mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
4cc387f907304e612ac86139d2fbe94f4aa7d80e
89
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
728f7185f6 |
feat: add native in-app announcements with persistent dismissal (#13403)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Self-hosted boards need a way to show occasional product announcements. > - An app release should not be required to publish or withdraw a card. > - Native card controls keep publishing consistent; the hero can use a static image or isolated HTML/CSS animation. > - This pull request renders a validated JSON feed with native components. > - It stores dismissals per account on each instance, so a closed card stays closed across companies and browsers. > - Named staging feeds let authors test content before production publication. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Board application shell, announcement delivery, and user preferences. **Problem or motivation** Operators need a small, optional announcement card. Users need reliable dismissal state. Authors need to test remote content without changing the production feed. **Proposed solution** Add one non-modal AnnouncementWell. Fetch validated JSON and content-addressed media through the instance server. Keep card controls native, with optional sandboxed HTML/CSS animation in the hero. Use stable announcement IDs for dismissal, an explicit empty manifest and quiet 404 handling. Provide a staged publishing helper and isolated test-drive guide. **Alternatives considered** Hosting the entire card as a page would move navigation and dismissal into remote content. This change limits HTML to a scriptless, isolated visual hero and keeps controls native. Browser-only storage would lose dismissals across browsers, so the instance stores account preferences. **Roadmap alignment** ROADMAP.md has no overlapping announcement feature. A GitHub title search found no related announcement pull requests. This work implements a maintainer-requested feature. ## What Changed - Add shared feed types, strict validation of every object, supported routes, expiration and version checks. - Add a board-only current-feed API, constrained media proxy, and idempotent dismissal API. Store the first dismissal and its company audit entry in one transaction. - Cache upstream data for one hour. Use conditional requests, request deduplication, response limits, public destination checks, and a three-second deadline. Treat a remote 404 as an empty feed with a fifteen-minute retry cooldown. - Keep announcement visibility stable when focus moves to browser chrome or another app pane; only tab visibility starts a return check. - Add a responsive native announcement card. Respect onboarding, dialogs and toast placement. Sync pending dismissals across tabs and retry after reconnect or return. - Add idempotent migrations for dismissals and validated publication IDs, design-guide examples, static and animated Storybook examples, and focused tests. The publication registry supports offline retries without accepting caller-invented IDs. - Add HTML/CSS animated heroes with static posters, automatic playback, reduced-motion handling, strict DOMPurify validation, an empty iframe sandbox and CSP that blocks scripts/network resources. - Add validated staging publication, content-addressed assets, an empty production manifest, preview fixtures, and authoring/operator documentation. ## Verification - The preceding implementation passed 98 targeted shared/server/publisher/route/OpenAPI/UI tests and 127 tests including the master rebase. The playback-control removal passes all 21 announcement UI tests, covering the rendered sandbox, fallback, reduced motion, dismissal and slow/stale state lookups. The preceding shared/server tests cover HTML validation and response sandbox headers. - The playback-control removal passes UI typecheck, production UI build, Storybook build and token gates locally. Browser verification confirms the animated card has only its dismiss button and two links, with no page errors. The full canonical CI matrix passed on current head `00e416431edb610861599d50490270bbd0f3c6b6`: 32 successful checks and two optional Storybook deployment checks skipped. This run needed no retries. Greptile reviewed this same head at 5/5 with no outstanding findings. - The local canonical general-server run passed 12,063 tests before reporting embedded-PostgreSQL startup failures in an unrelated fixture. All 31 tests in that fixture passed across isolated retries. The UI group passed 6,219 tests and other workspace groups passed 3,201; two CLI database-startup failures also passed individually. Serialized server suites were verified by the full CI matrix rather than repeating them locally. No source changes were needed for these environment failures. - The real S3/CloudFront staging manifest and both media asset headers were verified. Production remains empty/unpublished. The guide distinguishes the preview host's disabled edge cache from production cache requirements. - In the isolated test-drive, the animation visibly moves without playback controls. A 390×844 browser viewport keeps the card above navigation. Reduced motion makes no animation request. Both themes render correctly and browser page errors are empty. Browser fault injection verified that scripts cannot execute and CSS cannot make network requests; a missing animation leaves its poster and controls. - Refresh leaves the animated card visible. Closing it persists after reload and the API returns null. Earlier live checks verified dismissal across browsers, company-relative CTA navigation, modal deferral/restoration, and new-ID eligibility after restarting the same database. - The deployed empty feed and a real remote 404 return HTTP 200 with null from the board API, with a usable dashboard and no announcement popup or browser warnings. - Authoring documentation covers staging, animated HTML constraints, test-drive, withdrawal, ID reuse and cache-refresh steps. ## Risks - Animation supports self-contained visual HTML/CSS and inline SVG, without JavaScript or external resources. A static image is required. Older builds that do not recognize the optional animation field quietly hide that unsupported feed. - The default feed makes an outbound request from an instance when a board is used. Operators can disable it. Requests contain no account IDs, company data, cookies or interaction events. - Feed publication and withdrawal can take about 65 minutes to reach returning users because of CDN and instance caches. Expiration also removes visible cards locally. - Dismissals follow an account within one instance. No-login instances share the existing local-board identity. Separate installations do not share state. - Both tables are additive. A unique key prevents duplicate dismissals; the transaction prevents duplicate first-dismissal audit entries. The publication registry retains only validated IDs. AGENTS.md and the implementation spec document the required exception to company scope for these instance-level records. - Publication was limited to separate public staging prefixes on the existing preview host. Production remains empty/unpublished. No AWS policies or infrastructure were changed. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Capabilities used: reasoning, code editing, shell execution, tests, browser interaction, and tool use. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [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
|
47ded8bf97 |
feat: manage AI runtime credentials through Connections (#13247)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs need credentials for a specific provider and sign-in method. > - Connections already owns accounts, grants, and access permissions. > - AI authentication should use those same boundaries. > - This pull request adds the storage, API, adoption, and runtime foundation. > - Legacy agents keep their authentication until they explicitly adopt a managed connection. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** AI credentials are configured separately from Connections. Agents cannot consistently reuse a responsible user's account or a permitted shared account. **Proposed solution** Manage AI accounts with the existing Connections grants and permissions. Keep model and harness selection independent from credential selection. Preserve legacy authentication until validated adoption. **Alternatives considered** A separate credential registry would duplicate ownership and access policy. Automatic fallback would risk using the wrong account. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the shipped Apps, multi-user, secrets, and agent-runtime capabilities. The maintainer requested the feature and reviewed the UI. Related groundwork: #11899 (connection permissions), #10910 (connection wizard), #11692 (Claude subscription profiles), and #11854 (Codex account rotation). ## What Changed - Add AI-purpose/runtime-auth contracts and an additive, idempotent migration. - Add Claude, OpenAI, OpenRouter, and Grok provider capabilities and catalog entries. - Store credentials on grants. Resolve responsible-user defaults or explicit permitted grants. - Isolate managed credentials and provider sessions across accounts. Block missing credentials without ambient fallback. - Keep imported legacy secrets unchanged during reconnect. Use independent local Codex/Grok sign-in attempts for rotating credentials. - Add authorization, migration, concurrent refresh, retry, cancellation, and legacy-compatibility tests. This is part 1 of a two-PR stack. The app UI follows in #13248. Merge the foundation first. ## Verification - Updated against master `04e364236`, preserving upstream provider login and connector workflows. - Full workspace typecheck, production build, Storybook build, and token gates passed on the integrated branch. Final local-login changes passed 59 focused tests; new-agent and inbox regression suites passed 63 tests. - Browser checks verified automatic local Claude account detection, resumable Codex login commands, retry, focus restoration, and desktop/phone layouts. Commands create their isolated directory before invoking the CLI. - All current-head CI checks passed on `2a996560a`, including all server/workspace tests, browser shards, runner verification, typecheck, build, and canary dry run. Greptile reviewed that commit at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. Earlier local full-suite attempts hit the Mac PostgreSQL shared-memory limit; the complete suites passed in CI. - Renumbered the additive AI migration to `0276` after upstream migrations and regenerated its snapshot. Existing legacy agents retain their configuration. - Added local login status checks, owner-scoped retry, managed OpenCode remote homes, credential-aware model discovery, and task connection-repair delivery. ## Risks - Managed credential failures intentionally block execution. They do not restore legacy fallback. - Preview-era copied Codex/Grok subscriptions require independent reconnect. - The integrated branch has live provider acceptance coverage. This update verifies local Claude detection and Codex API-key task repair; it does not add a new subscription authorization/refresh or Daytona stress pass. - Runtime-auth connections must stay excluded from tool and channel handling. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. The exact runtime model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this 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
|
1652a5c7f2 |
fix: improve task search relevance with a PostgreSQL rubric (#13335)
Unify full and quick task search around PostgreSQL term coverage, explicit relevance bands, and conservative typo recovery. Preserve matching evidence and navigation, and add a judged corpus, regression tests, and documented performance measurements. Validation: local typecheck, build, focused PostgreSQL tests, and task-list tests pass. All final-head CI gates pass and Greptile is 5/5. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4d317274ce |
feat(channels): add experimental iMessage Photon (#13299)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Channels connect external conversations to company tasks and agent execution. > - Slack, Discord, and AgentMail already provide durable delivery and access controls. > - People also need to reach an agent from Apple Messages and send photos. > - Photon provides shared Pro DMs, dedicated numbers, and authenticated event recovery. > - This pull request connects Photon to the existing channel services. > - People can message an agent while Paperclip retains task ownership and approval authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: channel services, shared contracts, database constraints, Apps, and agent Channels UI. **Problem or motivation** Paperclip has no iMessage channel. A person cannot use Apple Messages to start a task, send a photo, or answer an agent's pending question. **Proposed solution** Add experimental **iMessage Photon** with Pro-compatible shared DMs or a dedicated Photon Cloud number per agent channel. Reuse channel admission, identity links, task generations, publication, and interaction continuation. Keep groups disabled for shared allocation. Dedicated lines support groups that an operator explicitly enables. Require a fresh linked message and a published agent response before setup completes. **Alternatives considered** Shared allocation has no owned phone number, so it reserves one project and allows DMs only. Dedicated allocation reserves one stable number. Local Mac access needs a separate deployment model. The upstream Photon Chat SDK adapter does not persist the poll mappings and send receipts required here. This change uses the lower-level SDK without adding another agent runtime. **Roadmap alignment** This extends Connected Apps and agent communication through the existing channel subsystem. It does not add a parallel tool connection or agent loop. GitHub searches for Photon and iMessage found no matching provider implementation. **Additional context** This ships behind the existing experimental channel gate. Dedicated-line release qualification remains incomplete. Real Photon Pro DMs passed task/reply, native poll, text answers, confirmation rejection, media, restart, pause, reconnect, revocation, and removal tests. An operator-supplied iPhone camera HEIC also passed the full round trip. Dedicated groups remain unqualified. See [the verification record](doc/connections/IMESSAGE-PHOTON-VERIFICATION.md) and [the implementation plan](doc/plans/2026-09-11-imessage-photon.md). ## What Changed - Add the provider catalog entry, shared setup contracts, and a forward migration. A global partial index reserves the dedicated number or shared project until its endpoint is archived. - Add Cloud project inspection, vaulted project credentials, selected-line token renewal, and a leased receiver. Persist checkpoint updates under the receiver lease. Shared project replay accepts sparse increasing sequences only after a complete recovery barrier. - Connect DMs and enabled groups to existing task generations, sender authorization, ordered delivery, and publication services. Keep each iMessage conversation on its task after completion; only explicit `/new` or `/close` releases the binding. Publish committed inbound comments live and label their human bubbles “Sent from iMessage” in both task-chat renderers. - Persist immutable text/file send identities, upload receipts, poll IDs, option IDs, per-person drafts, and canonical interaction continuation proofs. - Add source-bound file recovery, bounded HEIC/HEIF conversion, JPEG previews, and related Live Photo companion video retention. - Add the three-step setup flow and channel management surfaces with official branding. Preserve the experimental gate and existing pause/disconnect behavior. - Add interactive production-component Storybooks for setup, access, recovery, and ongoing conversations. Add provider, integration, catalog, and browser regression coverage. Document setup, recovery, supported boundaries, and qualification gaps. ## Verification - Live Photon Pro, SDK 2.1.0: linked iPhone messages create a task and receive native Codex replies in Apple Messages. Unlinked senders cannot start work. - Three real follow-ups each reopened the same completed task. Incoming bubbles appeared on its open page without reload and showed “Sent from iMessage.” The third follow-up ran after restarting the server on `4d7222110`; the agent correctly repeated its previous reply from before the restart. - Native polls after restart, sequential text drafts, required-field correction, explicit submission, approval rejection with a required reason, and native continuation passed against Photon. - PNG, text documents, synthetic HEIC, and a real iPhone camera HEIC passed in both directions. The camera photo produced a 3024×4032 JPEG preview. The native agent described it and returned the received HEIC byte-for-byte. - Pause/resume, reconnect, identity revocation, removal, `/status`, `/new`, `/close`, and stale answers after close passed live. Messages suppressed by pause did not become work on resume. Removal stopped intake and removed credential bindings. - All 304 focused tests passed on `4d7222110`. These cover Photon unit/integration behavior, both task-chat renderers, live comment hydration, completed-task continuity after restart, enabled groups, duplicate delivery, and explicit reset/close. The selected Teams completion-boundary regression also passed. Full workspace typecheck/build and token gates passed for the conversation fix; the final UI changes passed their affected typecheck/build and tests. - All 26 new Photon Storybook Playwright cases passed in light and dark themes, including the complete shared-DM setup journey and 390px mobile follow-ups. UI typecheck and the Storybook build passed. These stories use simulated Photon responses and do not replace the live evidence above. - The full chat-adapters browser suite previously passed all 39 cases. Migration checks passed, and migration 0275 applied to the isolated live instance with the earlier Photon migration already applied. - The local full Vitest run was previously interrupted by the host's embedded-Postgres shared-memory limit; it is not a full-suite pass. All 30 applicable CI checks passed on preceding head `7a5419cac`, with two skipped checks and Greptile 5/5. Head `24f8e1aae` adds an explicit required-story discovery guard to the 26 passing Storybook cases. Greptile rates this final head 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. All 30 applicable CI checks passed, with two optional checks skipped. - A repeated live send key suppressed the duplicate but returned gRPC 6 / SDK `internalError` without an original receipt. Paperclip keeps unknown delivery unresolved. This provider behavior is covered by a regression test. - See [the verification record](doc/connections/IMESSAGE-PHOTON-VERIFICATION.md) for package versions, redacted live evidence, deterministic coverage, and remaining qualification gaps. ## Risks - Dedicated group qualification remains unrun; groups are disabled for the approved Pro scope. Real iPhone camera HEIC passed transport, preview generation, agent inspection, and return. Keep the channel experimental; the dedicated-line release matrix remains incomplete. - Shared recovery and attachment aliases were verified against the live gateway. Duplicate writes currently return an error without the original receipt; unresolved sends require operator resolution. The implementation fails visibly on invalid replay ordering, a reset cursor, or changed identity. - The HEIF converter passed on macOS arm64 and in Linux CI. Windows HEIF binaries have not been executed in this work. Linux musl has no packaged converter. Unsupported conversion retains the original and reports the missing preview. - The migration adds a global reservation across companies for Photon numbers and shared projects. Paused and revoked endpoints keep that reservation until removal. - Integration touches shared channel services. Existing provider browser coverage passes; broad repository verification is recorded above. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded under repository policy. The repository bot owns lockfile updates. The additional Superagent supply-chain scan is neutral/inconclusive because these new dependencies are not yet in the committed lockfile. Its security scan passed; all required CI checks pass. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, browser testing, and tool use. The exact served model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. No sub-agents were 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c9021c6721 |
