduplication, with the legacy text marker as a compatibility fallback. - Derive compact presentation for comments from recovery-scoped runs while preserving the board-only presentation boundary. - Keep successful missing-state recovery summaries fully visible. - Ask recovery participants to record outcomes in `resolutionNote` and keep source-issue comments brief. - Add shared, route, service, and prompt tests for the new behavior and exceptions. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - Focused Vitest coverage: 320 tests passed across shared validators, adapter prompts, issue comments, recovery actions, and heartbeat recovery. - Full server phase: 292 files passed, 3,094 tests passed, and 2 tests skipped. - Full UI phase: 386 files passed and 3,182 tests passed. - `pnpm build` - Known master baseline: `cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` expects `pass`, but the current implementation returns `warn` when strict secret mode is disabled for Postgres. This branch does not change CLI secrets code. ## Risks - Low migration risk. The presentation column is JSON and needs no database migration. - Recovery-run detection depends on the persisted run context snapshot. - Structured metadata becomes the primary deduplication key. The existing body marker remains as a fallback for older comments. > 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-5.6-sol`. The runtime did not expose the context-window size. The model used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [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
|
f6ab82d490 |
feat(interactions): add interaction withdrawal and terminal-issue expiry (#10251)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents and boards coordinate through issue-thread interactions (request_confirmation, ask_user_questions, suggest_tasks, …) that wait as `pending` cards until someone resolves them > - Two lifecycle gaps existed: an interaction's creator could not take back a card it no longer stands behind, and interactions left `pending` on issues that reached a terminal status lingered forever as live-looking approval requests > - Stale pending cards mislead humans (they look actionable), distort attention/liveness signals, and in the worst case invite acting on a proposal whose issue is already closed or cancelled > - This pull request adds an explicit withdraw route for pending interactions and automatically expires pending interactions when their issue reaches a terminal status (including a catch-up sweep for issues closed before this change) > - The benefit is that interaction cards now faithfully reflect reality: only genuinely actionable requests stay pending, and creators can retract requests that events have overtaken ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #5787 Refs #7403 Related prior PRs found while searching for duplicates (all overlap partially; none combine both lifecycle paths or the route-level authorization used here): #6709 and #7312 (creator-withdraw attempts), #8169 (terminal expiry), #8081 and #5137 (generalized cancel/expire endpoints), #6094 (stale confirmation auto-resolve). Related merged context: #9568 (agent cancel for ask_user_questions), #10119 (tolerating legacy `withdrawn_by_creator` result outcomes — the reader side of the outcome this PR writes). ## What Changed - New route `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/withdraw` that resolves a `pending` interaction to status `withdrawn` with a structured result (`outcome: "withdrawn"`, optional trimmed `reason`), stamps `resolvedBy*`/`resolvedAt`, touches the issue, logs activity, and emits resolved-interaction telemetry - Withdrawal authorization: board users, the interaction's creator agent, or the issue's current assignee agent (assignees additionally pass the standard issue-mutation gate); task-watchdog runs are explicitly rejected, and authorization-boundary plus low-trust control-plane checks apply - Withdrawing an already-resolved interaction returns `409`; unknown/cross-issue/cross-company interaction ids return `404` - New service method `expirePendingInteractionsForTerminalIssue`: when an issue transitions to a terminal status, all of its `pending` interactions are resolved to `expired` with `outcome: "issue_closed"`, guarded by a `status = 'pending'` predicate so concurrent resolutions are not overwritten - The same expiry runs as a catch-up when interactions are listed on an already-terminal issue, so cards stranded by issues closed before this change also get cleaned up; expired request_confirmations are logged with a distinguishing source - Shared package: new `withdrawIssueThreadInteractionSchema` validator, `WithdrawIssueThreadInteraction` type, and `withdrawn` / `issue_closed` result-outcome support for all interaction kinds (kind-aware result shapes for `ask_user_questions` and `request_item_verdicts`) - UI helper `ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.ts` recognizes the new outcomes for card rendering - Docs: bundled skill API reference updated with the withdraw endpoint - Review follow-up: terminal expiry moved from the HTTP route hooks into `issueService.update`'s status-transition block, so direct service callers (tree control, recovery, pipelines, status cards) expire pending cards too; the list-endpoint catch-up remains for issues closed before this change - Review follow-up: withdrawing or issue-close-expiring a `request_confirmation` also settles its linked `tool_action_requests` row (withdraw -> `cancelled`, issue closed -> `expired`), so a parked tool call cannot stay approvable after its card is gone - Review follow-up: interaction cards render dedicated copy for the new outcomes ("Withdrawn" with the reason, "Expired when issue closed") instead of falling through to superseded-by-comment / stale-target variants; withdrawn plan reviews badge as "Withdrawn" rather than "Changes requested" ## Screenshots Card states rendered from a local ux-lab harness with mocked data ([full gallery](https://pages.paperclip.ing/pr-10251-interaction-withdrawal-cards/)): | Light | Dark | | --- | --- | |  |  | ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` — clean tsc - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts` — 22 tests pass, including new coverage for: creator-agent withdraw success, non-creator/non-assignee agent 403, watchdog-run 403, double-withdraw 409, and board-user withdraw - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` — 4 tests pass, including terminal-issue expiry writing `issue_closed` results and leaving already-resolved interactions untouched - `cd ui && pnpm typecheck` — clean - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — includes a new embedded-Postgres test proving a direct `issueService.update` terminal transition expires pending interactions and writes the activity-log entry - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx` — 32 tests, including new coverage for withdrawn / issue-closed confirmation and question cards - `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit` — matches the pre-existing repo error baseline exactly (no new errors) - Manual: `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/withdraw` with `{"reason":"superseded"}` as the creator agent resolves the card to `withdrawn`; closing an issue with a pending confirmation flips it to `expired` with `outcome: "issue_closed"` ## Risks - Interactions on terminal issues now auto-expire (including retroactively via the list-time catch-up), so consumers that expected to resolve a pending interaction on a closed issue will get `409`; this is the intended semantics and matches how the attention feed already wants to treat dead cards - New result outcomes (`withdrawn`, `issue_closed`) are written to stored results; readers were already made tolerant of these outcome strings in #10119, so mixed-version reads are safe - No schema/migration changes; per-row conditional updates (`status = 'pending'`) avoid clobbering concurrent resolutions - Withdrawal is a new mutation surface, but it is strictly narrower than existing resolve paths (board, creator, or assignee only; watchdog runs blocked) ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic Mythos-class tier) with extended thinking and agentic tool use (Claude Code harness); commit authored in a Paperclip-managed engineering session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c481be44e3 |
fix(task-watchdogs): deduplicate unchanged stopped-state wakes (#10207)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Task watchdogs review issue subtrees when no run or queued wake keeps work live > - Pending human interactions and approvals are valid stopped states that still need one watchdog review > - The existing fingerprint included volatile activity timestamps, so unchanged stopped trees could wake repeatedly after comments, documents, work products, or sibling completions > - This pull request fingerprints only review-material leaf and wait state, persists the reviewed snapshot, and suppresses shrink-only repeats > - The benefit is one review per materially new stopped state without weakening liveness classification or hiding human waits ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? Task-watchdog stop fingerprints changed for metadata-only activity and completed siblings, producing duplicate wakes after an unchanged stop had already been reviewed. ### Expected behavior Pending interactions and approvals remain classified as stopped, but a reviewed stopped state only wakes again when waits, non-terminal leaves, status, assignment, or blockers gain material changes. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Review a stopped watched subtree with a pending human wait or multiple non-terminal stopped leaves. 2. Add only comment/document/work-product activity, or complete one stopped sibling without changing the wait set. 3. Observe a duplicate wake from the timestamp-heavy fingerprint. Related public work: Refs #9452 for overlapping task-watchdog service edits and #10043 for related no-op fingerprint suppression. ## What Changed - Added fingerprint v2 over non-terminal material leaves plus subtree-wide pending wait ids, excluding volatile timestamps while retaining them in wake context. - Added nullable observed/reviewed JSONB stop snapshots and shrink-only reviewed-state suppression with legacy exact-fingerprint fallback. - Added pending interaction kinds and approval ids to watchdog wake context, review comments, and comment metadata. - Added classifier and scheduler coverage for waiting-leaf liveness, metadata stability, sibling shrink suppression, material changes, snapshot promotion, legacy rows, and unchanged idempotency keys. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts` — 2 files, 36 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. ## Risks - Fingerprint version 2 intentionally re-fingerprints every currently stopped watched tree once after deployment, causing a one-time wake burst before the new reviewed snapshots are established. - Migration `0191_task_watchdog_stop_snapshots.sql` only adds two nullable JSONB columns with no backfill; legacy rows continue exact-fingerprint behavior until a post-deploy review promotes a snapshot. - PR #9452 edits the same service file; whichever lands second may need a trivial rebase. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning mode, with repository tool use and code execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
148a5b11f5 |