fix: require explicit native completion reviews (#13314)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native runs report their outcome through paperclip_finish. > - The server previously turned incomplete reports into human approval requests. > - Those requests could block a later successful run, even when no person had requested review. > - This pull request creates review cards only for explicit attention requests and withdraws proven old fallback cards. > - Agents receive useful completion feedback, while explicit approval gates and task state protections remain in force. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #13266 removed reviews caused by policy upgrades. This change removes the separate completion fallback. **What happened?** An agent reported needs_review while waiting for checks without requesting a human decision. Paperclip created a generic Native completion review. A later successful report could not complete the task because that old card remained pending. **Expected behavior** Ordinary low-risk work completes after a valid done report, a successful run, and workspace finalization. Incomplete work stays with the agent. Explicit approval requests remain visible and must be resolved. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Complete a native run with needs_review and no attention requests. 2. Continue the task and submit a successful done report. 3. Observe that the old implementation leaves the task in review behind a generic confirmation card. ## What Changed - Require explicit attention requests to create native review cards. Route each request independently and preserve pending or declined decisions. - Withdraw only pending system cards with matching old decision, assessment, effect, contract, and prompt provenance. Preserve history and explicit or answered requests. - Reassess an affected current result without overwriting later task edits, runs, contracts, or workspace failures. - Return pending approval links and required actions through the completion tool. Reject contradictory done reports and empty review requests before accepting a result. - Allow one corrective continuation for incomplete results, then expose a recovery action. - Update status fixtures, database regressions, runner tests, and the completion contract documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after merging current master. - `pnpm build` passed after merging current master. - The combined branch passed 89 completion and Agent Chat tests. Other targeted tests passed: 170 external-chat and reconciliation tests; 50 runner-resume and control-plane tests; 13 arbiter tests; 7 chat delivery tests; 21 runner completion and runtime-context tests. - The full local test attempt exposed old review fixtures and a missing fake-provider binary. The fixtures are fixed and the helper is built. All affected suites pass in fresh reruns. The timing-sensitive Discord test also passed on rerun. - All latest-head CI checks passed, including build, typecheck, general and serialized tests, runner verification, browser tests, and canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved comments. ## Risks - Cleanup changes existing pending cards. It requires exact system provenance and only applies to low-risk agent-claim contracts. It does not delete history or dismiss explicit requests. - Status still commits after the turn and workspace finalization. Completion feedback reports current constraints and does not claim an early status commit. - Incomplete reports now request a bounded corrective run instead of an automatic approval. Repeated failures expose recovery. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and test tools. The exact deployment identifier and context window size are not exposed in this 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
|
ab15aff390 |
feat: add experimental persistent agent chat (#13284)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Conversations must use the same tasks, controls, and execution history. > - Users need an ongoing chat with an agent without managing task properties. > - Agents should clarify and plan work, then hand execution to assigned project tasks. > - This pull request combines the reviewed Agent Chat stack for one squash merge. > - The benefit is persistent conversation with normal task governance and shared UI. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Task lifecycle, agent runtime tools, shared task UI, and browser/paid runner tests. **Problem or motivation** Users need one persistent conversation with each agent. A separate chat store or renderer would duplicate task behavior and bypass existing controls. **Proposed solution** Use a task-backed chat per company, user, and agent. Reuse the task composer and transcript. Clarify and plan in chat, then create assigned project tasks with the relevant plan. Keep Agent Chat behind its own disabled-by-default experimental setting. **Roadmap alignment** This implements the task-backed direction in [CEO Chat](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/master/ROADMAP.md#-ceo-chat). Related proposals: #2504 and #9693. Related request: #7981. The maintainer requested one squash merge of the complete stack. Consolidates the reviewed runtime [#13281](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13281), backend [#13282](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13282), and UI [#13283](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13283) layers with this PR's E2E coverage. All four layers passed CI and received Greptile 5/5 before consolidation. This PR targets master and includes the complete feature. ## What Changed - Add personal canonical chat tasks with ordinary company visibility, immutable identity, idempotent first sends, and an idle waiting state. - Process `/new` in queue order. Preserve history, release a chat pause, and fence old provider context and delayed writes. - Keep chat lifecycle rules across recovery, finalization, assignment, task lists, and rollups. - Support research and plan revision in chat. Hand plans to ordinary assigned project tasks before execution starts. Reject new chat subtasks. - Add repository-aware project creation and discovery tools, including multiple repository IDs and GitHub URLs, authorization, idempotency, and durable project-created cards. - Reuse task UI components for chat, with starred/recent agent navigation and a separate `enableAgentChat` experimental flag. - Add deterministic browser tests and 24 paid chat cells across four Codex/Claude profiles, with validated reports and screenshots. - Integrate current master recovery, controller lease, queued-message, and task UI changes. Gate chat interruption and deferred promotion on ownership/feature policy. Guarantee lease renewal and active controls are stopped even if teardown fails. - Preserve master's migration 0273 and generate chat migration 0274 with idempotent replay for development databases. ## Verification - Prior exact heads of all four PRs passed Linux CI, including build, typecheck, general/serialized tests, and browser E2E. Each had Greptile 5/5 and no unresolved findings. - Integrated local verification passed: full repository typecheck and production build, Storybook build, token gates, 340 focused UI tests, all 20 deterministic chat browser tests, two migration replay tests, 88 focused chat/queue/native/controller tests, and provider/session regressions including real lease expiry. These include the three lifecycle regressions for the final admission/teardown fixes; server typecheck also passes. Current head `1268eda16cc2af892055917e7292f068820be135` has Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings and passing security scans. All final-head CI gates passed: build, full Runner verification, typecheck/release registry, canary, all general/serialized test shards, and all browser E2E shards ([CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34696739927)). Local PostgreSQL startup contention required serialized retries; skipped fixtures do not count as passing coverage. - The earlier paid campaign passed all 24 chat cells and retained 32 screenshots: [report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-34648511170-1/index.html?report=agent-chat#suite-agent-chat). It tested `abacbdfd2f660709ec37312cdb758284c8399d04`; it is prior evidence, not a paid run of this integrated head. - Manual check: enable Agent Chat in Experimental settings, open an agent, clarify and revise a plan, then hand off to an assigned project task. Stop a reply, send `/new`, and verify fresh context with retained history. Disable the setting and verify agent shortcuts/new chat turns are blocked. ## Risks - Queue/session integration can affect retries and delayed writes. Tests cover ownership, cancellation, reset boundaries, idle recovery, and ordinary task behavior. - Migration 0274 adds conversation fields and constraints. Replay is idempotent and preserves existing development chat history. - This combines the previously reviewed stack at the maintainer's request. Agent Chat remains off by default and is separate from Conference Room. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 Astra (`gpt-6-astra`), with reasoning, code execution, browser tools, and parallel review. The exact context-window size is not exposed in this session. Codex and Claude also ran as test subjects in the linked paid campaign. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
dbf5ea432d |
fix: protect starting runs during overlapping deployments (#13285)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip controls agent work across service deployments. > - A run can provision a remote sandbox before a process or invocation event exists. > - Each container previously treated its own missing process handle as proof that the run was orphaned. > - Overlapping deployments could therefore fail a run owned by another container. > - This pull request records and renews a controller lease before provisioning. > - A recovery worker must revoke an expired owner before it finalizes the run. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Merged PR #13272 records startup adapter identity and restores explicit user continuation. This PR adds controller ownership on top of current master. Refs #7997 and #10442 for related replica and ownership problems. Related #13138 addresses silence and detached local processes; this change does not infer death from silence. **What happened?** During an overlapping hosted service deployment, a new container reaped a legacy conversation run that another container was provisioning. The run had no PID or adapter invocation yet. **Expected behavior** A live controller keeps its run. After controller loss, one recovery worker takes cleanup authority and the old controller cannot dispatch further work. **Steps to reproduce** Claim a legacy run in controller A. Start controller B against the same database before A finishes provisioning. Run the startup reaper in B. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed on `663c44cb2b9c28336d38d0b4a6971f4f1964bce6` in a hosted Railway deployment with a Daytona environment. ## What Changed - Add nullable controller boot ID, lease deadline, and execution stage columns. Claim ownership in the queued-to-running update. - Renew ownership independently of run output. Abort and reject dispatch if renewal fails. - Serialize reaper revocation against renewal. Let unfinished recovery claims expire after a restart. - Restrict graceful shutdown to legacy runs owned by the current controller. - Hand ownership back to the existing native coordinator when runtime selection becomes native. - Add twelve database regressions and document the lease contract. Update the task-drain regression to require controller expiry before reaping. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/legacy-controller-lease.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-task-drain-admission-release.test.ts`: 14 passed after rebasing onto master (`f12b647ae`). - Queue-interruption regressions in `heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts`: 2 passed after preserving the new cleanup promotion from #13275. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`: passed after rebuilding runner TypeScript outputs for the updated master. Broad local tests are omitted at the maintainer’s request; CI owns broad coverage. - Latest-head CI passed on `f255e8e4d5ab2b24b12638a02434e6aa8a2285c5`: [run 34658248569](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34658248569). All test shards, browser suites, typecheck, build, canary, and security checks passed. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks - Additive, idempotent migration; historical rows retain the previous recovery behavior. - Database unavailability aborts new dispatch rather than permitting an unfenced controller to continue. - Lease expiry is permission to clean up, not evidence that remote inference stopped. Follow-up PRs add persistent cleanup and automatic continuation. - Mixed-version deployment still includes old binaries whose reapers do not understand controller leases. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, using reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and test tools. The precise backend revision and context-window size are not exposed in this 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
|
9031516a7e |
fix: recover legacy Daytona startup failures from task and inbox (#13272)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Legacy conversation adapters can run in Daytona sandboxes. > - A server restart during provisioning can occur before the invocation event exists. > - Recovery then lacks the old adapter identity and leaves a hold that ordinary user retries cannot clear. > - A remote launch can also fail when its host relay looks for Node in the sandbox PATH. > - This pull request records the adapter at claim time and restores explicit user continuation after verified cleanup. > - Users can recover from the task or inbox while the failed run and uncertain action history remain intact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13237, #13239, #13254. Those changes cover recorded conversation runs, native user continuation, and explicit remote Stop. This change covers legacy failure before `adapter.invoke` and exact task/inbox Retry. Refs #9771 for overlapping generated-command quoting. This change also supplies the absolute host Node executable. Refs #13163 and #13264 for the separate native restart and retained-workspace work. **What happened?** A legacy Daytona run interrupted during provisioning became `process_lost` without an invocation event. Recovery preserved an execution hold, and Retry or a new task reply could not resume it. Cleanup could also run before the Daytona plugin was ready. On a macOS host, a subsequent ACP relay launch failed with `env: node: No such file or directory` because the remote launch environment did not contain the host Node path. **Expected behavior** An interrupted conversation can continue after its previous execution stops. Explicit Retry and new user replies should start a fresh turn with the task history. Cleanup failures must remain visible and recoverable. The host relay must use the host Node executable. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Use a legacy Claude adapter with a Daytona environment. 2. Interrupt the server after it acquires the sandbox lease and before it records `adapter.invoke`. 3. Restart and inspect the task hold. 4. Retry from the task or inbox, or send a new task reply. 5. Confirm the old sandbox has stopped and one new response arrives. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced from master at `3bafac12f796fbea02e609e1074a9639f872e9c4`. The branch is rebased on `51b0e01ea`, including #13261 and #13270. **Deployment mode** Built from source on macOS with a real Daytona sandbox and the legacy Claude ACP adapter. ## What Changed - Count new browser specs with the scheduler's median duration in the shard-balance check. This fixes a false policy failure after new specs arrive from both branches. The balance threshold is unchanged. - Persist server-owned adapter identity in the queued-to-running claim before provisioning starts. - Wait for provider plugin startup before restart cleanup. Keep failed cleanup leases as active ownership blockers. - Admit exact board retries and new user comments after verified termination. Retain the old run, task history, approvals, and unknown action outcomes. - Adopt repeated Retry requests. Permit one scoped cleanup attempt per explicit user Retry after the automatic limit, with an activity record. A later user Retry can recover after a transient provider failure; automatic attempts remain capped. - Resume replies deferred during cleanup, including historical legacy startup failures. - Launch the host ACP relay through the absolute host Node executable. - Add a task-level Retry button and return actionable blockers when retry admission is refused. - Add database regressions and three browser recovery journeys. Exclude installed third-party dependency skills from the shipped-skill audit. ## Verification - Current head: `d23c84181`, rebased on `51b0e01ea`. Conflict resolution retains the saved-message recovery, local stop receipts, and wait reasons from #13270 alongside exact legacy Retry support. - Real Daytona: interrupted the server after lease acquisition and before adapter invocation. Restart cleanup confirmed provider termination. Task Retry cleared a seeded historical hold and a real Claude agent returned `Recovery verified.` in the task. Removed the disposable sandbox and environment after testing. - All three browser recovery journeys passed again after the final rebase. Task Retry, Inbox Retry, and a new reply each produced one fresh successor, completed the task, preserved the failed run, and retained the answer after reload. - All 29 e2e/server shard-partition tests passed. The balance check now uses the scheduler's median fallback for unmeasured specs, with the same balance threshold. - Server typecheck passed after rebuilding the generated runner dependencies. The combined recovery/route run passed 136 of 137 tests. Its remaining route test timed out during the first cold module import at its explicit 10-second limit; an isolated rerun reproduced that timeout and passed the other 51 route cases. The complete CI suite passed on this head. The same route file passed all 52 cases in CI, including the first cold import in 7.5 seconds. - Before the final rebase, recursive typecheck, full build, UI token gates, 132 targeted server tests, and the complete [CI workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34650004085) passed. The subsequent CI failure was the shard-balance accounting mismatch fixed here. - Greptile reviewed `d23c84181` at 5/5 with no outstanding actionable findings. The complete [current CI workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34653327949) passed on attempt 2. All test, typecheck, build, and canary jobs passed on the first attempt. Docker setup timed out fetching BuildKit from Docker Hub; retrying that job and its dependent aggregate succeeded. ## Risks - Recovery admission changes executable authority. Company, task, agent, user, approvals, process ownership, and provider termination checks remain required. - Explicit continuation starts a fresh conversation with history. It does not certify unknown external action outcomes or rerun non-conversation adapters automatically. - Changing task status alone does not clear an execution hold. The task now offers an explicit Retry action. - Historical adapter claims and invocation events take precedence over current agent settings. Known process or webhook runs retain their hold. Pre-upgrade rows with no adapter evidence may receive only a new explicit user turn after termination proof; they do not become eligible for automatic replay. - No schema migration or sandbox-image change is required. This branch has not been deployed to production. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, code execution, browser automation, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this 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 - [ ] 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
|
51b0e01ead |
fix: resume saved user messages after execution recovery (#13270)
Preserve verified native process-stop evidence and retry saved user messages through normal continuation admission after recovery cleanup. Show the current wait reason and serialize delivery so a saved message starts one fresh turn. Validated with 410 focused tests, typecheck, build, token gates, all PR CI checks, and Greptile 5/5. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
2083bf6f9a |
feat(connections): add AgentMail inboxes and email tasks (#13256)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Connections give agents controlled access to external services. > - Experimental channels already map conversations to tasks and durable work queues. > - Email needs inbox ownership, recipient envelopes, delivery records, and explicit sends. > - This pull request adds AgentMail to that infrastructure and keeps the provider key in the server vault. > - Agents can receive and send email from local or sandbox execution while the board follows each conversation in its task. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Agents need dedicated email addresses. Incoming email should become assigned work. Internal task comments and progress must never become outgoing email by accident. **Proposed solution** Add experimental AgentMail connections, an inbox assignment wizard, durable email intake and publication, task email cards, and authenticated API, CLI, and native runtime actions. Agents use Paperclip credentials to request sends. Paperclip owns the provider key and enforces access and task authority. **Alternatives considered** A general mailbox MCP connector does not provide durable task binding or publication boundaries. A separate mailbox application duplicates task collaboration. The board instead directs the agent through the normal task conversation. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing experimental connections and task infrastructure. Product scope and interaction design were reviewed with the maintainer. Related connection authority work: #11831 and #11818. The duplicate search found no competing task-based AgentMail integration. ## What Changed - Add AgentMail catalog data, shared contracts, company-scoped email records, and an additive migration. - Add vaulted setup, inbox assignment, access grants, trust guidance, and provider-side allowlist guidance. - Support WebSocket and signed-webhook intake through a shared durable pipeline, deduplication, catch-up, and task wakeups. - Queue explicit new conversations and replies with immutable send intents, idempotency, delivery state, and uncertain-send resolution. - Show inbound and outbound email cards in normal task conversations. Keep internal messages internal. - Add task-scoped CLI actions and the sandbox callback routes required for Daytona execution. - Provide a dedicated AgentMail skill automatically only to agents with active authorized inbox assignments. Keep email instructions out of the universal Paperclip skill. - Advertise connector-owned `agentmail_inboxes`, `agentmail_read_thread`, `agentmail_send`, and `agentmail_delivery` tools only in eligible native sessions. Recheck live authority on execution. - Isolate Codex CLI connector skills by agent and skill revision. Deliver the assigned skill in the run prompt for adapters that use shared skill directories, including resumed turns. Keep automatic skills out of manual persistent sync. Show them as read-only and document the pattern in the connector playbook. - Fix AgentMail health checks that entered local-stdio validation and optional missing Codex credential cleanup in sandboxes. - Add API, pipeline, authorization, sandbox, browser, and Storybook coverage. ## Verification - Live AgentMail testing covered WebSocket intake, signed webhooks, restart catch-up, and a full receive → task → Daytona Codex CLI → explicit reply → Delivered round trip. The reply was verified in the other inbox. The normal task composer also initiated an outgoing email child task. - The connector-skill change was verified in the browser: AgentMail appears once as an automatic, read-only skill with its assigned address. Disabling experimental chat connections removes it; re-enabling restores it. A regression test covers assignment data arriving after library data. - Connector regression coverage passed 178 runtime utility, email integration, skill-route, and heartbeat tests. All 17 Codex execution tests passed, including per-agent skill isolation, model identity, revision changes, removal, and prompt delivery without shared skill files. - After rebasing onto master, all 44 focused email, heartbeat, and native-authority tests passed. All 313 native-session executor tests passed. The UI regression suite passed all 3 tests. These test sets overlap earlier focused runs. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed after the rebase. Token gates passed. Earlier focused Playwright task/setup coverage and the Storybook build also passed. - Native connector tool execution uses deterministic integration tests. Live Daytona qualification used the Codex CLI adapter; the new shared-home prompt fallback has deterministic coverage. - The full repository suite is run by CI. The earlier unsharded local full-suite attempt was stopped after the equivalent CI suites passed and is not reported as a completed local run. Greptile reviewed `7e57dc267a8446d3c906e3cc5b8abc94fb8860eb` at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. All server, workspace, serialized server, and browser suites passed in CI. The build job hit a five-second timeout in a runner transport test; both variants and the full 80-test file passed locally with unchanged timeouts. The build passed on retry on the same commit without code or timeout changes. All required CI gates, including the final `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` summaries, are green on `7e57dc267a8446d3c906e3cc5b8abc94fb8860eb`. ## Risks - Email from external senders can start normal agent work. Setup recommends a low-trust agent and AgentMail sender controls. Sender addresses never grant board membership. - Provider timeouts can leave uncertain sends. Retries retain their idempotency key; expired windows require reconciliation or operator resolution. - Connector skills and native tools are assignment-dependent and require current access. Revocation denies retained calls; assignment changes select a new runtime context. - Activation remains behind the experimental-channel setting. The native runner path has deterministic coverage; live Daytona qualification used the Codex CLI adapter. - Schema changes are additive. Inbox ownership is unique across companies. Disconnect preserves provider inboxes and task history. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex). Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size were not exposed in this 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
|
7b829efdf6 |
feat: show tasks created from a task by project (#13241)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A task can cause an agent to create more tasks. > - Those tasks can belong to other projects or have another parent. > - The subtask view does not show all work created from the current task. > - This pull request adds a Tasks tab with separate subtask and creation groups. > - Operators can follow created work without changing its parent or project. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Operators need to see all work that an agent creates while running for a task. Parentage alone does not describe this relationship. Legacy and native runs must follow the same rules. **Proposed solution** Show all subtasks in one section. Separately group tasks created from the source task by their current project, with a No project group when needed. A created subtask appears in both sections. Use saved run context and recorded creation activity to find the source task. **Alternatives considered** Making all created tasks children would change their hierarchy. Removing overlap between sections would hide the creation relationship. This change keeps the two memberships separate. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing Activity log & action attribution capability. It does not add a new roadmap area. Related PR: #9727 adds a stored source-task field and inbound attribution UI. This PR adds the outgoing task list using existing run and activity records and does not require that schema change. ## What Changed - Add a company-scoped createdFromIssueId filter to issue lists. - Save the actor run during task creation, including legacy child-helper calls. - Recover historical run attribution from creation activity when the origin run is absent. - Render the production Tasks panel with all subtasks and independently grouped created work. - Keep progress only for subtasks. Add folding, hover fades and project links. - Fetch all result pages and refresh on issue activity. Show load failures with Retry. - Add database, API, UI and pagination tests, design-guide examples and Storybook pages. ## Verification - Before rebase: 158 targeted tests passed. Workspace typecheck, UI/server builds, Storybook build and token gates passed. - After rebase: full workspace typecheck and build passed. The cursor fix passes 26 focused tests and UI/server typechecks. - The full local test command completed its general-server group with 10,563 passing tests and two failures: a missing native-runner fixture and a concurrency-test timeout. Building the fixture and rerunning both affected files passed all 41 tests. The local command stopped before its remaining groups; all corresponding GitHub test shards passed on the submitted head. - GitHub checks on commit |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5545f6d166 |
feat: let user messages continue stopped native tasks (#13239)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks. > - A failed native run can leave a durable execution hold. > - The hold prevents automatic replay of actions with unknown outcomes. > - It can also prevent the agent from answering a new user message. > - A new user message should authorize a fresh turn after the prior execution stops. > - This pull request adds that admission path and preserves the existing execution gates. > - Users can continue the conversation without certifying every past action. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Server task wake admission and native execution recovery. **Problem or motivation** A native task can remain blocked after automatic recovery stops. A new user message is saved, but its run is cancelled before the agent can answer. **Proposed solution** Use a new authenticated user comment to authorize a fresh turn. Check stopped predecessor ownership and available history. Retain uncertain action outcomes. Commit the new run and hold retirement together. **Roadmap alignment** This is a focused improvement to the existing self-healing runs and recovery behavior. Builds on merged #13237, which covers legacy conversation continuation. This PR adds native admission and preserves native automatic-recovery eligibility and budgets. ## What Changed - Admit a fresh native turn for a new user comment after every held predecessor has stopped. - Validate the comment author, task, timing, process ownership, controller, and cleanup leases. - Preserve failed runs, unknown action outcomes, and the failed incident's attempt count. - Record the new comment and run in the existing recovery audit history. - Validate the saved continuation source and discard consumed user-wake authority from later automatic replacements. - Keep pause, approval, budget, ownership, and dependency interaction rules. - Add database and actual wake-path regressions. Update the execution contract. ## Verification - [Full CI run 34626750213](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34626750213) passed on `c58e6c087e0df7530c747d80b27d491da925a9c4`: all 31 reported checks passed, including all server/workspace suites, browser shards, native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped. - Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5. All review threads are resolved, and security checks passed. - All 218 local targeted tests passed across explicit native continuation, continuation history, safe replacement, durable chat wakeups, wake queue, issue liveness, native session resume, and run dispatch. The native implementation is unchanged by the final rebase onto master. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the final head. Complete test coverage is supplied by the green CI suites; local tests used the targeted suites above. - Regressions cover scoped authorization, concurrent delivery, live ownership, later admission gates, retained message receipts, and automatic replacement after terminal-task or reviewer changes. ## Risks - A fresh model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip preserves prior history and does not replay recorded calls. - Missing process identity and remote ownership without a target-aware stop proof retain the hold. A terminal database row alone does not prove that execution stopped. - No schema or dependency changes. Existing historical tasks are not awakened by deployment. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. This session does not expose a more specific model build ID or 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
|
b1efd65edc |
fix: continue interrupted task conversations with bounded retries (#13237)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks. > - A task can outlive a provider process or a server restart. > - Legacy recovery treated unknown tool outcomes as a permanent execution hold. > - That hold could also reject a later user message. > - A conversation turn can use prior history without replaying prior tool calls. > - This pull request lets supported conversation adapters continue within the existing retry budget. > - Users can send a new message after automatic attempts stop. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A server restart could interrupt a local ACP run and leave its task behind a permanent recovery hold. A later user message could be cancelled before the provider answered. The immediate recovery path could also create a successor outside the durable failure counter. **Expected behavior** Continue with a bounded new conversation turn. Preserve a compatible provider session or use full task context when it is unavailable. Do not replay recorded tools. When automatic attempts stop, allow a new user request through the normal execution gates. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a task with a local conversation adapter. 2. Restart the server while the provider is working. 3. Let the previous run become interrupted. 4. Send a follow-up message and observe the recovery hold on the old behavior. Related work: Refs #13075 for durable task recovery. Refs #12946 for retry-limit and checkout-lock handling. This change routes conversation recovery through the existing bounded scheduler. ## What Changed - Mark supported local conversation failures for continuation. Keep native-runner and non-conversation recovery rules. - Carry an interruption notice into the next turn. Retain stopped ACP session history even when a write outcome is unknown. - Clear unavailable ACP sessions so the next bounded attempt can use full task context. - Route immediate failure recovery through the same durable scheduler as process-loss recovery. Release only the predecessor checkout when its retry takes ownership. - Retire obsolete conversation holds using immutable run evidence, in bounded batches with an activity record. Preserve outcome evidence and do not wake historical tasks. - Block actual admission and Resume while a predecessor process or environment lease is still active. Keep the original interruption notice after a rejected wake. Preserve the upstream blocked-wake waiting contract: bounded retry planning can happen during cleanup, while deferred messages and execution remain gated. - Add subprocess and database regression tests. Update the execution contract. - Add the current thread-status field to the native recovery provider fixture so its damaged-journal test reaches the intended boundary. Tolerate an already-exited fixture process during test cleanup while still asserting both processes terminate. ## Verification - Workspace typecheck passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Build passed: `pnpm build`. - Module boundaries passed: `pnpm check:module-boundaries`. - Focused tests passed: 293 recovery/session/dispatch tests, 66 retry and response-gate tests, and 37 native-session tests. Some suites overlap. - Tests cover interrupted writes, missing sessions, concurrent retries, restart persistence, pending questions and approvals, execution gates, and historical holds. - Built the Rust test executables with `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner build:rust` for native-runner verification. - Full Vitest coverage verified locally using the repository’s general and serialized shards, with focused reruns for failures and files not reached after a shard stopped. The ownership-gate regression is fixed and the complete affected server shard passes (1,390 tests). Local parallel runs also hit temporary-directory, resource, and timing failures; those suites pass with canonical temporary paths and sequential reruns. No test timeouts were increased. - Final merged-branch regression run: 577 tests pass across process recovery, retry scheduling, liveness, durable chat, wake-queue application/adapter, dispatch, continuation, native sessions, and task chat. Earlier focused verification also passed 19 native control tests. Token gates and whitespace validation pass. - Browser verification passed all three ACP Stop/continue/pause scenarios, including a rerun after merging the upstream waiting behavior: `PAPERCLIP_E2E_PORT=3397 pnpm test:e2e tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. The interrupted-write case verifies that follow-up completes without a repeated write. - Final-head [CI run 34625037394](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34625037394) passed on `06ac4bd9d150f8b209a96e5fd609c696958794a0`: all 31 reported checks are green, including server/workspace suites, all browser shards, native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped. Greptile reviewed this exact commit at 5/5; all review threads are resolved. ## Risks - A new model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip does not replay recorded tool calls and does not certify unknown action outcomes. - Conversation adapters now stop after their retry budget instead of requiring action reconciliation. Explicit Stop, pause, dependency, approval, budget, and ownership gates remain in force. - No schema migration or dependency changes. Historical holds are folded without changing task status or waking work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. The session does not expose a more specific model build ID or 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