Route blocked transitions to explicit unblock owners (#10112)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies. > - Issue status transitions determine whether work keeps moving or silently stalls. > - A blocked issue previously could rely on prose alone, leaving the intended unblock owner unstructured and unnotified. > - Existing blocker-attention classification could identify stalled chains, but the signal was not delivered to the board attention feed. > - Blocked transitions also need rollout-safe deduplication so upgrades do not notify for historical issues and repeated processing does not create notification storms. > - This pull request adds structured unblock descriptors, prospective transition timestamps, owner delivery, and board attention routing with focused authorization controls. > - The benefit is that newly blocked work has an explicit, routable next action without weakening company boundaries or allowing agents to inject arbitrary human attention items. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related documentation PR: #10094. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/db`, and `packages/shared`. ### Problem or motivation An issue can enter `blocked` without a machine-readable unblock path. Prose-only ownership does not reliably wake the responsible agent or surface human-owned work, while the existing `blockerAttention` classifier is not delivered to an operator-facing attention feed. ### Proposed solution Require new transitions into `blocked` to have unresolved blockers, a pending interaction/approval, or a structured `{ owner, action }` descriptor. Notify an allowed owner once per prospective transition, route human-owned cases to board attention, and leave pre-rollout blocked issues untouched. ### Alternatives considered - Keep prose-only blockers: rejected because ownership remains unroutable. - Backfill all historical blocked issues: rejected because upgrades would create notification storms. - Let agents target arbitrary users or the board: rejected after security review because it creates an attention-injection channel. ### Roadmap alignment Aligns with `ROADMAP.md` → “Enforced Outcomes (watchdogs, recovery actions, review gates)” by making blocked work carry an explicit continuation path. ### Additional context The implementation is prospective-only and deduplicated per blocked transition. Agent-authored descriptors are limited to the acting agent; board actors retain human-owner routing. ## What Changed - Added persisted unblock descriptors and prospective blocked-transition delivery timestamps with an idempotent migration. - Added shared types and validation for board, user, and agent unblock owners. - Enforced valid blocked transitions and same-company owner validation in the issue update route. - Restricted agent-authored descriptors to the acting agent itself, preventing board/user attention injection by compromised agents. - Added one-per-transition agent wake delivery and prospective-only rollout gating. - Routed human-owned blocker attention into the board attention feed. - Added focused tests for validation, prospective delivery, flap deduplication, attention routing, route authorization, and stop-relay compatibility. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routable-blocked.test.ts server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID= AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY= pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` ## Risks - Behavioral shift: new `blocked` transitions without a real blocker, pending governed action, or structured descriptor now return `422`. - Notification abuse is constrained by same-company validation, agent self-only routing, prospective rollout gating, and transition-scoped deduplication. - Migration risk is low: columns are additive, nullable, and use `IF NOT EXISTS`; historical blocked issues are not backfilled or notified. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI with GPT-5.4, reasoning-enabled tool use and code execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window value. ## 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
|
a17bee98f2 |
Allow trust-gated direct-parent issue reports (#10098)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane used to coordinate and govern AI-agent companies. > - Agent issue access must preserve company boundaries and trust-policy containment without preventing legitimate task coordination. > - Checked-out standard-trust child runs need a narrow way to report progress directly to their parent issue, but existing authorization treated that report like an arbitrary cross-boundary write. > - Low-trust review runs must remain contained, and stop propagation must not copy potentially untrusted child prose into a higher-trust parent context. > - This pull request adds an audited, one-hop direct-parent comment grant only for standard checked-out runs and a sanitized, idempotent relay for blocked or cancelled child stops. > - The benefit is restored parent/child liveness while retaining least privilege, complete mediation, and low-trust output quarantine. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? A standard-trust agent running a checked-out child issue could not post a progress comment to the direct parent issue because the authorization boundary treated it as an arbitrary cross-issue write. This could stall parent/child coordination. Low-trust review runs also need stop propagation without exposing quarantined child-authored prose. ### Expected behavior A standard checked-out child run may add a comment only to its direct parent issue. The grant must not allow grandparent or sibling access, issue mutation, document writes, reopening, or resuming. Low-trust runs remain denied unless separately mentioned, while blocked/cancelled stops relay only sanitized system metadata once. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create a parent issue and a child issue assigned to different standard-trust agents. 2. Check out the child issue in a heartbeat run and authenticate as that run. 3. Post a comment to the parent issue and observe the authorization denial before this change. 4. Mark a low-trust child blocked or cancelled and observe that no bounded sanitized parent notification preserves liveness before this change. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduces on `master` before this PR, including base commit `d36ea13e08`. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`). ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific (core authorization and issue-routing behavior). ### Database mode External Postgres in the focused route regression suite; behavior is database-mode independent. ### Access context Agent (bearer API key associated with a checked-out heartbeat run). ### Additional context The implementation deliberately distinguishes a direct-parent report decision from general issue mutation permission and records successful grants in the activity log. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII, API keys, tokens, company names, and private instance references. ## What Changed - Adds a distinct authorization decision for standard checked-out runs commenting on their direct parent issue. - Keeps low-trust direct-parent reports denied unless an existing explicit mention grant applies. - Forces direct-parent grants to remain comment-only even when a closed parent is unassigned or assigned to the reporting agent. - Audits successful direct-parent report grants in issue activity details. - Adds sanitized, parent-scoped, idempotent system comments and parent wakeups for blocked or cancelled child stops. - Extends the low-trust red-team route suite for allowed parent reports, forbidden upward/sibling writes, closed-parent mutation suppression, and non-laundering stop relays. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` — 11 tests passed after the review fix. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed after the review fix. - Confirmed the PR changes four files and excludes `pnpm-lock.yaml`, workflow changes, migrations, and unrelated branch commits. ## Risks - This is an authorization behavior change. An overly broad grant could enable cross-boundary writes, while an overly narrow grant could preserve the liveness failure. - The implementation constrains the grant to a standard-trust checked-out run, a direct parent target, and comments only; activity auditing and red-team coverage make regressions observable. - Stop relays intentionally contain only system-generated child identity/status metadata and are deduplicated; child-authored prose is not copied. - SecurityEngineer approval is mandatory before merge. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using GPT-5.5 with reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, and test execution. The runtime does not expose the 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> |
||
|
SamandSami Rusani
|
b565603a86 |
fix(server): accept Office issue attachments (#8562)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents and board users can attach files to issues so context and deliverables stay with the task > - Some clients upload Microsoft Office files with generic binary MIME types such as `application/octet-stream` > - Current `master` now accepts arbitrary issue attachment MIME types, so the upload should keep working for unknown binary files > - Office files still benefit from being stored with a specific Office MIME type when the filename makes that inference safe > - Shared attachment allow-list defaults should also include common Office MIME types for routes that still use that allow-list > - This pull request keeps the current arbitrary-MIME issue upload behavior and only narrows generic binary uploads to Office MIME types for known Office filename extensions ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #8243 Duplicate search performed before implementation: - No matching open or closed PR found for `8243`, `Office document`, `attachment MIME`, or `openxmlformats`. ## What Changed - Added common Office MIME types to the default shared attachment allow-list. - Added upload content-type normalization that maps generic binary uploads to a specific Office MIME type only for known Office filename extensions. - Added an optional helper-level allow-list gate so callers that still validate against an effective allow-list can keep generic binary uploads generic when the inferred Office MIME type is not allowed. - Reused the shared generic attachment content-type list for response handling. - Preserved current `master` behavior for issue uploads that use unknown or arbitrary MIME types. - Added regression coverage for default Office allow-list matching, filename inference, optional allow-list fallback, official Office MIME uploads, inferred generic Office uploads, and preservation of unknown generic binary uploads. ## Verification - `env CI=true corepack pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --force` - `env CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/attachment-types.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts` - `env CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk ensure-build-deps` - `env CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` GitHub CI, security checks, and Greptile pass on rebased head `acc364cfbe3440a59db6570bb907818046649eb4`. ## Risks Low risk. The issue attachment route continues to accept arbitrary MIME types as current `master` does; this change only stores a more specific Office MIME type for generic binary uploads when the filename has a known Office extension. Unknown generic binary uploads remain generic. For callers that use an allow-list before storing uploads, `normalizeUploadAttachmentContentType` supports an optional gate so inference can be limited to MIME types that are already allowed. No docs change included because this is a default upload compatibility fix covered by server tests. > 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`. This is a narrow bug fix, not roadmap-level core feature work. `ROADMAP.md` was checked. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex using GPT-5, tool-enabled coding agent. Context window details are not exposed in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My 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: Sami Rusani <sr@samirusani> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a090c09ee5 |