|
52811c6ce6 |
fix(tasks): require resume before sending to paused tasks (#13232)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task execution controls let board users pause a task or its subtree. > - The composer still accepted messages while a pause hold was active. > - A paused task must require an explicit resume before the user can send another message. > - This pull request replaces the composer with an amber pause card and checks board comment writes on the server. > - The user keeps their draft and resumes through the existing task controls. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13104. Refs #13119. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The task composer and existing task/subtree pause controls. **Current behavior** A paused task can still receive a board message. The pause notice sits outside the composer, which leaves the send action available. **Proposed behavior** Show an amber takeover in both task chat and the classic composer. Preserve the draft. Require the user to resume the task or the ancestor subtree before sending. Reject board comment writes through either supported write route while the pause hold is active. **Breaking changes** Board comment writes to a paused task now return HTTP 409. Agent run reports remain supported during a pause. There is no schema migration. ## What Changed - Add a shared amber composer takeover with task, subtree, saved draft, pending, and error states. - Use effective ancestor pause state in both composer interfaces. Refresh it after pause events, task updates, and rejected sends. - Preserve draft text and attachments. Hide editor, send, queued edit, and pending question controls while paused. - Check active pause holds before board comment writes can mutate tasks, store comments, or wake agents. - Connect the approved Storybook examples to the production component and update the design and behavior docs. - Add browser coverage for both composers, draft persistence, resume, inherited holds, and rejected writes. Update ACP continuation coverage for the explicit resume requirement. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Passed: `pnpm build`. - Passed: `pnpm build-storybook`. - Passed: `pnpm check:token-gates` and `git diff --check`. - Passed: focused UI tests (398 tests) and server route tests (127 tests). - Passed: `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/paused-composer.spec.ts tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts` (5 tests). - Passed: manual browser walkthrough in a disposable local instance. Pause with a draft, refresh while paused, resume, send, and reopen. The draft returned, and one message persisted. The amber card and resume dialog were readable with no clipping. - Full local `pnpm test:run` did not pass: the general-server stage recorded 9,072 passing tests, 6 database setup failures from macOS shared-memory exhaustion, and 4 failed tests. This stopped the script before its later groups. Latest-head CI runs those groups independently. - Local follow-up: the Git file-resource load test passed on rerun (4 tests); native finalization migration passed after clearing the abandoned browser-test database allocation. Building the native debug fixtures fixed the missing fake provider. The remaining native-session recovery assertion also reproduces on untouched base commit `87b3e5fc6` (36 pass, 1 fail on both base and PR). It expects a settled-session error but receives a semantic-input-digest error. - The final UI build, UI typecheck, token gates, both thread suites (182 tests), and all five browser tests passed after the queued-action review fix. All 31 latest-head CI checks passed, including all server, workspace, browser, build, release, and security gates. Two optional Storybook jobs were skipped by workflow policy. Greptile reviewed `32d8fb5f5` at 5/5 with no open findings. - Review the Paused Composer and Tasks / Execution Controls stories. Pause a task with a draft, verify the amber card, resume, and verify the draft can be sent once. ## Risks - Clients that used board comments to continue paused work must resume first. The response is an explicit HTTP 409. - Pause state can change while a page is open. Live updates refresh the composer, and the server rejects stale sends before their side effects. - Resume keeps the existing dialog and optional agent wake behavior. Agent reports from interrupted runs remain allowed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, assisted with design, implementation, code execution, and browser verification. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. The agent used reasoning and tool calls. ## 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 the relevant tests locally and they pass; the full local-suite limits are 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 - [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
|
2991a59b17 |
fix(adapters): prevent engine fallback and preserve usable runtime defaults (#13105)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents that must write work and report task outcomes through its API. > - Local adapters select an execution engine and its permission settings. > - A higher ACP Node requirement can make an unchanged installation lose access to its default engine. > - The adapter then silently selects CLI, which can change permissions and block API access. > - This pull request keeps the engine choice fixed and reports missing prerequisites before work starts. > - It also gives explicit Codex CLI runs usable defaults and keeps managed services on a supported Node runtime. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12215. Related changes: #11792 raised the Node requirement; #13094 addressed separate runner networking behavior. This change fixes the engine-selection and managed-launcher paths. **What happened?** An unchanged agent could switch from ACP to CLI after an upgrade. Codex CLI then used read-only permissions with networking disabled. The run could finish without updating its task. Repeated recovery attempts used the same unavailable setup. Managed updates also skipped the Node check and did not refresh old launchers. **Expected behavior** An unavailable engine must fail with a clear setup error. It must not silently select another engine. Explicit CLI runs must be able to write workspace files and call the API unless the operator configures stricter settings. Managed updates must validate Node and keep child tools on that runtime. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run an ACP-default agent under Node 22 after the ACP minimum rises to 24.11. 2. Leave the engine unset and disable the approval/sandbox bypass. 3. Observe the old adapter select CLI and fail to write task disposition through the API. 4. Start a managed service with an old launcher and a supervisor PATH that selects a different Node for child tools. ## What Changed - Remove automatic engine fallback for Codex, Claude, Gemini, and Kimi. Check prerequisites for default and explicit ACP selections. - Return a configuration error with proof that provider work did not start. Stop automatic continuation retries for this error. - Enable Codex ACP workspace networking at the actual turn boundary. Upstream mode presets otherwise force it off even when config.toml enables it. Preserve explicit network denial and read-only mode. - Set workspace-write and network access defaults for explicit Codex CLI runs. Preserve explicit sandbox modes, profiles, and network restrictions. - Pin the validated Node directory in managed launcher PATH. Refresh legacy launchers during installs and npm/Git updates. - Reject updates on unsupported Node. Keep update checks, dry runs, and rollback available. - Synchronize the qualified Codex ACP executable identity across server, TypeScript runner, Rust runner, and provider-pack launch paths. - Add regression tests and update engine and installation documentation. ## Verification - [Full CI passed on the final head](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34387099695): typecheck, build/native runner verification, all general and serialized test shards, all browser shards, release registry, canary dry run, and policy checks. - Greptile: 5/5 on `2c1d6e2815830a5cd39e36c8a082cc0c4441b6c0`, with no unresolved review findings. Security gates are green. - Full workspace typecheck and build also passed locally. The final deployed Linux build passed. - Full Codex, Claude, Gemini, and Kimi source test suites: 804 passed, 2 skipped. Installer, updater, and launcher tests: 47 passed. Installed ACP turn-boundary tests: 3 passed. ACP packaging tests: 14 passed. Focused recovery classification tests also passed. - Real Linux Codex CLI runs, both fresh and resumed, wrote a workspace file and reached the control-plane health API with the new defaults. - Explicit read-only and network-disabled control probes retained those restrictions. - A real ACP run on the final deployed Linux build wrote a file and reached the control-plane API with HTTP 200, without engine fallback. The same probe failed DNS before the turn-policy patch. - Executable-identity and installed-policy contracts: 12 passed. Affected native server tests: 197 passed. Runner factory tests: 21 passed. Rust qualification and native provider integration tests: 11 passed. - Deployed the production changes to a Linux service on Node 24.20 after a verified database backup. Health, bootstrap readiness, static UI, executable/cwd identity, and guarded restart checks passed. The restart lost no runs. - Corrected stale Kimi skill-default and Gemini remote-archive fixtures; both suites pass. ## Risks - Default or legacy auto engine settings now fail when ACP is unavailable. Operators who intend to use CLI must select it explicitly. - Codex CLI now permits workspace writes and networking by default, and ACP workspace-write turns permit networking by default. Explicit operator sandbox settings remain authoritative. - Old managed launchers keep their pinned Node until they are reinstalled under a supported runtime. An old updater cannot repair itself; the documentation gives the current installer command. - Custom service wrappers and global/source installations must configure their runtime PATH. No database migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, shell execution, and test tools. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this 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
|
e200104727 |
feat: review connection actions from tasks (#13063)
Bring governed connection reviews into task history and composer approvals. Share resolution with Connections, add scoped remembered permissions, and resume agents through durable outcome receipts. Keep cards compact, collapse raw results, isolate untrusted provider output, bound continuation payloads, and reconcile missed live events. Add Storybook coverage, browser journeys, and service regression tests. Verification: all PR CI gates passed, Greptile 5/5, security scans passed, five connection-review browser journeys passed, and real native Codex approval/continuation was verified against the local MCP fixture. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7ed122911b |
Add end-to-end session goals to Paperclip Runner
Add capability-aware slash-goal controls, durable provider goal state, PRP v2 negotiation, autonomous goal execution, and safe local session recovery. Integrate with current master, preserve provider session identity, and verify the browser goal/chat/replacement/clear workflow and unsupported-agent rejection. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b97101893f |
feat(projects): select multiple GitHub source repositories (#13010)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Projects give tasks a common source repository and execution context. > - The current project form asks for a raw URL and unrelated metadata. > - Teams need to select several repos from GitHub connections they can use. > - This pull request implements the reviewed project form and repository editor. > - The server checks credential ownership and shared audiences before discovery. > - Existing workspace URLs and runtime identity rules remain compatible. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Project creation accepts one raw repository URL. It does not help users select repos from their usable GitHub connections or attach several repos together. **Proposed solution** Add a shared GitHub repository picker to project creation and Configuration. Support multiple selections, transactional persistence, and the existing GitHub setup flow. Simplify the project form and Configuration tab as reviewed. **Alternatives considered** Keep a raw URL field or add a separate repository table. The existing workspace collection already supports several repositories and keeps legacy URLs compatible. **Roadmap alignment** This builds on the shipped MCP Tool Gateway and Apps capability. It does not change runtime credential delegation. Related work: #11662 addresses the existing dialog's viewport limits. #4552 addresses generic Git URLs; this change preserves those URLs in existing workspaces. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped repository discovery from usable personal and shared GitHub grants, with provider-ID deduplication, PAT pagination, and partial failure handling. - Document the repository endpoints and board access requirements in OpenAPI. - Validate new selections and save projects with multiple repository workspaces in one transaction. Preserve legacy URLs and existing selections whose access was lost. - Implement the reviewed Create project dialog, shared repository editor, scrolling, and mobile layout. - Move repositories above environment variables, remove Status and Goals controls and env help paragraphs, move Created to the bottom, and redirect Overview to Configuration. - Reuse GitHub setup in dialogs, preserve project drafts, and verify popup completion through the API. - Replace the configuration story's DOM adapter with explicit production composition. Keep the reviewed mobile and short-viewport stories. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm build`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build-storybook`, and `pnpm check:token-gates`. - Passed: focused repository access, database persistence, configuration, and connection setup tests. - Passed: `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/project-repositories.spec.ts`. - The browser tests use a real temporary server/database. They cover create, forty persisted repos, mobile scrolling, save/reload, legacy URL editing, and rejection without a partial project. - GitHub responses and popup completion use deterministic fixtures. No real GitHub account was authorized by the test suite. - All CI general, serialized server, and browser test shards pass on the final commit. - The local full-suite run overlapped review edits and was stopped; fresh repository, OpenAPI, UI/CLI, and connection tests pass. Unrelated local worker, built-in-agent, and routine timing/socket failures passed isolated reruns. - Final commit `1b3308dca`: all CI gates pass, including build, runner verification, typecheck, canary dry run, and security checks. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. - Storybook visual regression is opt-in and was skipped by CI; the Storybook build passed locally. ## Risks - Repository discovery depends on provider availability. Failed connections are reported while successful results stay usable. - Selections identify source workspaces; they do not grant agents new credentials. The existing primary-workspace and responsible-user identity rules still apply. - No database migration is needed. Existing API status, goals, dates, and manual workspace URLs remain supported. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and browser tools. The runtime does not expose a more specific model deployment ID or 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
|
9dd6526b47 |
fix(security): harden privileged server boundaries (#12776)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server controls secrets, host files, outbound requests, and workspace commands > - A red-team review found cases where restricted callers could cross these trust boundaries > - These cases could expose credentials or let untrusted input reach privileged resources > - This pull request applies least-privilege checks at each affected server boundary > - The benefit is safer agent execution without changing the private-instance bootstrap contract ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Several server paths used authorization, redaction, or content-delivery rules that were too broad. Restricted agent keys could obtain company-level operational data. Some adapter and instruction paths could reach server-owned network or file resources without the required owner approval. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must redact credential values, enforce restricted-key scopes, guard outbound network access, prevent same-origin script execution, and reserve host-level file and command controls for authorized operators. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure an authenticated development instance at the parent commit. 2. Exercise the affected APIs with a restricted agent key or a non-instance-admin company user. 3. Observe that the parent commit returns privileged data or accepts a privileged operation. 4. Repeat on this branch and observe a redacted response, a safe download, or an HTTP 403 response. **Paperclip version or commit** The findings reproduce from commit `39898ab22` and are fixed by this pull request. **Deployment mode** Authenticated self-hosted server and local development modes. **Installation method** Built from source with pnpm. ## What Changed - Redact generic secret `value` and `token` fields recursively in structured logs. - Classify exact and separator-suffixed `KEY` environment names as secrets in company exports. - Limit restricted self-identity responses and protect company run, log, and secret catalog APIs. - Route HTTP adapter requests through DNS-pinned SSRF protection with exact private-origin allowlisting. - Download HTML, SVG, and other script-capable assets with `nosniff` and a sandbox CSP. - Require instance-admin access for external instruction roots and exports that read them. - Block agent-authenticated host command persistence across supported workspace runtime shapes. - Apply the central runtime-management decision before workspace command controls. - Keep the documented first-user instance-admin claim contract unchanged. - Add regression tests and server-owner configuration documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - The Node 24 remediation suite passes with 365 tests. It skips 25 environment-gated tests. - `pnpm build` passes under Node 24. - `git diff --check` passes. - The full local runner reaches known macOS-only general-server harness failures before the serialized route lane. The Linux PR matrix is the authoritative full-suite gate. ## Risks - Restricted agent keys now receive HTTP 403 responses from company-wide run, log, and secret catalog endpoints. - Script-capable assets now download instead of rendering inline. - External instruction roots now require instance-admin access. - Private HTTP adapter endpoints now require an exact origin in `PAPERCLIP_HTTP_ADAPTER_PRIVATE_ENDPOINT_ALLOWLIST`. - Public HTTP adapter endpoints remain enabled. Redirects and metadata or link-local targets remain blocked. - No database migration is required. > 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. The exact serving snapshot and context-window size are not exposed. The model used tool-enabled reasoning, repository access, 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8f9f850c20 |