feat: add decision training snapshot foundation (#9702)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work > - Human approvals, issue interactions, and execution decisions already capture high-value decision moments > - Those moments are currently transient and cannot be reused as stable evaluation or training examples > - Reusable examples need a server-owned, immutable snapshot so later comments or runs cannot leak into the recorded state > - Human notes need to remain editable and auditable without changing the captured state > - This pull request adds the database model, snapshot capture service, API, export format, and attention-feed enrichment for decision training > - The benefit is a durable, inspectable foundation for evaluating whether agents can reproduce good human decisions from only the context available at decision time ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (`server/`, `packages/db`, and `packages/shared`). ### Problem or motivation Paperclip has no durable dataset for converting human decisions into evaluation-ready examples. Teams need to capture pending or resolved decisions with the exact issue context, comments, runs, and repository evidence available at a cutoff, while preventing future context from leaking into the example. ### Proposed solution Store immutable, schema-versioned snapshots anchored to durable interaction, approval, or execution-decision records; keep notes separately editable with history; expose human-only CRUD, list, and JSONL export APIs. ### Alternatives considered Client-generated snapshots were rejected because they duplicate cutoff logic and cannot reliably enforce no-leakage boundaries. Automatic outcome backfill was deferred so captured examples remain faithful to what was known at capture time. ### Roadmap alignment Supports the roadmap direction of turning completed work and decision patterns into reusable organizational knowledge. ### Additional context The implementation records explicit commit-resolution confidence (`exact`, `nearest_run`, `workspace`, or `none`) so downstream evaluation can distinguish evidence quality. ## What Changed - Added the `decision_training_examples` schema and idempotent migration with company, issue, and source/author indexes. - Added shared types for decision-training records, notes history, and versioned snapshots. - Added a single server-side snapshot capture path with inclusive comment cutoffs, pre-cutoff run capture, durable decision payloads, and explicit commit-resolution confidence. - Added create, list, detail, notes-only update, delete, and JSONL export routes with human-only write authorization and activity logging that skips no-op note submissions. - Added per-user `trainingExampleId` enrichment to attention items. - Added focused embedded-Postgres tests for cutoff boundaries, post-cutoff leakage, immutable snapshots, human-only writes, duplicate prevention, notes history, attention enrichment, and export shape. - Updated UI test and Storybook attention-item factories for the new required `trainingExampleId` contract. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/decision-training.test.ts` — 10 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. ## Risks - The migration adds a new table and indexes only; it does not rewrite existing rows or install resolve-time hooks. - Snapshot JSON can grow with long comment threads and run histories; v1 intentionally favors complete, inspectable examples over aggressive truncation. - Commit SHA resolution is evidence-based and records `exact`, `nearest_run`, or `none` so downstream consumers can account for confidence. - The API is additive, but future UI work must continue to treat the snapshot as immutable and use notes-only updates. > 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-5.3-codex`, with repository tool use, terminal execution, and code-editing capabilities; context-window size is not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b07b2994cc |
feat: stamp responsible users on activity logs (#9731)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work > - The activity log is the generic audit spine for mutations across the control plane > - Activity rows identify agents and runs, but they do not persist the responsible human upstream > - Relying only on run joins loses attribution after run pruning and misses agent API-key actions outside a run > - This pull request resolves responsible-user attribution when each activity row is written and stores it directly > - The benefit is durable, queryable agent audit feeds without rewriting historical provenance ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Problem or motivation Agent activity records do not persist the responsible user, so attribution can disappear when runs are pruned and no-run API-key mutations cannot be attributed correctly. ### Proposed solution Resolve attribution for each new activity row from the run, related issue, active agent API key, or company default, in that order, and persist the result directly. ### Alternatives considered Read-time joins alone were rejected because pruned runs lose durable attribution and out-of-run agent-key actions have no run to join. Historical backfill was rejected because it would invent provenance. ### Roadmap alignment This strengthens the durable audit-trail direction described in `ROADMAP.md` without adding a new product surface. ## What Changed - Added nullable `activity_log.responsible_user_id` plus company/agent/time and company/responsible-user/time indexes. - Added an idempotent forward-only migration with no historical backfill. - Added centralized write-time resolution: heartbeat run → issue attribution → active agent API key → company default. - Propagated authenticated API-key IDs through existing request-backed `logActivity()` calls. - Added unit coverage for every fallback and an embedded-Postgres assertion for the no-run API-key stamping path. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/activity-log-responsible-user.test.ts src/__tests__/authz-company-access.test.ts` - Initial focused verification: 25 tests passed; migration safety passed. - Follow-up regression verification: 54 focused attribution/company-skill/environment/issue-tree/tool-gateway tests passed; server typecheck passed. - GitHub: full build, typecheck, server shards, serialized suites, e2e, security, and policy checks passed. ## Risks - Adding two indexes to an existing large table can hold a write lock while the transactional migration runs. The migration safety suppressions document why `CONCURRENTLY` is unavailable under the current Drizzle migration runner. - Historical rows remain nullable by design; this avoids inventing provenance and keeps the migration forward-only. - API-key attribution requires request-backed activity call sites to pass the authenticated key ID; this PR mechanically updates the existing actor-based activity calls and covers the no-run path with integration testing. > 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-5.4`; context-window size was not exposed by the runtime. Medium reasoning with repository editing, terminal execution, and test execution capabilities was used. ## 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> |
||
|
|
59fb27ff79 |
feat(inbox): let agents safely tidy user inboxes (#9724)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work > - The inbox is a per-user attention view, so archiving an item must not alter the underlying issue, assignment, or status > - Agents can help responsible users tidy resolved work only when the action is company-scoped, reversible, policy-controlled, and fully attributable > - The database and authorization foundations landed in #9654 and #9658, but the end-to-end archive routes, audit details, agent workflow guidance, and operator UI still need to ship together > - Separate stacked PRs #9659 and #9661 made the complete behavior harder to review and land as one coherent capability > - This pull request consolidates the remaining server, shared-contract, documentation, skill, and UI work on top of current master > - The benefit is a single reviewable change that lets agents safely archive responsible-user inbox items and lets users control or undo that behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting inbox management across shared contracts, server authorization/routes/services, shipped agent skills, and the board UI. ### Problem or motivation Agents may complete work whose issue remains in the responsible user's Mine inbox. Existing board-user archive behavior does not provide the agent-facing policy endpoints, target resolution, heartbeat-run attribution, typed denials, conservative workflow guidance, or UI needed for safe agent-managed cleanup. ### Proposed solution Allow authorized agents to archive or unarchive responsible-user inbox items under the user's open, allowlist, or disabled policy; preserve actor/agent/run attribution in issue detail and activity records; expose policy controls and agent archive attribution in the UI; and document conservative cleanup rules for agents and PR gardening. ### Alternatives considered - Reuse generic issue mutation permissions: rejected because inbox state belongs to a target user and requires user-scoped authorization. - Automatically archive every completed or closed item: rejected because completion signals can still require human review or a decision. - Keep the backend and UI as separate stacked PRs: superseded by this consolidated PR so the complete user-visible behavior can be reviewed and verified together. ### Related work - Builds on merged foundations #9654 and #9658. - Supersedes the remaining stacked changes in #9659 and #9661. - `ROADMAP.md` has no overlapping inbox archive or inbox authorization initiative. ## What Changed - Added shared inbox-agent policy types and validators plus company-scoped self-service policy routes and OpenAPI coverage. - Enabled agent archive/unarchive mutations with responsible-user targeting, policy enforcement, typed failures, attribution, idempotency, and detailed activity auditing. - Returned agent archive attribution in issue detail and documented reversible inbox cleanup semantics in the implementation spec and Paperclip skill. - Added conservative PR-gardening inbox tidy guidance that keeps GitHub access read-only and avoids archiving work that still needs human action. - Added the Profile settings policy control and Issue Properties attribution/unarchive UI with focused component coverage and narrow-pane handling. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-agent-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/InboxAgentPolicyControl.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 110 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/inbox-archive-agent-policies-migration.test.ts` — 1 passed. - `node --test .agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` — 9 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — changed files are clean; the repository-wide command currently reports nine unrelated pre-existing `#9627` literals outside this PR's diff. ## Risks - Agent inbox mutations broaden an existing endpoint path, so authorization and target resolution must remain fail-closed; focused route and authorization tests cover allowed and denied paths. - Archive state affects only the responsible user's inbox presentation and remains reversible; it does not mutate issue status, assignment, or visibility. - The UI policy defaults to the existing open behavior, while allowlist and disabled modes can reduce agent access. - This PR intentionally builds on #9654 and #9658 and contains no new migration number or modification to an already-applied migration. > 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, medium reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, code review, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (`feat/inbox-agent-archive-complete`) 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
|
6ec059ab4e |
fix(server): suppress stale handoff alarms during live continuation (#9695)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The control plane records a successful-run handoff when productive work ends without a durable next-step disposition > - That handoff state was derived only from the latest activity event, without checking whether a corrective run or wake was currently alive > - As a result, actively progressing issues could still show a high-severity missing-disposition alarm and blocked-inbox row > - The same stale required event could also remain indefinitely when a later successful run correctly skipped recovery because another valid continuation path already existed > - This pull request makes the derived state liveness-aware, suppresses attention only while the live path exists, and resolves stale required events on valid-path skips > - The benefit is that productive work stays calm while genuine stalls still resurface automatically when liveness disappears ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - **Bug:** An issue whose latest successful-run handoff event is `required` continues to report a missing disposition even while a heartbeat run, scheduled retry, or queued/deferred/claimed wake is actively targeting that issue. - **Expected behavior:** The API should expose current continuation liveness, the blocked inbox should suppress the alarm only while that path remains live, and a later successful run that skips recovery because a valid path exists should durably resolve the stale event. - **Related but distinct:** #9370 changes disposition freshness at detection time; #8748 adds an explicit policy opt-out. This PR preserves detection/escalation policy and fixes read-time/current-liveness state. ## What Changed - Extended `SuccessfulRunHandoffState` with `hasLiveContinuation` and optional `liveRunId` evidence. - Added bounded liveness hydration for required handoff states using active heartbeat-run and wake-request signals. - Suppressed `missing_disposition` blocked-inbox rows only while a run, scheduled retry, or live wake targets the issue. - Added durable `issue.successful_run_handoff_resolved` logging when handoff detection skips because another valid continuation path owns the next action. - Added focused regressions for live/absent derived state, self-healing attention suppression, valid-path skip classification, and resolved-event logging. - Updated UI normalization and fixtures for the shared contract without changing rendering behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts` — 56 passed - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "queues one finish-handoff wake when a successful run leaves in-progress work without a next action"` — 1 passed - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Low risk: no schema or migration changes, and detection, bounded correction attempts, and escalation behavior are unchanged. - Liveness lookups are limited to issues whose latest handoff state is `required`; blocked-inbox suppression reuses rows already loaded by that query path. - Suppression is read-time and self-healing: when the run or wake stops, the alarm returns on the next fetch. > 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`, tool-enabled software-engineering workflow with repository, shell, test, Git, GitHub, and Paperclip control-plane access. Context-window size is not exposed by this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