fix: limit plan-to-auto transition to plan confirmation (#12695)
<!-- This pull request uses ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue thread controls plan review and agent work modes. > - A user can accept a full plan or confirm a smaller checkbox action. > - Only full plan acceptance must start automatic agent work. > - The current transition did not check the interaction kind. > - This pull request limits the transition to an accepted plan confirmation. > - The benefit is a safe and clear start of agent work after plan approval. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An accepted confirmation that targeted a plan could change an issue from planning mode to standard mode. This included a checkbox confirmation. A checkbox action is not approval of the full plan. **Expected behavior** Only acceptance of a current full-plan confirmation starts automatic agent work. Other interaction kinds and rejected confirmations keep the current work mode. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Put an issue in planning mode. 2. Create a checkbox confirmation that targets the current plan revision. 3. Accept the checkbox confirmation. 4. Observe that the issue enters standard mode before this fix. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem was present on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** The problem is in the core server logic and is not deployment-specific. ## What Changed - Require a full `request_confirmation` interaction before plan acceptance starts automatic work. - Add service tests for acceptance, rejection, stale interaction kinds, and unchanged standard-mode behavior. - Check the route activity log for the planning-to-standard mode change. - Document the plan acceptance transition in the V1 contract. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts` passes 140 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - `pnpm test:run` was also started. Unrelated workspace-runtime tests failed because fixed local runtime ports were occupied or offset on the shared host. The same failures reproduce alone. The changed test files pass alone. ## Risks - Risk is low. The change adds one interaction-kind guard to the existing transition. - A full accepted plan confirmation still changes planning mode to standard mode and an eligible review issue to todo in one transaction. - Checkbox confirmations, questions, rejection, and standard-mode issues keep their previous behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose the exact model suffix or context window. ## 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
|
4b6de5327e |
Remove cheap model profiles (#12683)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents that use different model providers and adapters. > - Paperclip must keep agent execution rules clear and predictable. > - The cheap-model profile added a second execution mode across adapters, task recovery, APIs, and the UI. > - That mode increased configuration and recovery complexity. > - This pull request removes the cheap-model profile as a product feature. > - The benefit is one model-selection path for normal work and recovery work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This change simplifies model selection across agent configuration, task execution, recovery, and adapter capabilities. **Current behavior** Paperclip exposes cheap-model profiles in adapter metadata, agent runtime configuration, task overrides, recovery rules, APIs, and the board UI. Recovery work can select a different model profile from the agent's configured model. **Proposed behavior** Paperclip uses the agent's configured model for normal work and recovery work. Status-only recovery stays limited to coordination work. The API rejects legacy model-profile configuration. A migration removes stored model-profile values from existing agent, issue, and historical revision records. **Reason and benefit** One model path reduces configuration, API, UI, and recovery complexity. It also prevents status recovery from becoming a separate product-level model-routing feature. **Breaking changes** This change removes model-profile fields and adapter capability metadata. Existing stored model-profile values are removed by an idempotent migration. The validators reject new legacy profile values with clear errors. ## What Changed - Removed model-profile types, adapter capabilities, API fields, and model selection logic. - Removed cheap-model controls from agent and task UI surfaces. - Kept status-only recovery limited to coordination context while normal continuations use the configured agent model. - Added an idempotent migration that removes stored model-profile values from agents, issues, and configuration revisions without changing issue update timestamps. - Updated tests and product documentation for the single-model behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - `pnpm test:run` completed with 5,607 passing tests and 8 environment-sensitive failures in unrelated fixed-port and database-deadlock suites. The same failures repeated in an isolated rerun. CI is the final clean-room result. ## Risks - This is an intentional breaking change for clients that send model-profile fields. - The migration changes legacy agent, issue, and configuration-revision JSON. It is idempotent and preserves unrelated fields and issue update timestamps. - The change is cross-cutting because the removed feature existed in adapters, shared contracts, the server, plugins, and the UI. > 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`. Reasoning and tool use were enabled. The runtime did 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) - [ ] 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 - [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
|
20ccf3f476 |
feat(apps): add connection grants and delegated identities (#12341)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - External tools need explicit identity and access boundaries. > - Shared connection credentials cannot represent every user-scoped use case. > - Grants must stay company-scoped and support safe delegation. > - This pull request adds connection grants, identity rules, and their database contract. > - The benefit is durable control over which identity an agent may use. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 3 of 11. It depends on stack 2 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add company and user connection grants. - Add delegated identity and membership rules. - Synchronize database, shared, server, and UI contracts. - Register the grant-member replacement route in the OpenAPI surface in the same layer that mounts it. - Add migration 0231 with replay-safe guards and coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` (5 passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - Incorrect grant selection could expose the wrong credential scope. - The service enforces company and subject boundaries before credential use. - Migration 0231 is generated, ordered after 0230, and safe to replay. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model used reasoning, 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 linked a public issue or pull request with `Refs #` - [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> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
bc1a21564f |
Remove the company brand color and per-company attachment limit (#12291)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A company is the top-level container, and the company General page
holds its settings
> - Two of those settings did almost nothing: the brand color only
tinted the generated company icon, and the attachment size limit sat
under the deployment-level `PAPERCLIP_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES` cap that
already bounded every upload
> - A setting that changes one icon hue, and a setting that can only
lower a limit the operator already set, are not worth the page space or
the code that carries them
> - This pull request deletes both settings from the UI, the validators,
the API contract, the server, and the database
> - With the deployment cap as the only limit left, the message a person
sees when an upload is rejected has to name that limit in terms they can
act on, so the raw byte count becomes a human-readable size
> - The benefit is a shorter company General page for every deployment,
one attachment limit instead of two, and less code between an upload and
its ceiling
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue. The description below follows
`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml`.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The company General page (`/company/settings`), the `PATCH
/api/companies/{companyId}` and `PATCH
/api/companies/{companyId}/branding` request contracts, and the
attachment upload limit on task, case, and company-import uploads.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: `ui/`, `server/`, `packages/shared`, `packages/db`.
**Current behavior**
The company General page shows an "Appearance" section with three
controls: Logo, Brand color, and Attachment size limit. The brand color
is a hex value that feeds one thing — the hue of the generated company
pattern icon. Companies that never set one already get a hue derived
from the company name. The attachment size limit is a per-company byte
count stored on `companies.attachment_max_bytes`. Every upload path
clamps it against the deployment-level `PAPERCLIP_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES`
cap, so the per-company value can only lower a limit the operator
already chose.
**Proposed behavior**
The Appearance section keeps the Logo control only. The company pattern
icon always derives its hue from the company name. Every attachment path
reads the deployment cap directly, so `PAPERCLIP_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES`
is the single limit. An upload rejected by that limit says so in human
units — "File is larger than the 10 MB limit" rather than a raw byte
count. The `companies.brand_color` and `companies.attachment_max_bytes`
columns are dropped, and both fields leave the company API contract.
**Reason and benefit**
Both settings ask an operator to make a decision that changes almost
nothing. The brand color moves one icon hue on a page that also lets you
upload a real logo, which overrides the icon entirely. The attachment
limit reads as a real control but cannot raise anything, so it is a
second place to look when an upload is rejected. Removing both shortens
the page every deployment sees, removes a company-scoped read from the
task attachment upload path, and leaves one attachment limit to reason
about instead of two.
**Breaking changes**
The company API responses no longer include `brandColor` or
`attachmentMaxBytes`, and `GET /api/invites/{token}` no longer includes
`companyBrandColor`. `PATCH /api/companies/{companyId}/branding` is
strict, so a request that sends `brandColor` now returns 400; the
non-strict `PATCH /api/companies/{companyId}` schema strips it. Company
packages exported by older versions still import: the portability
company manifest schema is non-strict, so the retired keys are stripped
and ignored rather than rejected. Companies that stored a brand color
lose it — their icon reverts to the name-derived hue that every company
without a color already used.
## What Changed
- Removed the "Brand color" and "Attachment size limit" fields from the
company General page, along with their state, dirty checks, save
payload, and Save-button gating.
- Removed `brandColor` and `attachmentMaxBytes` from
`createCompanySchema`, `updateCompanySchema`, and
`updateCompanyBrandingSchema`, and deleted the now-orphaned
`DEFAULT_COMPANY_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES` and
`MAX_COMPANY_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES` constants.
- Removed both fields from the `Company` type, the portability manifest
type and schema, and the `companiesApi.update` payload allowlist.
- Dropped `brandColor` from `CompanyPatternIcon` and its callers, so the
icon hue always comes from the company name. Deleted the now-unused
`hexToHue` helper and the now-unused `pickTextColorForSolidBg` export.
- Stopped emitting `brandColor` from the company service selection and
from the invite-summary and invite-branding payloads in
`server/src/routes/access.ts`.
- Replaced `normalizeIssueAttachmentMaxBytes` with the deployment cap:
task attachments, case attachments, and company import now use
`MAX_ATTACHMENT_BYTES` directly. The helper is deleted.
- Added `formatAttachmentSize()` next to `MAX_ATTACHMENT_BYTES` and
routed every over-limit message through it, so a rejected upload names
the limit in human units instead of raw bytes: `Image exceeds 10485760
bytes` becomes `Image is larger than the 10 MB limit`. Enforcement is
unchanged — the same single cap, the same multer limits, the same status
codes and response shapes.
- Added migration
`0229_drop_company_brand_color_and_attachment_max_bytes.sql` and removed
both columns from the Drizzle `companies` schema.
- Kept legacy imports working: the portability company manifest schema
is non-strict, so older packages carrying the retired keys still import
with the keys ignored.
- Updated the skill API reference and the implementation spec, and
pruned the token-extraction allowlist entries that the removed code made
stale.
## Verification
Commands run from the repository root:
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — pass
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — pass (includes
`check:migrations`, which validates the new migration number and journal
entry)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — pass
- server typecheck via `node_modules/.bin/tsc --noEmit` in `server/` —
pass. `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` could not run
locally because it builds the Rust runner first and `cargo` is not
installed on this machine; the TypeScript step it wraps is the command
above.
- `npx vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/company.test.ts` — 6
passed
- `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` — 90
passed
- `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/attachment-types.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/assets.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts` — 165 passed (the
human-readable limit messages)
- `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-branding-route.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/invite-summary-route.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/openclaw-invite-prompt-route.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/companies-route-cross-company-authz.test.ts` — all
passed
- `npx vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company-delete.test.ts` — 27 passed
- `npx vitest run` in `ui/` — 4425 passed, 1 pre-existing failure
unrelated to this change (`OnboardingWizard.test.tsx` "renders instead
of throwing when the browser denies storage access", which also fails on
`master`)
- `npx vitest run` in `server/` — see the note below
- `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` — no new violations; the only
reported violations are the pre-existing `PillGuy.tsx` ones present on
`master`
New tests added:
- `packages/shared/src/validators/company.test.ts` — the create and
update schemas strip the retired keys, the strict branding schema
rejects `brandColor`, and the portability manifest schema accepts a
legacy entry carrying both keys and drops them.
- `server/src/__tests__/company-branding-route.test.ts` — `PATCH
/api/companies/{companyId}/branding` returns 400 for `brandColor` and
does not call the company service.
- `server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` — a legacy package
that declares `brandColor` and `attachmentMaxBytes` imports
successfully, and neither key reaches `companies.create`.
- `server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts` — the effective
task attachment limit is the deployment cap, and the route no longer
loads the company to size an upload.
- `server/src/__tests__/attachment-types.test.ts` —
`formatAttachmentSize()` renders the default cap as `10 MB`, keeps one
decimal place for fractional sizes and drops a trailing `.0`, falls back
to KB and bytes for small caps, steps up to GB, and never emits `NaN`
for a degenerate input.
- `server/src/__tests__/assets.test.ts` — the asset-image and
company-logo routes both return the human-readable limit message on an
over-cap upload.
## Merge with master
`master` moved while this was open, and the merge needed two
resolutions:
- **`ui/src/pages/CompanySettings.tsx`.** #12243 reworded the
user-facing
copy from "company" to "organization", and that rewording landed inside
the "Brand color" and "Attachment size limit" hints — the two fields
this change deletes. Both fields are removed, so the conflicted block is
dropped whole. The Logo field and every other copy change from #12243
are
kept.
- **Migration renumbered 0228 -> 0229.** #12307 landed
`0228_nasty_grim_reaper`, so this migration is now
`0229_drop_company_brand_color_and_attachment_max_bytes`. Its snapshot
is
rebuilt from master's `0228_snapshot.json` with only the two `companies`
columns removed, and `meta/_journal.json` is master's journal plus a
single `idx: 229` entry. `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db
check:migrations`
passes.
The snapshot was rebuilt by hand rather than taken from `drizzle-kit
generate`, because master's `0228_snapshot.json` has drifted from
master's
own schema: `issue_question_response_deliveries.error_count` is created
by
master's 0228 SQL but missing from its snapshot, and the snapshot still
carries `decision_archive_notification_outbox.error_count`. Regenerating
folds both into this migration, and the resulting `ADD COLUMN
error_count`
would fail on a fresh database where master's 0228 already created that
column. Rebuilding from master's snapshot leaves that drift exactly
where
it is and keeps this migration to the two column drops. The drift is
pre-existing on master and is not addressed here.