bd7c0d5f83 |
fix(issues): deduplicate repeated creates (#9650)
## Thinking Path > Paperclip already treats issue creation as a company-scoped mutation, but retries and parallel agent heartbeats can submit the same create more than once. Client instructions cannot provide at-most-once behavior under concurrency, so the guard belongs in the server transaction. This change adds an explicit company-scoped idempotency contract, a conservative fallback for recent open same-parent titles, and run attribution for auditability. Advisory transaction locks serialize competing requests before lookup/insert, avoiding the race that affected the prior attempt. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #6529. This is a clean replacement for #6936, which was closed because it mixed unrelated changes and its check-then-insert implementation was not concurrency-safe. Unlike that attempt, this PR is scoped to eight files, uses a dedicated idempotency-key table, and serializes duplicate candidates inside the create transaction. ## What Changed - Accept optional `idempotencyKey` and `allowDuplicate` fields on issue creation. - Replay the existing issue with HTTP 200 and deduplication metadata for a repeated company/key pair. - Deduplicate recent open issues with the same company, parent, and normalized title for 48 hours unless `allowDuplicate: true` is supplied. - Persist idempotency mappings in a company-scoped table and serialize competing creates with transaction advisory locks. - Populate `originRunId` from `X-Paperclip-Run-Id` for agent/manual creates when the body does not provide an origin run. - Add route integration coverage for key replay, title fallback, bypass, closed/old recreation, company scoping, and run attribution. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts` — 7 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-assigned-backlog-contract-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts` — 10 tests passed after the service-contract compatibility fix. ## Risks - The title fallback intentionally treats normalized same-parent titles as duplicates for 48 hours; callers creating intentionally repeated titles must send `allowDuplicate: true`. - Advisory locks use hashed duplicate keys, so an extremely unlikely hash collision can serialize unrelated creates but cannot merge their lookup results. - Deleting an issue cascades its idempotency mapping, allowing the same key to create a replacement later. ## Model Used - OpenAI `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning effort, Codex CLI with repository, shell, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API tool access. ## 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
|
d32ed88443 |
fix(recovery): route recovery by failure cause (#9634)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies and their work. > - Its recovery subsystem detects stranded issue execution and decides whether to retry, escalate, or request operator intervention. > - The existing recovery path used a mostly generic owner ladder and generic execution contract, so transient failures could wake a manager who then performed the deliverable instead of repairing and returning the task. > - Provider quota failures also entered the same takeover path even when the correct action was to wait for capacity and retry the original assignee. > - Recovery actions already retain the source owner and evidence needed to choose a cause-specific route, render a scoped contract, and measure whether work was handed back. > - This pull request adds a cause-keyed recovery playbook, propagates its contract through every built-in adapter, and makes resolved recovery actions return work to the original owner by default. > - The benefit is bounded self-recovery that preserves task ownership, avoids needless management takeover, and makes recovery outcomes observable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue was found. Related recovery work was reviewed but is not duplicated here: #9630 restores bounded recovery continuations, #8807 changes one assignee-ranking case, and #9404 records runtime-failure transition evidence. This change instead introduces cause-specific routing and recovery contracts across the recovery lifecycle. ### What happened? When an issue became stranded, recovery generally selected an owner through the same fallback ladder and rendered the normal execution contract. That made the recovery wake look like ordinary deliverable work, even when the correct action was to retry the original agent, repair its runtime, or wait for a provider quota reset. ### Expected behavior Recovery should select a response by failure cause, tell the recipient to recover rather than complete the deliverable, suppress takeover wakes for provider quota waits, and return repaired work to its original assignee unless the recovery owner explicitly completes it. ### Actual behavior Recovery could escalate transient failures to management, omit the cause-specific next action from the wake, and leave the recovery owner assigned after the runtime problem was resolved. ### Impact The generic path creates avoidable management work, ownership churn, and budget consumption while obscuring whether recovery successfully returned work to the responsible agent. ## What Changed - Added cause-keyed routing for process loss, missing disposition, provider quota limits, Codex output inactivity, workspace validation failures, and fallback recovery causes. - Added recovery-scoped wake rendering that replaces the generic execution contract with the failure summary, original assignee, attempt count, next action, and cause-specific playbook instruction. - Propagated the structured recovery contract through all built-in adapter execution paths, including Hermes local and gateway adapters. - Added provider-quota wait monitoring so capacity failures schedule the original assignee instead of enqueueing a takeover wake. - Added hand-back behavior and `handed_back` / `owner_completed` outcome accounting when recovery actions are resolved. - Added focused routing, renderer, quota-monitor, and hand-back regression coverage plus implementation-spec documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts` - 4 test files passed; 194 tests passed. - Targeted `pnpm --filter ... typecheck` across `@paperclipai/adapter-utils`, `@paperclipai/shared`, `@paperclipai/server`, `@paperclipai/ui`, and all nine changed adapter packages. - 13 affected workspace packages passed typecheck. - `pnpm check:token-gates` - All UI token gates passed. ## Risks - Recovery routing behavior changes for stranded work, so an incorrectly classified cause could select a different recipient than before; fallback causes retain the existing management ladder. - Provider quota detection depends on structured failure evidence and conservative text matching; unmatched failures continue through fallback recovery. - Adapter prompt plumbing changes across built-ins, covered by shared renderer tests and compile-time call signatures. > 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 exact model ID `gpt-5.6-sol`, using reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose its configured 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ae77908618 |
feat(search): add bulk extract endpoint (#9507)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies > - Agents and operators need company-scoped search to discover relevant issue history safely > - The interactive search endpoint intentionally returns compact excerpts and low pagination caps for UI use > - Automation that inventories repeated references, such as pull-request URLs, needs exhaustive distinct matches without loading full issue objects into an LLM context > - Client-provided regular expressions would create an unsafe and expensive query surface, so extraction must remain literal with server-owned expansion modes > - This pull request adds a bounded agent-oriented extraction endpoint with explicit truncation > - The benefit is deterministic, compact bulk discovery across issues, comments, and documents while preserving company authorization and rate limits ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected `server/` REST API and `packages/shared/` contracts. ### Problem or motivation The existing interactive company search caps issue pagination and snippets, so automation cannot reliably enumerate every distinct literal or pull-request URL across issue descriptions, comments, and linked documents without fetching large full issue payloads. ### Proposed solution Add `GET /api/companies/:companyId/search/extract` with escaped literal matching, optional server-owned URL token expansion, issue/comment/document scopes, status/date filters, higher issue-level pagination caps, compact source references, and explicit pagination/match truncation flags. ### Alternatives considered Reusing `GET /issues?q=` would return unnecessarily large issue objects; increasing interactive-search snippet limits would make the UI API heavier; accepting arbitrary client regex would expose avoidable database cost and ReDoS risk. ### Roadmap alignment `ROADMAP.md` does not currently list a conflicting company-search or bulk-extraction initiative. GitHub searches found no directly duplicative open issue or pull request. ## What Changed - Added shared query validation and response contracts for literal and URL extraction. - Added a company-scoped extraction service that pages issues, gathers matching issue/comment/document sources, expands URL tokens, deduplicates values, and reports truncation explicitly. - Added the authenticated route using the existing company-search authorization decision and rate limiter. - Added targeted Vitest coverage for URL extraction, multi-source dedupe, date/status filters, match caps, cross-company denial, and rate limiting. - Documented the extraction surface in the implementation specification. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts` — 30 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check` — passed. ## Risks - Bulk substring search can scan large text columns. The endpoint mitigates this with a minimum literal length, bounded issue pagination, a 20-distinct-match cap per issue, explicit truncation, existing company-search rate limiting, and no client-provided regex. - URL expansion uses a fixed server-owned pattern plus an escaped literal. A security review is requested as part of PR review to confirm the pattern and abuse controls. - No database migration or existing API response shape changes are included. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI coding agent; exact runtime model ID and context-window size were not exposed to the session. Tool-enabled code execution and repository editing were used with medium reasoning effort. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Jannes StubbemannandClaude Opus 4.7
|
7f2ed0ad90 |
security(server): close cross-tenant existence oracle (404 instead of 403) (#3967)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - In a multi-tenant deployment, route handlers that take a resource id (`issue`, `goal`, `project`, `approval`, etc.) look the resource up by id and then call `assertCompanyAccess` on its `companyId` — 404 if it doesn't exist, 403 if it exists in another tenant > - The split status codes are a classic *existence oracle*: any authenticated user can enumerate ids across tenants by probing for the 403/404 boundary, mapping out which issues, labels, approvals, etc. exist in other customers' tenants even when they cannot read the contents > - The right fix is a single uniform 404 for both "not found" and "found but cross-tenant", which collapses the oracle but still preserves write-path checks (active membership, viewer-readonly) for *authorized* tenants > - This pull request adds a non-throwing `hasCompanyAccess(req, companyId)` helper plus a `getAccessibleResource` wrapper that ~130 handlers across 14 route files now use, folding the access check into the existence check while still running `assertCompanyAccess` for authorized tenants so viewer-readonly / inactive-membership rejections fire unchanged on write paths > - The benefit is closing a multi-tenant information leak without breaking write-path security or single-tenant local-first behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #709 — asks for company-scope regression coverage across approval/activity/access routes, because a subtle route refactor could leak cross-tenant data; this PR hardens exactly those surfaces (uniform 404 across 14 route files including `approvals`, `activity`, `secrets`) and updates cross-tenant expectations in test files. It does not add the full coverage matrix #709 asks for — hence Refs, not Closes. No existing issue covers the oracle itself — described in-PR: - Route handlers returned 404 for "not found" but 403 for "exists in another tenant", a classic *existence oracle*: any authenticated user could enumerate ids across tenants by probing the 403/404 boundary. - That maps out which issues, labels, approvals, etc. exist in other customers' tenants even when their contents are unreadable. - Fix: a uniform 404 for both cases, while keeping write-path checks (active membership, viewer-readonly) for authorized tenants. ## What Changed - **`server/src/routes/authz.ts`** — new `hasCompanyAccess(req, companyId): boolean` helper alongside the existing `assertCompanyAccess`. Docstring spells out the two-step pattern (404 gate, then `assertCompanyAccess` for write-path checks). The helper mirrors `assertCompanyAccess`'s company-scope semantics exactly — in particular, signed-in instance admins do **not** get blanket access to companies they are not a member of (the repo's `authz-company-access` tests pin that behavior for `assertCompanyAccess`; an earlier draft of the helper accidentally widened it for reads). - **`getAccessibleResource(req, res, lookup, notFoundMessage)`** — the safe thing is now the easy thing. One helper wraps the whole pattern (uniform 404 for missing/cross-tenant, then `assertCompanyAccess` for write-path membership checks) and ~130 handlers across 14 route files use it: ```ts const goal = await getAccessibleResource(req, res, svc.getById(id), "Goal not found"); if (!goal) return; ``` Files: `activity`, `agents`, `approvals`, `assets`, `costs`, `environments`, `execution-workspaces`, `file-resources`, `goals`, `issue-tree-control`, `issues`, `projects`, `routines`, `secrets`. Handlers with bespoke not-found behavior (the legacy `200 []` contract, audit-logged denials in `file-resources`, null-returning authz helpers) compose `hasCompanyAccess` directly using the documented two-step pattern: ```ts // step 1: close the oracle (uniform 404 for both not-found and cross-tenant) if (!existing || !hasCompanyAccess(req, existing.companyId)) { res.status(404).json({ error: "Goal not found" }); return; } // step 2: enforce write-path membership checks for authorised tenants (no-op on GET) assertCompanyAccess(req, existing.companyId); ``` Routes where `companyId` comes from *request input* (`req.params.companyId`, `req.body.companyId`, e.g. in `companies.ts` and `plugins.ts`) deliberately retain plain `assertCompanyAccess` — there's no existence oracle to close because the companyId is an input, not a discovered value. - **Full-sweep coverage** — a scripted audit of every `assertCompanyAccess(req, <resource>.companyId)` call site in `server/src/routes/` found ~55 lookup-then-assert pairs the first pass missed; all are now gated. Notable ones: the `/secret-provider-configs/:id` CRUD routes, the agents instructions-bundle/config-revision/skills-sync routes (which check access via the `assertCanUpdateAgent` / `assertCanReadAgent` / `assertCanManageInstructionsPath` helpers), `POST /heartbeat-runs/:runId/watchdog-decisions`, `GET /issues/:id/cost-summary`, the environment + environment-lease GET routes, all six issue-tree-control routes, ~24 issue sub-resource routes (document annotations, interactions, approvals links, recovery actions, plan decompositions, lock/unlock), and the three workspace file-resource routes (these throw `notFound` instead of `forbidden` inside their audit-logging wrappers, so denied attempts are still activity-logged server-side while the client sees a uniform 404). - **Helpers made self-defending** — `assertCanUpdateAgent` / `assertCanReadAgent` / `assertCanManageInstructionsPath` (agents) and `assertCanManage{Project,Execution}WorkspaceRuntimeServices` throw `notFound` for cross-tenant resources before their `assertCompanyAccess` step, so a future caller that forgets the route-level gate still can't reopen the oracle. - **Pattern enforcement** — new `authz-existence-oracle-guard.test.ts` statically scans `server/src/routes/*.ts` and fails CI on any `assertCompanyAccess(req, <resource>.companyId)` call that is not preceded by a `hasCompanyAccess` gate, with an explicit allowlist (plus staleness check) for the request-input cases. New routes that regress to the 403/404 split fail the suite with a message pointing at the documented pattern. - **Tests** — cross-tenant expectations updated from 403→404 where routes are now gated; new `hasCompanyAccess` unit tests in `authz-company-access.test.ts` pin the instance-admin/local-implicit/agent/none semantics in lockstep with `assertCompanyAccess`; `write-path-membership.test.ts` (added in an earlier round) confirms viewer/inactive users are still rejected on writes. - **One legacy-contract preserve** — `GET /heartbeat-runs/:runId/issues` still returns `200 []` for both "doesn't exist" and "cross-tenant" so the legacy contract is preserved while the oracle stays closed. ## Verification - `pnpm run typecheck` — PASS. - `pnpm -F @paperclipai/server exec vitest run` — full server suite green locally apart from 4 pre-existing local-environment failures (`paperclip-skill-utils` ×2 and `workspace-runtime` ×1 are cwd/git-environment dependent — verified identical on a clean checkout of the base; `heartbeat-process-recovery` is the known macOS flake). - The new `authz-existence-oracle-guard` test sweeps `server/src/routes/*.ts` and confirms no remaining `assertCompanyAccess(resource.companyId)` site without a `hasCompanyAccess` gate; the only allowlisted holdouts take `companyId` from request input. ## Risks - **API contract narrowing.** Any client that specifically checked for `403` on cross-tenant access now sees `404`. This is a strict narrowing (one status instead of two for the same negative outcome) and matches what a client should expect for any id it can't access. - **Write-path checks preserved.** `assertCompanyAccess` still runs after the 404 gate on write routes, so viewer-readonly / inactive-membership rejections fire unchanged for legitimate users. - **Instance-admin scope unchanged.** `hasCompanyAccess` denies signed-in instance admins without an explicit membership, exactly like `assertCompanyAccess` (pinned by unit tests) — so the gate introduces no new read access for admins. - **Single-tenant local-first deploys** behave identically — the helper short-circuits to `true` for `local_implicit` sessions. - No new env vars, no deployment-mode switch. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context), extended thinking mode; completeness sweep + instance-admin parity fix by Claude Fable 5 (1M context). ## Checklist - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] Thinking path traces from project context to this change - [x] Model used specified - [x] Checked ROADMAP.md — part of the multi-tenant hardening initiative - [x] Tests run locally and pass - [x] Added/updated cross-tenant 404 expectations across test files - [x] No UI changes - [x] Documented risks above - [x] Will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge Part of the multi-tenant hardening initiative — see also #5864 (per-company JWT keys) and #5865 (plugin tables `company_id`). --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
931eec3fbf |
feat(mcp) [split 4/8]: wire gateway runtime and Smoke Lab (#9559)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 4/8 and focuses on gateway runtime, Smoke Lab, plugins, and server wiring > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: The policy core needs runtime execution, endpoint guards, route registration, heartbeat integration, and adapter MCP injection to become operational. - Proposed solution: Adds the remaining server routes/wiring/consumers, runtime tests, adapter-utils MCP contracts, and Claude/Codex injection implementations required by the server layer. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/03-server-tool-access`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: SecurityEngineer for gateway, endpoint guard, token issuance, and runtime wiring; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds the remaining server routes/wiring/consumers, runtime tests, adapter-utils MCP contracts, and Claude/Codex injection implementations required by the server layer. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - Changed server test set — 26 files, 382 tests passed - Affected server adapter tests — 38 tests passed after concrete adapter boundary move - Adapter-utils and Codex focused tests — 76 tests passed ## Risks - Remote endpoint validation, token handling, and runtime supervision are security-sensitive and can fail closed or deny legitimate access if misconfigured. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
36ec79c196 |
feat: add attention queue and Decisions surface (#9380)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, where operators need a reliable way to find and act on work awaiting their input. > - The attention and issue-thread interaction subsystems expose those decision points across server APIs and the board UI. > - The previous navigation and interaction presentation left these actions fragmented and did not offer a controlled rollout for the Decisions surface. > - This branch adds the attention feed, richer interaction cards, grouping, dismiss/snooze behavior, and a gated Decisions sidebar entry. > - It also keeps experimental settings and API contracts synchronized, with an idempotent migration for the new dismissal state. > - This pull request delivers the complete, tested attention/Decisions experience as one reviewable unit. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Adds an operator-focused attention queue and Decisions experience: grouped decision cards, semantic interaction actions, dismiss/snooze handling, resilient interaction states, and an experimental flag to control the Decisions navigation entry. ## Feature Context ### Problem or Motivation Operators currently have to hunt across approvals, interactions, failed runs, and budget alerts to find decisions that need their action. ### Proposed Solution Provide a gated Decisions attention queue that groups actionable items, supports direct resolution, and preserves operator control through dismiss and snooze actions. ### Alternatives Considered Keep separate, source-specific views only; this leaves cross-cutting operator decisions fragmented and harder to prioritize. ### Roadmap Alignment This improves the V1 control-plane operator workflow by making pending governed actions discoverable in one company-scoped surface. ## What Changed - Added server attention-feed services, routes, interaction handling, dismiss/snooze support, and an idempotent `0145` inbox-dismissal migration. - Added shared attention, inbox-dismissal, and experimental-settings contracts. - Added Decisions/attention UI, interaction-card states, sidebar badge/navigation integration, grouping, keyboard support, and Storybook coverage. - Added tests for attention behavior, thread interactions, settings normalization, dismissals, and API behavior. - Removed generated screenshots from the final PR diff and rebased the branch onto current `master`. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-dismissals.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — passed: 158 tests across 9 focused files. - GitHub Actions for `ad636f560`: build and typecheck/release-registry have passed; remaining general-server and Greptile checks are in progress. ## Risks - Moderate: this is a cross-layer attention/interaction feature with a new migration and navigation behavior. - The `enableDecisions` experimental setting defaults to off, limiting rollout impact. - Existing dismissal data is backfilled to `dismiss`; the migration is idempotent and uses guarded constraint creation. > ROADMAP.md was checked; no duplicate planned core feature was identified. Related open pull requests were searched before opening this PR. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with tool use and local code execution. Context-window size unavailable in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My public PR branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally; focused tests pass and the remaining unrelated AWS test failure is documented above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