## Risks
- **The migration is a destructive column drop.**
`0229_drop_company_brand_color_and_attachment_max_bytes.sql` removes
`companies.brand_color` and `companies.attachment_max_bytes`. It is safe
because both features are removed in the same change and nothing reads
either column after it. The statements use `DROP COLUMN IF EXISTS`,
matching the convention of the recent drop migrations in this
repository. The drop is not reversible: a downgrade after this migration
loses any stored values.
- **Stored brand colors are lost.** A company that had set a color now
renders the name-derived icon hue that every company without a color
already used. No other surface changes, and an uploaded logo still
overrides the icon.
- **API response shape narrows.** `brandColor` and `attachmentMaxBytes`
leave the company payloads, and `companyBrandColor` leaves the invite
summary payload. A client reading those fields now sees `undefined`. The
bundled UI and CLI are updated in this change.
- **Legacy imports are covered.** Packages exported by older versions
still carry both keys. The manifest schema is non-strict, so the keys
are stripped rather than rejected, and a test locks that in.
- **The over-limit message strings changed.** Anything matching on the
old `... exceeds N bytes` text — a test, a script, or a client that
string-matches `body.error` — needs updating. The status codes (422) and
response shapes are unchanged, so structured clients are unaffected.
- **Attachment limits can only widen.** A deployment that had lowered a
company below the deployment cap now allows uploads up to the cap for
that company. Lower `PAPERCLIP_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES` if a smaller
ceiling is needed.
- **Storybook visual baselines shift** for the `CompanyPatternIcon`
matrix story, because those fixtures had brand colors. That workflow
runs only on a PR labeled `storybook-visual`, so it does not gate this
PR; regenerate the baselines if the label is added.
## Model Used
Claude (Anthropic), Claude Opus, agentic tool use via Claude Code.
## 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
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
75b6d22aac |
fix(recovery): make silent-run detection UI-only (#12242)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The recovery service detects active runs that stop producing output. > - The dashboard already shows suspicious and critical silence to the board. > - The recovery scan also creates delegated evaluation work for the same signal. > - Output silence alone does not prove that the run or source task needs recovery. > - This pull request keeps the signal and removes automatic recovery artifacts. > - The benefit is a visible watchdog signal without assignment changes, wake requests, or issue noise. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #6596 - Refs #7036 - Refs #9475 - Refs #11544 - Refs #11839 - Refs #11961 ## What Changed - Keep the one-hour suspicious level and four-hour critical level in active-run API summaries. - Stop output silence from creating or changing issues, recovery actions, comments, relations, assignments, and wake requests. - Store snooze, continue, and false-positive decisions against the run without an evaluation issue. - Preserve terminal-source folding, orphan cleanup, and open legacy evaluation links. - Show informational watchdog copy and board controls without requiring an evaluation-task link. - Document the UI-only watchdog contract. - Add focused server and UI coverage for artifact-free scans and board decisions. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` (32 tests passed) - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `git diff --check` - `pnpm test:run` completed locally with 4,772 passing tests. It found 30 unrelated macOS test-harness failures in eight workspace, skill, listener, and runtime exposure files. The failures use `/tmp` and `/private/tmp` as different paths, require Linux `/proc` listener data, or derive invalid HMR ports from the macOS ephemeral range. - The full Linux CI matrix passed on the latest commit. It includes build, typecheck, server tests, worker tests, serialization tests, canary, and e2e tests. - Greptile reviewed the latest commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings. ## Risks - The recovery scan keeps its existing result shape, but its created and escalated counts remain zero for output silence. - A false-positive decision now suppresses the signal for the full life of that run. - Open legacy evaluation issues remain visible and manually resolvable. The scan does not refresh or reprioritize them. - There is no database migration and no API schema change. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This change corrects existing watchdog behavior and does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with extended reasoning, 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 the focused tests and non-platform gates 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
|
ae6761e2b0 |
fix(server): authorize agent resume through direct grants (#12047)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip keeps agent lifecycle changes behind control-plane authorization > - Plugins can create agents in a paused state until an operator activates them > - An agent with a direct configuration grant could not resume these agents > - A paused plugin-managed agent also had no stable provenance in its pause reason > - This pull request adds one protected resume path and preserves every other lifecycle gate > - The benefit is safe recovery from plugin provisioning without a broad permission change ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #8168. That pull request uses a role capability and also opens clear-error. This change uses the current grant system and keeps clear-error closed. **What happened?** A plugin can create a paused managed agent. An agent actor cannot resume that agent, even when the actor has a direct `agents:configure` grant. The paused agent can also have a null pause reason. **Expected behavior** An agent with a direct `agents:configure` grant can resume an accessible paused agent. An agent without that grant cannot resume it. Plugin-managed paused agents show stable plugin provenance. A completed resume stays in effect after reconcile. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Install a plugin that declares a managed agent with `status: paused`. 2. Give a same-company agent a direct `agents:configure` grant. 3. Call `POST /api/agents/{id}/resume` with the granted agent key. 4. On the base revision, observe a board-only authorization error. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at `63df7ad2b3`. **Deployment mode** All deployment modes. This is a server authorization and reconcile behavior. ## What Changed - The resume route now uses the protected `agent_config:update` decision with `requiresChangeGrant: true` for agent actors. - The route keeps board access, tenant non-disclosure, and invalid organization-chain protection. - Resume activity now records the real user or agent actor, run, and API key. - Plugin-managed paused agents now receive a stable provenance reason and pause time at creation. - Reconcile backfills only a null reason on an agent that is still declared and stored as paused. - Reconcile preserves manual, budget, system, and other pause reasons. It does not pause a resumed agent again. - The implementation specification now records the narrow resume exception. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-agents.test.ts` passed: 2 files and 26 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - GitHub CI passed all policy, typecheck, build, test, e2e, canary, and security gates on commit `306edf469c`. - Greptile reviewed all 5 changed files. Its check passed with 0 comments and 0 unresolved threads. - The host uses Node 22.22.2. The repository requests Node 24.11 or newer, so pnpm printed engine warnings. - A broad `pnpm test:run` attempt did not complete its general-server group. Runtime port fixtures failed because host port `52000` was already bound. The isolated failing fixture reproduced the same port conflict. The focused feature tests passed before and after the final commit. ## Risks The main risk is an unintended lifecycle permission increase. The change limits agent access to resume only. It requires a protected direct-change decision. It does not open pause, clear-error, terminate, approval, or key-management routes. Tests cover denial, self-denial, tenant isolation, organization-chain checks, and activity attribution. There is no database migration. > This change fixes a narrow gap in the completed plugin, approval, and activity-log roadmap areas. It does not add a new roadmap feature. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex `gpt-5.6-sol`, with xhigh reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime did not expose its 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
|
f572e08678 |
fix(recovery): stop automatic stranded-task takeovers (#11961)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The recovery service restores execution when a task loses its live path. > - The service retries the original agent for a limited number of attempts. > - The old fallback could select a manager or an executive and wake that agent. > - That fallback changed the effective recovery owner without a board decision. > - This pull request keeps the source owner and gives the exhausted recovery decision to the board. > - The benefit is a clear ownership rule with no automatic task takeover. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #11807 Refs: #11817 **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves stranded-task recovery in the server and the recovery action card in the board UI. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server recovery orchestration, recovery observability, board UI, and execution documentation. **Current behavior** Paperclip retries the original agent for a limited number of attempts. After the retry limit, it can select a manager, task creator, CTO, or CEO as a recovery owner. It can then wake that substitute agent. The source task keeps its assignee, but the automatic substitute wake creates an implicit takeover path. **Proposed behavior** Paperclip keeps the limited retry path for the original agent. If recovery is exhausted or unsafe, Paperclip creates one board-owned source recovery action. It keeps both source assignee fields. It does not wake a substitute agent. The board can repair, retry the original owner, explicitly reassign, or resolve the task. **Reason and benefit** Source task ownership must remain stable until a person or an approved policy changes it. The new rule removes implicit manager and executive takeover. It also gives operators clear evidence through the `board_escalation_no_takeover_v1` routing marker. **Breaking changes** Automatic recovery no longer wakes a manager or executive after the original-agent retry limit. Existing active agent-owned recovery actions remain visible and can resolve. Paperclip does not schedule a new takeover wake for those legacy actions. ## What Changed - Route exhausted and unsafe stranded recovery to a board-owned source action. - Preserve agent and user assignee fields during automatic escalation. - Keep limited same-agent continuity repair and provider quota monitoring. - Stop new manager, creator, CTO, and CEO recovery wakes. - Keep legacy agent-owned recovery actions readable and resolvable. - Add the routing marker to new board escalation evidence and observability. - Update recovery notices, the board UI card, tests, and execution documentation. ## Verification - Run `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Run `pnpm build`. - Run `pnpm check:token-gates`. - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts`. - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts`. - Run the focused recovery and UI Vitest files changed by this pull request. - Confirm that a paused or over-budget source owner creates one board action, keeps the source assignee, and creates no substitute wake. ## Risks - Operators must now make the final recovery decision after the original-agent limit. - Legacy agent-owned actions use their stored contract. This avoids a rollout-time ownership rewrite. - No database migration or API response shape changes are included. - The tests cover concurrent escalation, paused and over-budget owners, legacy actions, provider quota monitoring, and UI presentation. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The hosted exact model revision and context window are not exposed. Reasoning, tool use, and code 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
38d8f37172 |
fix(build): enforce Node 24 across Paperclip (#11792)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip runs across the CLI, server, adapters, plugins, CI, and container images. > - These surfaces declared different Node.js versions from 20 through 24. > - A newer `@types/node` major can expose APIs that the supported runtime does not provide. > - Node.js 20 is no longer a suitable project baseline, and Node.js 24 is the current LTS line. > - This pull request sets Node.js 24.11.0 as one repository-wide baseline, adds a drift check, and gives users actionable startup guidance when their runtime is too old. > - The benefit is one clear runtime contract for development, release, installation, and published packages. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #2734 Refs #11727 Refs #739 ## What Changed - Require Node.js 24.11.0 or newer in all 42 package manifests and runtime checks. - Use Node.js 24 in GitHub Actions, Docker images, smoke images, sandbox setup, portable installs, and esbuild targets. - Align every direct `@types/node` declaration on `^24.0.0`. - Prevent Dependabot from opening major `@types/node` upgrades without a matching runtime decision. - Add `.nvmrc` and a CI policy check for Node version drift. - Update ACP version gates, tests, and user documentation for the new minimum. - Print a non-blocking warning on CLI and server startup when Node is unsupported, with remediation through a version manager or the documented downloaded `install.sh` workflow. - Deduplicate that warning when `paperclipai run` boots the CLI and server in the same process. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-node-version-policy.mjs` - `node --check scripts/check-node-version-policy.mjs` - `node --check cli/esbuild.config.mjs` - `node --check scripts/generate-npm-package-json.mjs` - `bash -n scripts/install.sh scripts/test-install-sh-docker.sh scripts/e2e-install-lifecycle.sh` - Parsed all 42 package manifests and confirmed `engines.node` is `>=24.11.0`. - `git diff --check` - `vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-install-command.test.ts` passed with 3 tests. - `vitest run cli/src/node-version.test.ts` passed with 4 tests. - Directly exercised the shared warning helper for unsupported-version messaging and same-process deduplication. - The focused exe.dev suite could not resolve the locally unbuilt plugin SDK from this isolated worktree. A full offline workspace install was also blocked because the package-manager signature verifier requires registry access. The full suite was not run locally; draft CI performs a clean install and evaluates the wider impact. ## Risks - This is a breaking runtime change for users, plugins, and deployments that still use Node.js 20 or 22. - Published workspace packages will now produce an engine warning or failure in strict package managers on older Node.js releases. - Node.js 24 can reveal dependency, native module, Playwright, or agent CLI compatibility issues in CI. - The bootstrap installer now installs Node.js 24 when the current runtime is older than 24.11.0. - The portable sandbox fallback is pinned to Node.js 24.11.0 and depends on that upstream tarball remaining available. - Unsupported runtimes continue booting after a warning, so a later incompatibility can still fail at its point of use. - The CLI and server share the warning policy through the published `@paperclipai/shared` package; packaging checks must keep that subpath export available. - This PR does not commit `pnpm-lock.yaml` because repository policy assigns lockfile generation to CI. > 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 and context window are not exposed in this session. Reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and GitHub tools 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> |
||
|
|
cb0009b097 |
fix: preserve recovery retries across restarts (#11817)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The control plane must keep each active issue on a clear execution or recovery path. > - A missing issue disposition can require more than one bounded repair attempt. > - A server restart could lose that repair path or move source ownership to the recovery owner. > - A parked or expired retry could also make the user interface show a false healthy state. > - Concurrent recovery loops must not schedule the same repair attempt twice. > - This pull request keeps retry state durable, makes scheduling atomic, and keeps source ownership stable. > - The benefit is that recovery continues after a restart and operators see the correct state. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A run that ended without a valid issue disposition could lose its repair path after a server restart. Manager recovery could also change the source owner. In addition, a parked or expired retry could make the issue look healthy when no active work existed. Concurrent reconciliation could also schedule the same repair attempt twice. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must keep bounded source and manager repair attempts across restarts. Recovery ownership must stay separate from source issue ownership. The server and user interface must report only a live retry as active work. Each repair attempt must be scheduled at most once per company. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start an agent run on an issue. 2. End the run without a valid issue disposition. 3. Let the first repair attempt schedule a retry. 4. Restart the server, let the retry time pass without a live run, or start two reconciliation loops together. 5. Observe that the repair path can stop, the issue can show a false healthy state, or duplicate retries can be created. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem existed on `master` before candidate head `d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`. **Deployment mode** The problem affects self-hosted servers and local builds that use automatic recovery. ## What Changed - Persist bounded source-owner and manager repair lineages with stable fingerprints and retry limits. - Resume incomplete disposition repairs after a server restart. - Keep recovery ownership separate from source issue ownership and enforce source mutation authority. - Project live retry evidence into issue and blocker summaries. - Show recovery owner, return owner, attempt count, and retry state in the board user interface. - Treat expired or parked retries as attention states unless a queued or running attempt exists. - Atomically deduplicate disposition-repair wake requests with a company-scoped partial unique index. - Reuse the winning run when concurrent reconciliation loses the uniqueness race, without duplicate scheduling activity. - Honor disabled on-demand wake policy before recovery scheduling and again before delayed retry promotion. - Keep the new index migration safe for lagging seeded databases that already contain the index. - Add server and user interface tests for recovery, restart, ownership, retry, concurrency, and blocker states. - Update the implementation and execution semantics documents. ## Verification - Focused server recovery and ownership suites: 282 tests passed on the repaired base candidate. - Focused user interface recovery suites: 128 tests passed on the repaired base candidate. - Atomic-deduplication schema and recovery suites: 111 tests passed on the first Greptile repair. - Recovery and scheduled-retry wake-policy suites: 126 tests passed at `d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`. - The exact lagging-source migration-order test passed after the index migration became idempotent: 1 test passed and 62 unrelated tests were skipped. - `@paperclipai/db` and `@paperclipai/server` typechecks passed at the current head. - Migration generation and migration safety checks passed for migration `0226_tan_colossus.sql`. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed on the repaired base candidate. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the repaired base candidate. - `pnpm build` passed on the repaired base candidate. - `pnpm test:run` passed 4,540 tests on the repaired base candidate. Four fixed-port cases met listeners that already existed on the host. - The two unchanged fixed-port files passed in an isolated network namespace: 129 tests passed and 27 tests were skipped. - Independent Security and QA reviews approved `63c0423aab54c66f2293a20b0fb3f3b013ee3ba8`; exact-head re-review is required after automated checks settle on `d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`. ## Risks - Recovery orchestration affects issue liveness and ownership. The new paths use bounded attempts, stable fingerprints, row locks, authority checks, and database uniqueness. - A conservative attention state can show more warnings when a scheduled retry has no queued or running attempt. It does not hide stopped work. - Migration `0226_tan_colossus.sql` creates a partial unique index on a known-large table. Migrations run transactionally, so `CONCURRENTLY` is unavailable. The matching disposition-repair key namespace is introduced by this release, so deployed databases have no matching rows before the index is added. > 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 used agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime did not expose the exact model ID or context window. - Anthropic Claude Opus 5 used a 1M context window, tool use, and code execution for part of the user interface repair, as recorded in the commit history. ## 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 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
10d0555189 |
fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. **What happened?** Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. **Expected behavior** Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, 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 linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandCodex
|
edb8083538 |
fix(server): serialize interaction review verdicts
Lock the issue before accepting or rejecting review confirmations, reauthorize against the current policy, and cover concurrent policy tightening. Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com> |
||
|
DottaandCodex
|
277c13529a |
fix(server): persist review requester atomically
Commit both bound and unbound in-review transition activity in the same transaction as the issue update. Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com> |
||
|
DottaandCodex
|
991f40bb2e |
fix(server): serialize review policy verdict authorization
Recheck terminal verdict and policy mutations under a row lock, and scope interaction verdict enforcement to the review confirmation itself. Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
373b675f94 |
fix(server): prevent review policy verdict downgrade bypass
Authorize verdicts and policy changes against the stored restrictive review policy, remove downgrade guidance, and cover both restrictive policies with route regressions. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3e1ea39ff3 |
fix(inbox): honor saved policy for explicit targets (#11221)
<!-- 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 control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and their work
> - Each user can let agents tidy that user's Mine inbox
> - The profile control saves either an open policy or an agent
allowlist
> - Explicit inbox archive requests checked only the separate
`inbox:manage` grant
> - This made the saved profile control ineffective for explicit user
targets
> - This pull request makes authorization honor the target user's saved
policy
> - The benefit is that the UI control and the API now enforce the same
user choice
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
An agent received `403 inbox_cross_user_grant_required` when it archived
an issue with an explicit `userId`. The denial occurred even when that
user had enabled inbox management for the agent in Profile Settings. The
authorization service checked only `principal_permission_grants` for
explicit targets and ignored the saved user inbox policy.