606aa4f266 |
feat(search): filters, sorting, operators & command-palette parity (#9327)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Company search is the primary way operators find issues, comments, documents, artifacts, agents, and projects across a busy company > - Search previously supported only a bare text query: no way to narrow by status/assignee/project/label/date, no sort control, no typed operators, and weak relevance/snippets meant hunting through noise > - As companies accumulate tens of thousands of items, unfiltered single-sort search stops scaling for day-to-day operator workflows > - This pull request adds a full filtering model (filter bar, chips, mobile sheet, URL state), sort modes, typed query operators (`status:`, `assignee:`, `type:`, …) with command-palette parity, relevance/snippet/deep-link improvements, zero-results recovery, and the supporting shared validators, backend service work, and DB indexes > - The benefit is that operators can go from a vague query to the exact item in a couple of keystrokes, on desktop and mobile, with shareable filtered-search URLs ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing public GitHub issue; describing the underlying feature request inline (per feature_request template): - **Problem:** Company search accepted only a plain text query. Users could not filter results by status, assignee, project, label, or recency; could not change result ordering; and got no guidance when filters emptied the result set. - **Desired solution:** Structured search filters (UI controls + typed query operators + URL parameters), selectable sort modes, better relevance and snippets with exact deep links, and parity between the search page and the command palette. - **Alternatives considered:** Client-side filtering of unfiltered results (does not scale past the fetch limit); a separate "advanced search" page (splits the surface and duplicates state handling). Related (not duplicate) PRs found while searching: #4848 (issue search query planning), #8235 (search rate limiting). ## What Changed - **Shared contract:** new search filter/sort/count/zero-results types and validators in `packages/shared` (`validators/search.ts`, types index). - **Backend:** `server/src/services/company-search.ts` supports issue filters, sort modes, per-filter option counts, snippets, artifact visibility, and zero-results loosen suggestions; single-statement match replaces per-scope scans and predicates are trigram-index compatible (~3.7s → ~350ms on a live 14.8k-hit corpus). - **DB:** migration `0142_company_search_sort_indexes.sql` adds the supporting indexes. - **Search page (`ui/src/pages/Search.tsx`):** filter bar, removable chips, mobile filter sheet with result-count preview, sort menu, URL round-tripping, zero-results recovery UI. - **Query operators (`ui/src/lib/search-query-parser.ts`):** typed operators parsed into filters, operator autocomplete, filter pills. - **Command palette:** operator-aware parsing and full-search handoff. - **Stale-operator fix (latest commit):** typed operator filters are no longer folded into persistent URL-filter state, so deleting a token (e.g. removing `status:blocked` from the input) actually removes the filter from subsequent requests; filter-control edits materialize control state and strip typed tokens so a removed chip cannot resurrect from the input. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/pages/Search.test.tsx` — 19 tests including two new red→green regressions for the stale-operator paths (both fail on the previous commit, pass now). - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/CommandPalette.test.tsx` and `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/company-search-service.test.ts` — operator parity and backend filter/sort/count coverage. - `cd ui && npx tsc --noEmit` — clean. - Manual: open `/search`, type `auth status:blocked`, confirm the status filter applies; delete `status:blocked`, confirm results are unfiltered again; drive the same filters from the filter bar/chips/mobile sheet and confirm the URL round-trips (reload/back/forward preserves state). - Full end-to-end QA pass (9/9 acceptance checks) against the wireframes on desktop (1280px) and mobile (390px) with a live API and browser automation. ## Risks - Additive migration (indexes only, no data rewrites) — safe to roll forward; index creation cost is paid once at migrate time. - Search request shape gains optional parameters only; old clients keep working. - Behavioral shift: filter-control edits now strip typed operator tokens from the query text (their values persist as filter state) — deliberate, so removed filters stay removed. - Ranking changes alter result ordering for existing queries; covered by service tests and the QA pass. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic, extended thinking + tool use) — stale-operator-filter fix, regression tests, PR preparation. - GPT-5 Codex (`codex_local` adapter) and Claude Opus 4.6 (`claude-opus-4-6`) — earlier implementation phases (backend contract, filter UI, operators, ranking) under agent orchestration. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details — pre-existing branch name retained to avoid closing/reopening the PR - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (no user-facing docs affected) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending re-run on latest commit) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending re-review of the stale-filter fix) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
176645187c |
Fix request storm polling and issue-list coalescing (#9190)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The board UI keeps issue, agent, activity, and run state fresh through polling across several pages and sidebar surfaces > - When multiple components or browser tabs poll the same company data at the same time, the API can receive bursts of duplicate issue-list requests > - Those duplicate requests increase database and server load without returning meaningfully different data > - This pull request adds server-side compression/coalescing plus client-side visibility-aware and cross-tab shared polling > - The benefit is lower request volume during normal board usage while preserving fresh UI data for active users ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No exact public GitHub issue was found for this request. Problem: - The board can issue redundant polling requests for the same issue-list data from multiple UI surfaces and tabs. - In busy operator sessions, those bursts can trigger request-storm behavior and unnecessary issue-list load. - Expected behavior is to reuse identical in-flight work server-side and reduce hidden-tab or duplicate-tab polling client-side while preserving normal refresh behavior. Related public context found during duplicate search: - #8206 covers a different board UI 404-storm scope. - #5165 covers separate issue-list behavior around page-size truncation. ## What Changed - Added API compression middleware foundation and a company/created-at index for heartbeat run access. - Added server-side issue-list request storm detection and identical in-flight request coalescing. - Added UI fetch metadata, visibility-aware polling, and request deduplication for issue/activity/client calls. - Added cross-tab shared polling primitives and wired them into the sidebar, inbox, dashboard, issue, project, routine, and agent surfaces. - Resolved the latest `master` migration collision by keeping upstream `0140_built_in_managed_resources.sql` and renumbering this branch's heartbeat-run index migration to `0141_heartbeat_runs_company_created_at_index.sql`; the SQL uses `CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS` for idempotency. - Stabilized server heartbeat cleanup tests exposed by the PR check matrix. - Fixed the Greptile compression follow-up by weakening strong ETags on encoded JSON responses and bypassing compression for streamed/download responses. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — passed after resolving the latest `master` conflict in `IssuesList.tsx` and updating the 200-result cap expectations. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed after the UI conflict resolution. - `jq -e '.entries | length as $n | (map(.idx) | unique | length == $n) and (map(.tag) | unique | length == $n)' packages/db/src/migrations/meta/_journal.json` — passed after renumbering the migration to `0141`. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/api-compression.test.ts` - passed after the compression follow-up. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts` - passed after the compression follow-up. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed after the compression follow-up. - Greptile Review for head `8dbddac41ec273fda404100b4981ddb912fad57b` - passed after the latest conflict/migration fix; all Greptile review threads are resolved. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/api-compression.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts ui/src/api/client.test.ts ui/src/api/issues.test.ts ui/src/lib/polling.test.ts ui/src/lib/cross-tab-poll.test.ts ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issueDetailCache.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/api/client.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issueDetailCache.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-worktree-suppression.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - GitHub PR checks for head `8dbddac41ec273fda404100b4981ddb912fad57b`: all GitHub Actions/status checks passed; Greptile, Superagent, Socket, Snyk, build, typecheck/release registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary dry run, policy, and commitperclip review are green; Storybook visual regression and security-review were skipped/neutral by policy. - Confirmed this branch does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. ## Risks - Medium risk: issue-list coalescing changes request timing and cache semantics for a hot API path. - Medium risk: cross-tab polling uses browser coordination primitives, so older or unusual browser environments need fallback behavior to stay correct. - Low migration risk: the new index migration is ordered after current `master` and uses `CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS`. > 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-based model, tool-enabled with shell/git execution. Exact hosted deployment identifier and context-window size were not surfaced in the agent runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
38cca22b09 |
fix(server): avoid accepted-plan workspace branch freeze before child realization (#9233)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents tackle complex tasks via *plan* flows: a planner decomposes
work into child issues, which are accepted by the board and then
executed
> - When a plan is accepted, `createChild` in `issues.ts` inserts child
issues pre-bound to the parent's already-realized execution workspace —
carrying over its concrete branch ref
> - If the repository's base ref advances between plan acceptance and a
child's first heartbeat, the child inherits a stale branch that no
longer matches the current base
> - At first heartbeat the workspace validator detects the mismatch and
freezes the child ("branch freeze"), blocking it from starting any work
> - The real fix is to strip the concrete workspace binding when
creating accepted-plan children: they should receive only the unresolved
*intent* (mode, baseRef, branchTemplate) and realize a fresh workspace
from the current base on their own first heartbeat
> - This PR implements that strip, adds a regression test that proves a
post-base-advance child realizes cleanly, and also fixes
`parseIssueExecutionWorkspaceSettings` so `environmentId` is not
silently dropped on update round-trips (a latent bug that was masking
the original fix)
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. Bug description follows the
bug-report template:
**What happened:** Accepted-plan decomposition pre-binds child issues to
the parent's realized execution workspace branch (`executionWorkspaceId`
+ `executionWorkspaceBranch`). When `origin/master` advances between
plan acceptance and the child's first heartbeat, the workspace branch
interlock fires and the child is permanently frozen before it can start.