**Expected behavior**
An explicit target is allowed when the target user saved an `open`
policy or an allowlist that contains the agent. An unsaved default-open
policy must remain limited to the responsible-user path. A scoped
`inbox:manage` grant must remain an administrative override.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Save an inbox-agent allowlist for a user.
2. Include the acting agent in that allowlist.
3. Call `POST /api/issues/{issueId}/inbox-archive` with that user's
explicit `userId`.
4. Observe the incorrect `403 inbox_cross_user_grant_required` response
on the previous implementation.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on `7ea2068ef8`.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server.
**Installation method**
Built from source with pnpm.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This is a core authorization bug.
**Database mode**
External Postgres in production. The regression tests use embedded
PostgreSQL.
**Access context**
Agent bearer authentication.
Related foundations: #9658 and #9724.
## What Changed
- Read the target user's saved inbox-agent policy before the
explicit-target decision.
- Allow saved `open` policies and matching allowlists for explicit
targets.
- Keep unsaved implicit-open policies responsible-user-only.
- Keep scoped `inbox:manage` grants as administrative overrides.
- Add service and route regressions for allow, deny, archive, unarchive,
and audit metadata.
- Update the implementation contract and agent-facing inbox API
guidance.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts` — 66 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is limited to explicit inbox targets with a saved
policy.
- A missing policy row still denies explicit cross-user access.
- A non-matching allowlist and a disabled policy still deny access
unless a scoped administrative grant applies.
> 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 runtime did not expose the exact
model build or context-window size. The agent used reasoning, repository
tools, code execution, and focused 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>
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b58ce27a02 |
fix: isolate execution workspace summaries (#10790)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip gives operators a summary for each workspace. > - An execution workspace detail page used the parent project-workspace summary slot. > - Two execution workspaces under one project workspace could therefore show the same summary. > - This pull request gives each execution workspace its own summary scope. > - It also limits the summary snapshot and generated issue to that execution workspace. > - The benefit is that a new or parallel execution workspace cannot inherit unrelated status. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An execution workspace detail page read and refreshed the summary slot for its parent project workspace. Parallel execution workspaces could show the same status and include issues from each other. **Expected behavior** Each execution workspace must have one isolated summary slot. Its generated snapshot must include only issues assigned to that execution workspace. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create two execution workspaces under one project workspace. 2. Add different issues to each execution workspace. 3. Generate the summary in the first execution workspace. 4. Open the second execution workspace. 5. Observe that the old implementation could reuse the first summary. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this pull request. **Deployment mode** The issue affects both local trusted and authenticated deployments. ## What Changed - Added `execution_workspace` to the shared summary-slot scope contract. - Validated execution-workspace ownership and stored generated summary issues on the correct execution workspace. - Limited execution-workspace snapshots to issues with the matching execution workspace ID. - Updated the execution workspace page to use its own summary slot. - Updated Summarizer instructions, routine options, catalog metadata, documentation, and regression tests. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/summary-slot.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts ui/src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx` — 30 focused tests passed; the embedded-Postgres server tests were run outside the process-restricted sandbox. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog validate` — passed with 17 catalog skills. - [Latest-head GitHub Actions](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/31491475405) — all 22 jobs passed on `beea14cbaf`, including typecheck, build, server/workspace tests, serialized suites, e2e, canary, and aggregate verification. One unrelated adapter cleanup test initially hit an `ENOTEMPTY` temp-directory race; its single permitted rerun passed. - Greptile — 5/5 confidence on `beea14cbaf`, 12 files reviewed, zero comments added, and zero unresolved threads. ## Risks - Low risk. The new scope is additive. - Existing project and project-workspace summary slots keep their current keys and behavior. - A summary generated for an execution workspace now excludes sibling workspace issues by design. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The deployment does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window value. It used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub tooling. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6ffe9df842 |
fix(auth): clarify protected-agent assignment blocks (#10893)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task assignment policies control which agents can receive work. > - Protected-agent policy flags currently stop assignment. > - The existing error says that the assignment requires approval. > - Paperclip has no approval workflow for this policy. > - This pull request models the policy as a hard block and gives the operator an action that exists. > - The benefit is accurate API guidance without weakening the existing fail-closed behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #6386 **What happened?** A protected-agent assignment denial said that approval was required. No approval record or approval action existed for this policy, so the message sent agents and operators to a dead end. **Expected behavior** The authorization result must state that protected-agent policy blocks assignment. It must tell a company administrator to remove the block before retrying. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Set `authorizationPolicy.protectedAgent.requiresApproval` to `true` on a target agent. 2. Give another agent the `tasks:assign` permission. 3. Preview or attempt assignment to the protected agent. 4. Observe that the old response promises an approval step that does not exist. **Paperclip version or commit** `c54936e2e9` on `master`. **Deployment mode** Built from source. The behavior is in the core authorization service and is not deployment-specific. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. ## What Changed - Added canonical `protectedAgent.blockAssignment` and `protectedAgent.blockReason` policy fields. - Kept the legacy approval-named flags as fail-closed compatibility aliases. - Changed denial copy to name the hard block and the administrator action. - Added authorization and plugin-host regression coverage for canonical and legacy policy data. - Updated the V1 implementation contract with the protected-assignment rule. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts` — 2 files passed, 61 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` — passed. The repository-wide local wrappers exceeded the execution host resource limit before they printed a final summary. The PR check loop will use GitHub CI as the complete test and build authority. ## Risks - Low: assignment remains fail-closed. The change corrects the policy name and denial guidance. - Low: legacy fields remain supported, so existing plugin-owned policy data does not change behavior. - Low: the new policy schemas allow unknown keys for forward compatibility, as the existing authorization policy schema already does. > 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`, tool-enabled coding agent with reasoning, shell, Git, and GitHub CLI access. 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
|
5858ccb981 |
feat: make in-app features cloud-aware (#10850)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators use the same board application in self-hosted and Paperclip Cloud deployments. > - A Cloud tenant contains one company, so an in-app company switch does not change the active Cloud stack. > - Cloud operators need the sidebar and company surfaces to use the signed-in user's stack portfolio. > - The server must derive Cloud identity and links from trusted instance context instead of client input. > - This pull request adds canonical Cloud context, a trusted stack portfolio proxy, and Cloud-aware navigation. > - The benefit is consistent stack switching on Cloud while self-hosted company behavior stays unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server REST routes and the React board UI. **Problem or motivation** A Cloud-managed instance contains one company. The existing company switcher could only switch records inside that tenant. It could not move the operator to another Cloud stack. The existing header also gave long organization names too little width. **Proposed solution** Expose a canonical public Cloud context in health data. Add a trusted server proxy for the current user's stack portfolio. Use that data in the board UI to switch stacks with top-level navigation. Keep the existing company behavior on self-hosted instances. Move search into the navigation and keep long organization names inside the sidebar panel. **Alternatives considered** An in-app `/stacks` route was rejected because Cloud tenant hosts reserve that path and stack selection must wake or authenticate another tenant. Client-supplied user identity was rejected because the server can derive the trusted Cloud actor. **Roadmap alignment** This change advances the Cloud deployments milestone. It keeps the product local-first and Cloud-ready without changing the self-hosted mental model. ## What Changed - Added canonical Cloud instance context and public health metadata. - Added a Cloud-only stack portfolio proxy with trusted actor forwarding and per-user caching. - Prevented normal company creation on Cloud-managed instances. - Switched the sidebar and Companies page from company actions to stack actions on Cloud. - Added full-page stack navigation and Cloud create-stack links. - Moved search into the sidebar navigation so the organization name keeps more width. - Added truncation and hover recovery for long organization and stack names. - Added server and UI regression coverage for Cloud and self-hosted behavior. - Updated the implementation specification for the Cloud contracts. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` passed. All three token gates are clean. - `pnpm --dir server exec vitest run src/__tests__/health.test.ts src/__tests__/cloud-instance.test.ts src/__tests__/cloud-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/company-cloud-floor.test.ts src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts` passed: 5 files and 66 tests. - `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.test.tsx` passed: 1 file and 11 tests. - Pre-PR QA report `7da87ca7` passed all 8 acceptance criteria with real HTTP route factories and real Chromium screenshots in Cloud and self-hosted modes. - Security reviews passed for the canonical Cloud context and stack portfolio proxy. ## Risks - Cloud stack switching depends on the configured Cloud application and tenant portfolio URLs. - The new health `cloud` block is public by design, but it contains only canonical public instance metadata. - The stack proxy fails closed on self-hosted instances and derives the user identity from the trusted actor. - Self-hosted navigation and company creation retain their existing paths and behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-5`. The run used reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and GitHub integration. The deployment did not expose its 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
|
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> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
|
0a09e4d975 |
feat(decisions): add desk workflow and retention (#10672)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Decisions desk shows work that needs a human decision > - The queue foundation can group and rank decision work > - Operators also need a focused daily view and a safe way to handle old work > - This pull request adds the desk controls, the aging shelf, and reversible retention > - It also binds bulk archive decisions to the exact reviewed item set > - The benefit is a smaller daily queue without lost or orphaned work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server, UI, database, and shared contracts. **Problem or motivation** Decision work can grow into one large company list. Operators need quick queue and date controls. Old items also need a safe retention path that does not delete work. **Proposed solution** Add queue and date controls to the Decisions desk. Compute the aging shelf on the server. Archive idle items after 90 days unless an operator keeps them. Keep archived items searchable and revivable. Notify origin agents in one batch per sweep. Bind bulk archive proposals to a signed, exact item manifest. **Alternatives considered** Client-only aging can drift across browsers and source kinds. Deleting old rows removes audit and recovery paths. An unsigned dynamic bulk query can archive items that the reviewer did not inspect. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports the Work Queues and decision-memory directions in `ROADMAP.md`. It extends the Decisions and attention-feed foundation from #10651. Related earlier work includes #9380, #10010, and #10474. ## What Changed - Added the queue rail, date chips, decide split, triage strip, queue page, and aging shelf UI. - Added server-owned shelf state with per-queue retention overrides. - Added reversible retention state, archive history, and an idempotent notification outbox. - Added the 90-day archive sweeper, Keep exemption, archived feed query, and revive actions. - Added one origin-agent notification per agent and sweep. - Added signed bulk archive proposals with exact-set and version checks. - Persisted queue-exclusion reasons atomically and kept cross-domain source resolution per-item until it has an exact-set transaction contract. - Added API contracts, OpenAPI entries, migration coverage, focused tests, and Storybook screens. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` (server: 329 files and 3,453 tests passed; UI: 408 files and 3,362 tests passed) - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - Focused retention, attention, decisions, migration replay, startup, and UI API tests. - Complete queue snapshot regression with 51 items across the normal 50-item page boundary. The unmodified CLI test reports one warning assertion in this runtime because the harness injects static AWS credential variables. The isolated test passes when those two variables are removed. ## Risks - The migration adds retention and notification outbox tables. It uses idempotent table, index, and foreign-key creation. - Retention runs on the heartbeat scheduler interval. Compare-and-set version checks prevent stale archive writes. - Bulk archive acceptance fails closed when authority, activity, version, or the reviewed set changes. - Archive is reversible and does not delete source records. > 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 model used tool calls, code execution, database migration generation, and test execution. The context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
30c49c8327 |
feat(decisions): add queues and prioritized attention feed (#10651)