**Expected behavior:** Accepted-plan children should receive only
unresolved workspace intent (mode, git strategy fields) and realize a
fresh isolated worktree from the current base on first heartbeat. A
base-ref advance between acceptance and first-run should be transparent.
**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Accept a plan that decomposes into one or more child issues
(isolated_workspace + git_worktree mode).
2. Allow `origin/master` to advance (new merge).
3. Observe the first child heartbeat: workspace validation fails with a
branch-freeze error.
**Paperclip version:** current `master` (pre-fix).
**Deployment mode:** any (affects all modes that use isolated workspace
+ git worktree strategy).
Supersedes #9227 (earlier attempt, now closed — the fix was incomplete
because `environmentId` was silently dropped during
`parseIssueExecutionWorkspaceSettings` update round-trips, causing the
child workspace to lose its environment binding; this PR includes that
fix).
## What Changed
- **`server/src/issues.ts` — `createChild` / accepted-plan decomposition
path:** strip resolved workspace fields (`executionWorkspaceId`,
concrete branch) when creating accepted-plan children; preserve only
unresolved intent fields (`mode`, `baseRef`, `branchTemplate`,
`environmentId`, runtime/provisioning settings).
- **`server/src/execution-workspace-policy.ts` —
`parseIssueExecutionWorkspaceSettings`:** preserve `environmentId`
through update round-trips (was silently dropped, causing environment to
detach on any workspace settings update).
-
**`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts`:**
new regression test — accepted-plan child created after `origin/master`
moves realizes a fresh isolated worktree from the moved base and passes
workspace execution.
- **`server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`:** extended
workspace-linkage and `createChild` tests covering the accepted-plan
strip and the unchanged direct-child path.
## Verification
```sh
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "workspace linkage|accepted plan decomposition|createChild applies"
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
```
All three pass on this branch.
## Risks
**Low.** The change is scoped to the accepted-plan `createChild` code
path. The direct child / follow-up issue creation path (normal non-plan
decomposition) is unchanged and covered by existing tests. The
`parseIssueExecutionWorkspaceSettings` fix is additive — it now
preserves a field that was previously silently dropped, so no consumer
loses data.
## Model Used
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`), Anthropic, 200K context window,
extended tool use + code generation.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above (supersedes #9227)
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
Dotta
|
88ce6d3575 |
Speed up issue detail payloads (#9125)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Operators spend a lot of time in issue detail pages and agent activity views while supervising work > - Those views were receiving large embedded project, workspace, runtime-service, and heartbeat context payloads > - Large payloads make issue comments and page loads slower, especially on active issues with workspaces and runtime metadata > - This pull request trims the issue detail and activity ledger response shapes to the fields those views need > - The benefit is faster issue detail loading without changing the underlying project, workspace, or run persistence model ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this exact problem, so this PR describes the bug inline using the bug report template fields. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip (or can reproduce on `master`). - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself — not in my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? Issue detail and related activity responses could include bulky embedded metadata such as project environment values, workspace metadata, stopped runtime services, and heartbeat context snapshots. On active issues with workspaces and long activity history, that makes issue comments and page loads slower than needed. ### Expected behavior Issue detail endpoints should return bounded, UI-oriented embeds that avoid shipping large or sensitive internal blobs when the full object graph is not needed. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create or open an issue with a project workspace and execution workspace. 2. Ensure the workspace has runtime services and heartbeat runs with context snapshots. 3. Inspect `GET /api/issues/:id` and the issue activity ledger payloads. 4. Observe that the response includes large embedded project/workspace/runtime/run fields unrelated to rendering the issue detail page. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced against current `master` lineage before this change. ### Deployment mode Local dev / server API behavior. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific (core API payload shape). ### Database mode Not database-related; no migration. ### Access context Board and agent-facing issue detail consumers can both benefit from smaller payloads. ### Node.js version Not version-specific. ### Operating system Not OS-specific. ### Relevant logs or output Not applicable. ### Relevant config (if applicable) Not applicable. ### Additional context Related search: - Searched public GitHub issues for `currentExecutionWorkspace metadata runtimeServices issue detail`; no matching issue found. - Searched public GitHub PRs for `compact currentExecutionWorkspace metadata runtimeServices`; no matching PR found. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII (usernames, file paths, API keys, tokens, company names) and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Added compact response shaping for issue detail project, project workspace, execution workspace, and runtime-service embeds. - Dropped large project `env`, workspace `metadata` / embedded runtime service lists, execution workspace `metadata`, and non-active runtime services from `GET /api/issues/:id` responses. - Removed heartbeat `contextSnapshot` from the activity ledger query result. - Added focused route and activity-service tests covering the compact response shape. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check public/master..HEAD` - Confirmed the branch is based on current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and contains no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. ## Risks Low to medium risk. The persisted data model is unchanged, but consumers relying on the full embedded project/workspace/runtime metadata from `GET /api/issues/:id` will now need to fetch the dedicated resource endpoint instead of depending on the issue detail payload. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with repository file access, shell command execution, GitHub connector usage, and local test execution. Context window and exact hosted model variant are not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
9d5b0e3c57 |
Add read-only issue subtree diagnostics endpoint (#9135)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The issue/task orchestration subsystem tracks parent–child and blocker–dependent relationships, forming a directed acyclic (in intention) subtree below each root issue > - Agents and operators have no lightweight way to inspect the dependency and wake state across an entire issue subtree — they must walk the tree issue-by-issue, making multiple round-trips with full object fetches > - A bounded, read-only subtree diagnostic endpoint lets callers understand the health of an entire work tree (which nodes are blocked, which are cycling, which have pending wakes) from a single authenticated request > - This pull request adds `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/subtree`, a depth/node/per-node capped traversal that reuses the blocker and wake projection helpers from the companion blocker and wake diagnostics endpoints (see Refs #9114, #9133) > - The benefit is that platform operators, monitoring, and coaching tooling can surface \"why is this subtree stalled?\" across all nodes without database access or unbounded graph walks, using only data the caller already has read permission for ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9114 (companion blocker diagnostics endpoint — blocker projection helpers reused here) Refs #9133 (companion wake diagnostics endpoint — wake projection helpers reused here) ## What Changed - **New route** `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/subtree` in `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: returns a bounded subtree traversal rooted at `:id`, with depth/node/per-node caps and explicit truncation flags - **Cycle-safe traversal**: visited-node set prevents infinite loops on any accidental cycle in the ancestry graph - **Per-node authorization**: each subtree node is individually filtered through `assertIssueReadAllowed`; unauthorized nodes are omitted from the response and do not influence aggregate counts - **Blocker and wake reuse**: per-node blocker rows and wake events are projected through the same helpers as #9114 and #9133 — raw wake payloads, raw errors, activity details, and trigger detail fields are stripped - **Low-trust filtering**: the `mention-scoped` low-trust path redacts node/blocker identifiers for unauthorized actors, consistent with #9133 - **Truncation reporting**: response includes `depthTruncated`, `nodeTruncated`, and per-node `blockersTruncated`/`wakesTruncated` flags when caps are hit - **Shared types** in `@paperclipai/shared`: `IssueSubtreeDiagnosticsResponse` and supporting node/blocker/wake types exported from the shared package - **OpenAPI tag registration** for the new route - **API reference docs** in `skills/paperclip/references/api-reference.md` - **Test coverage** (`server/src/__tests__/issue-subtree-diagnostics-routes.test.ts`, embedded Postgres): happy path, quiet singleton (no children/blockers), node cap truncation, mention-scoped low-trust filtering, cross-company denial ## Verification ```bash # Subtree diagnostics tests only pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-subtree-diagnostics-routes.test.ts # Full diagnostics suite (blocker + wake + subtree) pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-diagnostics-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-wake-diagnostics-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-subtree-diagnostics-routes.test.ts # Type-check shared and server packages pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck # Whitespace / diff check git diff --check ``` All commands passed locally (5 subtree tests, 17 total across the three diagnostics test files). ## Risks - **No schema or migration changes** — read-only projection over existing relations; no DDL risk - **Bounded traversal** — depth, node count, and per-node blocker/wake caps prevent unbounded graph walks; truncation is reported explicitly in the response - **Auth boundary** — root issue read is company-scoped and checked before the subtree is built; each subtree node is individually authorized; cross-company access is denied at `assertCompanyAccess` - **No raw payloads** — raw wake payload, raw error, activity details, and trigger detail fields are stripped from all nodes, consistent with the companion endpoints - Low overall risk; the endpoint is additive and read-only ## Model Used - **Provider:** Anthropic - **Model:** Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`) - **Tool use:** yes (file reads, edits, bash execution, Paperclip API calls) - **Reasoning mode:** standard (no extended thinking) ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