<!-- 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 control plane for companies of AI agents. > - Operators use the attention feed to find decisions that need action. > - The feed has eleven source kinds, but it has no durable queue or triage state. > - The feed also returns every item and lacks decision deadlines, snooze state, and decision-focused ordering. > - This pull request adds secure queue sidecars and enriches the attention feed with triage data, filters, cursor pagination, and decide-now ranking. > - The benefit is a bounded feed that can show the most urgent decisions first without weakening source visibility rules. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request replaces the closed [#10634](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10634). It combines that queue foundation with the dependent attention-feed change as one review unit. **Subsystem affected** Database schema, shared contracts, server authorization and REST APIs, and the UI attention client library. **Problem or motivation** The attention feed can contain hundreds of mixed decision items. Operators cannot group them into durable queues, set a decision deadline, snooze an item, or request a bounded page ordered by urgency. The current client must download the full feed on each refresh. **Proposed solution** Store queue membership and triage state by stable attention identity. Re-authorize each source during queue reads and writes. Enrich attention items with queue, deadline, snooze, expiry, rule, and origin data. Add activity and queue filters, opaque cursor pagination, decide-focused ordering, and a decide-now count. **Alternatives considered** Adding queue fields to every source would duplicate schema and authorization logic across eleven source kinds. Client-only filtering and sorting would still transfer the full feed and would make pagination unstable. **Roadmap alignment** This change improves the core decision-attention surface and operator oversight. It does not implement the separate general-purpose work queue milestone in `ROADMAP.md`. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped queue, membership, triage, and append-only event tables with actor and run provenance. - Added queue CRUD, item membership, starter-rule discovery, and decide-by and snooze endpoints. - Kept source authorization on each queue mutation, read, and count. - Added attention fields for expiry, rule, origin agent, queues, decide-by attribution, and snooze state. - Added activity date filters, queue filters, opaque cursor pagination, and configurable page limits. - Added decide-now ordering by deadline, expiry, severity, and activity. - Added `decideNowCount` and excluded actively snoozed items from the default feed. - Updated the shared and UI client contracts. - Added focused server, route, OpenAPI, and UI client tests. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/decision-queues-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/api/attention.test.ts ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts` (72 tests passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/db --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` ## Risks - The migration adds four company-scoped tables and provenance foreign keys. Migration numbering and safety checks pass. - Attention reads can lazily create starter queues and memberships. Inserts are idempotent, audited, and transactional. - Cursor validity depends on the filtered feed. The API returns a clear validation error when the cursor item no longer exists in that feed. - Queue reads re-check source visibility. This favors correct authorization over fewer queries. > 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, model `gpt-5`. The runtime used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. The runtime did 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
|
14d4db6330 |
fix(inbox): keep passive issue views out of Mine (#10581)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The inbox shows work that a board user owns or has joined > - Issue detail views update a per-user read receipt > - The Mine query treated that read receipt as user participation > - A passive view therefore added the issue to Mine > - This pull request separates passive reads from audited user mutations > - The benefit is a Mine inbox that reflects ownership and real participation ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Opening an issue detail marks the issue as read. The Mine query treated the read receipt as participation. The viewed issue then appeared in Mine even when the user did not change it. **Expected behavior** Viewing an issue can update unread state. A view alone must not add the issue to Mine. Issue creation, assignment, comments, and audited user mutations must add it. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open an issue that you did not create and that is not assigned to you. 2. Do not comment or change the issue. 3. Open the Mine inbox. 4. Observe that the issue appears in Mine on the previous implementation. **Paperclip version or commit** `90ead239a8` **Deployment mode** Local dev from source. **Additional context** Related approach: #3421 changes Mine to an assignee-only filter. This change keeps participation-based Mine behavior and corrects the participation signal. ## What Changed - Use an explicit audited user-mutation allowlist for Mine participation, including comment cancellation. - Keep passive reads, previews, denied resource requests, and archive bookkeeping out of Mine participation. - Record manual routine reuse as an explicit audited inbox touch instead of a read receipt. - Keep that inbox bookkeeping from satisfying routine activity gates. - Add focused regression coverage for passive views, real mutations, comment cancellation, and manual routine runs. - Document the Mine participation contract. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "does not treat passive issue activity"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts -t "touches a (coalesced|skipped active) routine issue|ignores inbox bookkeeping activity"` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - GitHub latest-head CI: all required checks passed, including build, typecheck, server suites, and e2e shards. ## Risks - Low risk. The change affects only the server query that defines user participation in Mine and the manual routine touch signal. - Historical audited user mutations can now qualify an issue for Mine. Passive read and archive actions remain excluded. > 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 family. The runtime did not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code 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
|
71a6535792 |
docs(execution-semantics): define routable blocking and watchdog restoration (#10094)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Execution semantics define when work may stop, how child work reports upward, and how watchdog recovery proves liveness was restored. > - The existing docs did not require a routable waiting path before entering `blocked`, leaving permission-denial and review workflows vulnerable to dead ends. > - Child-to-parent reporting and low-trust review delegation also needed explicit channels and ownership boundaries. > - Watchdog recovery needed bounded restoration verification rather than treating a recovery write as proof of restored progress. > - The security-sensitive defaults were reviewed and approved before publication. > - This pull request documents those contracts and synchronizes the bundled Paperclip skills that operationalize them. > - The benefit is clearer stop conditions, safer reporting defaults, and bounded watchdog recovery without sacrificing liveness. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No public GitHub issue exists for this execution-semantics documentation phase, so the problem and solution are described here in full. - Problem: `blocked` could be entered without a routable owner/action path, review findings could be reported on the wrong issue or treated as blockers, and watchdog recovery lacked bounded verification of restored liveness. ## What Changed - Require a routable waiting path for `blocked` and clarify that permission denial alone is not a blocker. - Define canonical child-to-parent completion/report channels, review-delegation ownership, and the sanctioned courier pattern. - Specify atomic watchdog recovery batches, fingerprint validation, bounded restoration attempts, and human escalation. - Document the low-trust preset default for report comments and align both bundled Paperclip skills. ## Scope and Sequencing - This is the contract-first P1 documentation PR. Runtime enforcement is intentionally excluded and follows in the separately owned implementation phases; these docs define the acceptance contract those phases must satisfy. - The five-file patch is approved and frozen for this PR, so review findings about absent runtime support are tracked as implementation-phase requirements rather than edits to this docs-only change. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` - Confirmed the PR diff is exactly 5 approved docs/skill files with 91 insertions and 1 deletion. - Confirmed the patch preserves the approved execution-semantics contract after replay on latest `origin/master`. ## Risks - Low implementation risk: documentation and skill guidance only; no runtime code, schema, migration, dependency, lockfile, or workflow changes. - Semantic risk is limited to readers or agents applying the clarified contracts; the security-sensitive R1a default was approved before publication. > 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 (exact underlying model ID and context-window size are not exposed by this runtime), with reasoning, terminal tool use, Git/GitHub operations, 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 private URLs or internal issue identifiers - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [x] I have run the applicable docs-only checks locally and they pass - [x] Tests are not applicable because this is a docs/skill-guidance-only change - [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
|
ea0e899905 |
fix(search): honor extract match limits + harden pr-gardening candidate discovery (#9652)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The `/pr-gardening` skill drives a bundled agent that scans a
company's issues for those linked to open GitHub PRs, then reports on
their state; it relies on the server's company-search **extract**
endpoint to pull PR references out of issue bodies
> - Two gaps surfaced during end-to-end QA of the gardening workflow:
the extract service silently ignored a per-issue match cap, so callers
could not bound how many matches came back per issue, and the skill's
candidate-discovery scripts fell over on large repos and on issues that
referenced deleted PRs
> - Left unaddressed, the gardener either truncated its scan
unpredictably or aborted outright, so it could not reliably enumerate PR
candidates
> - This pull request honors an explicit `matchesPerIssue` limit in the
extract search API and hardens the skill's candidate discovery against
missing/unavailable PRs and oversized `gh` output
> - The benefit is a PR-gardening workflow that scans deterministically
and finishes cleanly on real-world companies
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No pre-existing public GitHub issue — describing the bug in-PR following
the bug report template (`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml`).
### What happened?
The company-search extract endpoint accepted a per-issue match limit but
did not apply it, returning matches capped only by the old hardcoded
constant regardless of the caller's request. Separately, the
`/pr-gardening` skill's candidate-discovery scripts crashed when a
scanned issue referenced a deleted PR (GitHub `Not Found (HTTP 404)` /
GraphQL `Could not resolve to a PullRequest`) and could exceed the
default `gh` output buffer on large result sets, aborting the whole
scan.
### Expected behavior
The extract API bounds matches per issue when a caller passes
`matchesPerIssue` (default 20, max 200), and omitting it preserves the
previous default. The gardening scripts skip PRs that are
deleted/unavailable and tolerate large `gh` responses without aborting
the scan.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Call the company-search extract endpoint with a `matchesPerIssue`
value against an issue containing many PR references — previously the
value was ignored.
2. Run the pr-gardening candidate scan against a company whose issues
reference a since-deleted PR — previously the scan threw instead of
skipping that PR.
### Paperclip version or commit
`master` at the base of this PR (branch cut from current
`origin/master`).
### Deployment mode
Local Paperclip instance / self-hosted.
## What Changed
- **Extract search honors `matchesPerIssue`**: added the
`matchesPerIssue` field to the shared search validator/types and applied
the cap in `company-search-extract` so results are bounded per issue
(`packages/shared`, `server/src/services/company-search-extract.ts`,
`doc/SPEC-implementation.md`).
- **Hardened pr-gardening candidate discovery**: `find-candidates.mjs` /
`lib.mjs` now request `matchesPerIssue=200`, treat missing/unavailable
PRs (deleted PR → `isMissingPullRequestError` / `unavailable`) as skips
instead of fatal errors, and raise the `gh` `maxBuffer` to 50 MB for
large repos.
- **Tests**: expanded `company-search-extract-{routes,service}.test.ts`
for the new limit and added coverage in `pr-gardening.test.mjs`.
## Verification
Re-run on a fresh worktree cherry-picked onto current `master`:
- `node --test
.agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` → 8/8 pass
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-service.test.ts` → 10/10
pass
## Risks
Low risk. `matchesPerIssue` is optional and backward-compatible
(omitting it preserves prior behavior). The skill changes only add
skip/tolerance paths and a larger buffer; no schema or migration
changes.
## Model Used
Claude — Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use /
code execution via the Claude Agent SDK.
## 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
|
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> |
||
|
|
89ce36d7af |
feat(skills): open-by-default company skill policy and core UX (#9564)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses company skills to make agent capabilities reusable across an organization. > - Skill operations currently mix capability availability with permission checks, which creates avoidable setup friction and inconsistent denial handling. > - The policy contract needs to remain open by default while allowing company-scoped restrictions for governed deployments. > - Core owns the canonical policy actions, persistence, evaluation, API behavior, safe import boundaries, and generic denial/read-only UI. > - Enterprise policy-editor implementation belongs in the separate `paperclip-ee` repository and is intentionally excluded from this PR. ### Problem or motivation Company skill operations can encounter permission dead ends even when no explicit restriction has been configured, and import-source classification can drift between policy evaluation and execution. ### Proposed solution Define eight canonical skill policy actions, default all actions to allowed, persist company-scoped restrictions, expose policy evaluation APIs, normalize import sources at the boundary, and update Skill Studio to present actionable restriction states without embedding Enterprise Edition implementation in the core repository. ### Alternatives considered Keeping capability checks distributed across routes and UI surfaces was rejected because it duplicates policy logic and makes denial behavior inconsistent. Shipping the Enterprise policy editor in this repository was rejected because `paperclip-ee` is a separate repository and must receive its own PR. ### Roadmap alignment Extends the completed **Skills Manager** roadmap area by adding coherent governance and removing workflow dead ends. ### Additional context The core API contract remains suitable for a separate Enterprise Edition editor, but this PR contains no `paperclip-ee` package or EE-specific UI integration code. ## What Changed - Added the company skill policy contract to product and implementation documentation, including the open-by-default rule, eight canonical actions, decision shape, and core/EE ownership boundary. - Added the company-scoped policy schema, migration `0170`, shared validators, policy service, REST routes, OpenAPI coverage, and focused server tests. - Hardened import policy enforcement by normalizing import sources and keeping source classification consistent between policy evaluation and execution. - Updated core Skill Studio behavior to remove generic permission dead ends and show actionable policy/platform denial states only when an operation is actually denied. - Removed the `plugin-paperclip-ee` package, Docker wiring, EE discovery/deep-link helpers, and EE-specific UI tests/stories from this PR so that implementation can be submitted separately to the EE repository. - Preserved open-by-default behavior when no explicit company restriction exists. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/skill-studio/SkillPolicySurfaces.test.tsx src/lib/skill-policy-denial.test.ts` — 20/20 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec tsc --noEmit` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` — 12/12 passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean. - `git diff --check` — passed. - `git diff --name-only origin/master | rg 'paperclip-ee|ee-skill-policy'` — no matches. ## Risks - Migration `0170` introduces company policy persistence; rollout depends on the migration applying before policy routes are exercised. - Open-by-default is an intentional behavioral policy: deployments expecting implicit denials must configure explicit restrictions. - Import normalization is security-sensitive and should retain focused review. - The separate EE editor must stay contract-compatible with the core policy API as policy actions evolve. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI, runtime model identifier and context-window size not exposed by this execution environment; reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, and code review capabilities 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 available to this runtime) - [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 or described the result 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 focused 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 on the latest head - [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> Co-authored-by: Evyatar Bluzer <bluzername@users.noreply.github.com> |