31a0080e61 |
Fix wake diagnostics low-trust identifier redaction (#9133)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open-source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The task/issue lifecycle subsystem tracks when agents wake up, are
suppressed, or are deferred, recording each wake request in
`agent_wakeup_requests` and each defer/suppression event in
`activity_log`
> - When an agent appears stuck or doesn't resume after a dependency
resolves, there is currently no read-only API surface to inspect its
wake history — operators must query the database directly
> - Making wake history queryable via a first-class endpoint lets
operators, support, and monitoring tools diagnose "why didn't this agent
wake up?" without database access
> - This pull request adds `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/wakes`,
returning a bounded 14-day/50-row projection of wake requests and
defer/suppression activity events, with a deterministic `diagnosis`
field and a `likelyReason` inference — including a Case-B inference ("no
wake enqueued because a visible blocker is not done") that reuses the
blocker readiness data from the companion blocker diagnostics endpoint
(see Refs #9114)
> - The benefit is that platform operators can answer "why is this agent
not waking up?" from a safe, read-only HTTP endpoint rather than needing
direct database access, and CI/monitoring can assert expected wake
behavior
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9114 (companion blocker diagnostics endpoint, already merged —
this PR extends the same diagnostic surface to wake/activity history)
## What Changed
- **New route** `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/wakes` in
`server/src/routes/issues.ts`: returns a bounded (14-day window, 50-row
cap) projection of `agent_wakeup_requests` rows and wake-relevant
`activity_log` rows (defer/suppression events)
- **Sanitized projection**: raw `payload`, `details`, `error`, and
`triggerDetail` fields are stripped; unknown free-form `source`,
`reason`, and `status` values are projected to `"other"` to prevent
schema bleed
- **Deterministic `diagnosis` and `likelyReason` fields**: includes
Case-B inference ("no wake enqueued — visible blocker not done") that
calls the existing blocker-readiness helper from Slice 1 (#9114) so the
wake surface can explain missing wakes caused by outstanding blockers
- **Auth**: `assertCompanyAccess` + `assertIssueReadAllowed`;
cross-company requests are denied; Case-B blocker inference filters by
caller trust level so hidden (low-trust) blockers are mentioned but not
identified
- **Types in `@paperclipai/shared`**: `IssueWakeDiagnosticsResponse`,
`WakeEvent`, `ActivityEvent` exported from the shared package
- **OpenAPI tag registration** for the new route
- **Skill reference docs** in
`skills/paperclip/references/api-reference.md` documenting the endpoint
contract
- **Test coverage**
(`server/src/__tests__/issue-wake-diagnostics-routes.test.ts`, embedded
Postgres): happy path, empty/null diagnosis, Case-B inference, low-trust
hidden blocker, cross-company denial, raw blob minimization, cap
behaviour, combined blocker+wake test run
## Verification
```bash
# Wake diagnostics tests only
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-wake-diagnostics-routes.test.ts
# Wake + blocker diagnostics together (integration)
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-diagnostics-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-wake-diagnostics-routes.test.ts
# Type-check shared and server packages
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
# Whitespace / diff check
git diff --check
```
All commands passed locally.
## Risks
- **No schema or migration changes** — this is a read-only projection
over existing tables; no DDL risk.
- **Bounded queries** — 14-day window + 50-row cap limit per call; no
unbounded scans.
- **Auth boundary** — cross-company access is denied at
`assertCompanyAccess`; Case-B inference uses the same per-node trust
filtering as the blocker endpoint so low-trust blockers are acknowledged
but not identified.
- Low overall risk; the endpoint is additive and read-only.
## Model Used
- **Provider:** Anthropic
- **Model:** Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`)
- **Tool use:** yes (file reads, edits, bash execution, Paperclip API
calls)
- **Reasoning mode:** standard (no extended thinking)
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
295294d7ce |
Add read-only issue blocker diagnostics endpoint (#9114)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents block each other with `blockedByIssueIds` relationships to express dependencies > - Users and tooling have no lightweight way to inspect *why* an issue is blocked or whether its blockers are themselves ready to resolve > - A read-only diagnostic endpoint over the existing blocker graph lets callers understand dependency chains without requiring a full issue-tree traversal > - This pull request adds `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/blockers` — a bounded, read-only projection over each blocker's readiness state > - The benefit is that callers can surface blocking-chain diagnosis (e.g. "waiting on N blockers, M of which are themselves blocked") from a single authenticated request, using only data they already have read permission for ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Feature description: **Subsystem affected:** `server/` — REST API & orchestration services; `packages/shared` — types, constants, validators, API paths **Problem or motivation** There is no API endpoint to inspect *why* an issue is blocked or to get a per-blocker readiness summary. Clients must walk the issue graph manually or fetch full issue objects, which requires multiple round-trips and is expensive. **Proposed solution** A single `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/blockers` endpoint returns a bounded projection: root issue summary, an ordered blocker list with per-blocker `readiness` state, and a top-level `diagnosis` field summarizing overall blocking status. Authorization mediation omits blockers the caller cannot read, so `diagnosis` only reflects visible data. **Alternatives considered** A general graph-walk query (too broad/expensive for a targeted diagnostic call); enriching the existing `GET /api/issues/:id` response (too coupled to the main response shape and adds weight for callers that do not need blocker detail). **Roadmap alignment** Read-only observability surface over existing data; no database schema changes. This aligns with tooling that helps users understand dependency state without mutating anything. ## What Changed - Added `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/blockers` route to the server - Returns per-blocker `readiness` state and a top-level `diagnosis` field summarizing overall blocking status - Enforces `issue:read` authorization per-blocker: unauthorized blockers are omitted and do not influence `diagnosis` or `readiness` values - Added shared TypeScript response types in `@paperclipai/shared` - Added route-level tests using embedded Postgres - Added API documentation in the `paperclip` skill ## Verification ```sh ./node_modules/.bin/vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-diagnostics-routes.test.ts pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck ``` All three commands pass locally. ## Risks - Read-only endpoint over existing relations — no writes, no schema or migration changes — low risk - Authorization mediation intentionally omits unauthorized blockers from both the list and from `diagnosis`/`readiness`; callers with partial access will see a narrower picture than the full blocker graph ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic - Model: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`) - Context window: 200k tokens - Mode: Tool use, code generation, extended reasoning ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
ad961227f5 |
feat(secrets): add user-specific runtime secrets (#8825)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other environment-bound secrets. > - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not model values that should differ by human operator. > - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value. > - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped runtime checks deterministic and auditable. > - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime resolution gates. > - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required user secrets or active definitions are unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #224 Refs #6057 This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time. Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as #1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here. ## What Changed - Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values, keeping stored values out of access metadata. - Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to pick them alongside existing secret refs. - Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve against the human responsible for the run. - Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are inactive. - Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access. - Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be resolved. - Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures. - Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes. - Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127` migrations. - Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR contains code/docs/tests only. ## Verification - PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on `paperclipai/paperclip:master`. - PASS: `git diff --check` - PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg '^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true` produced no files. - PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130` with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`, `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`, `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`. - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests) - PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final Greptile cleanup fixes) - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests after the final rebase CI fix) - PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery, project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors, watchdog, and stale queue paths. - PASS: GitHub checks are green on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review. - PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5, and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated threads. ## Risks - Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs before adapter dispatch. - `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind explicitly. - External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side access for non-local vaults. - The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge. - The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream migrations; the branch migrations use guarded column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects. > 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 (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter with shell/tool use and code execution. 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 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> |
||
|
Nicky Leach
|
7bfaaadcb8 | Add dependency wake reconciliation backstop (#8943) |
