36 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Nicky Leach	100477e887	Avoid live workspace inspection in task context reads (#17396)	2026-10-23 17:05:06 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	d33b40a5c3	fix: recover saved work and provide reliable task Retry (#16965) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The control plane must retain work when an execution or workspace export fails. > - Retained-workspace holds can leave saved input waiting with no usable Retry action. > - Users cannot verify process ownership or repair provider allocations. > - This pull request gives system recovery a durable budget and gives each deliberate Retry a durable intent. > - Safe recovery can preserve files, settle an accepted result, or prepare an independent workspace. > - One task state keeps infrastructure diagnostics out of the ordinary conversation while preserving real permission and approval gates. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task with a retained workspace can show recovery, failed-run and saved-message warnings at the same time. Historical runs without native workspace descriptors cannot use the native restore path. Old recovery metadata can prevent a new attempt even when an independent workspace would be safe. **Expected behavior** Paperclip owns bounded infrastructure retries and file preservation. A user can request another attempt with ordinary Retry. Thinking appears immediately. The service preserves completed effects and current user controls. It does not claim that starting fresh recovered the old files. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Retain a failed run and its workspace after export or process-stop failure. 2. Save a follow-up while the recovery hold is active. 3. Open the task and try to continue without infrastructure credentials or operator certification. Refs #16906, #16835, #16883. This extends their recovery and receipt contracts. Related work: #16962 and #16963. ## What Changed - Add task-level Retry with company-scoped authorization, all-status idempotency and durable admission before physical work. Keep exact-run Retry compatible. - Add typed recovery phases, finite persisted backoff, historical adoption and durable local failure diagnostics. - Preserve native workspaces or verified historical snapshots. Admit an independent fresh workspace only after execution containment. Keep old-source preservation and cleanup obligations separate. - Carry completed publication and API receipts forward. Fence uncertain mutation retries across replacement runs. Preserve connected-chat identity and authorization. - Re-enter normal dispatch for saved input. Reuse accepted results through the existing finalizer. - Use one task interruption projection across the thread, composer and task list. Show optimistic Thinking, ordinary Retry and genuine user gates. - Add PostgreSQL, filesystem, API, browser-fixture and controlled provider coverage. Document the behavior and update the feature/access maps. ## Verification - All GitHub Actions CI jobs pass on `6d8c6d27d50586d8548b31d03b47f6d73a0ee11d`: typecheck, all server/chat/workspace and serialized suites, Runner checks, eight browser shards, canary and build. The required merge gate passes. - Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5, with no actionable findings or unresolved review threads. Its two earlier P1 findings are fixed. - Full recursive typecheck and build pass locally on the final commit. All 16 task Retry cases pass against isolated real PostgreSQL. The unrelated-success case and both stale Retry cases fail on the previous code and pass after the fix. - The corrected gateway fixture passes its uncertain-mutation and independent-read case. Four real HTTP API cases pass for definite 403/422 rejection, completed-effect reuse, and uncertain-effect fences across deliberate and automatic retries. These focused gateway/API checks used a temporary database lifecycle harness on an existing healthy local PostgreSQL process. The standard repository helper is unchanged. - Earlier qualification covers 291 task UI cases, saved-file copyback and ancestry, current Agent Chat ownership races, nine chat Retry API browser cases, and six assembled browser recovery fixtures. A real API/PostgreSQL/native-runner journey showed Thinking in 25 ms despite a delayed response, admitted one successor in a separate workspace, retained original files, and survived reload. - The controlled Daytona test interrupts export, joins the controller, restarts it in a separate process, and verifies one agent start, one external sentinel operation, retained file contents and no premature cleanup. It does not establish abrupt-kill or live LLM/GitHub acceptance. - The full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and was not green: an OAuth row-lock timing assertion failed, and a later suite exhausted macOS PostgreSQL semaphores. The ten OAuth timing cases passed on rerun against a separate database. Later embedded database initialization failures remain recorded; the final CI matrix passes. - Security scanning passed on production-code commit `63953edf069b111c6becc3144dffa6deb52f68b5`. Its only successor changes one test-fixture identity line. The final scan is neutral/inconclusive because its pinned merge-base checkout failed or timed out. Both rerun API requests returned 404, so no fresh successful scan is claimed. Socket and Snyk checks pass on the final head. - The optional Paperclip Review remains queued behind an earlier run in workspace finalization. Its prior completed assessment was incomplete because a comparison tool was blocked by the platform filter. It is not counted as a completed code review. GitHub does not require this check for merge. - Hosted acceptance remains pending deployment. Local and CI results do not establish recovery of a hosted task or its retained files. ## Risks - Recovery changes span admission, physical ownership and dispatch. Incorrect evidence could permit overlapping work. Existing physical locks and authoritative stop requirements remain in place. - The migration adds concurrent indexes. It requires the existing top-level migration runner and retries incomplete index creation safely. - A fresh attempt can complete while old-source preservation remains unresolved. The service retains that obligation and does not report those files as recovered. - Unknown tool mutations remain blocked until their authoritative receipt owner resolves them. Generic upstream tools have no universal result-query protocol. - Recovery and diagnostics stay inside the stack. No Cloud incident endpoint, notification worker or new outbound reporting channel is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose a more specific model version or context-window size. The model used reasoning, shell execution, source editing and browser tools. No model subagents were used for this implementation. ## 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 (focused suites; the full local run limitation is documented above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 19:58:53 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	faa8e452c7	fix(tasks): stop repeated reminders for historical questions (#15392) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task questions remain saved so a person can answer them later. > - The composer moves an old question into history after a newer human message. > - Native completion still treated every pending question as a required response. > - This caused agents to demand an old answer after the person moved work forward. > - This pull request shares the historical-question rule across context and task execution. > - Agents can finish verified work while the original question remains answerable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15229, Refs #14613, Refs #13130. **What happened?** An agent repeatedly asked a person to answer a question that had moved into feed history. Completion feedback explicitly told the agent to request a response. The saved pending row also blocked task completion. **Expected behavior** A question before newer human direction remains answerable in the feed. Its pending state alone must not require another reminder or stop completed work. A new input blocker, an approval, or a configured review stage must keep its gate. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let a task agent create an ordinary question. 2. Dismiss the question and send a newer task message. 3. Let the agent finish the requested work and submit its completion report. 4. Observe a demand to answer the old question and a retained completion gate. ## What Changed - Add one company-scoped predicate for historical questions. Only later human comments count. Exclude agent attribution, run attribution, system notices, and untrusted source data. - Apply the predicate to completion feedback, native waits, finalization, commit validation, retry validation, blocked routing, and successful-run handoff. - Include question classification and guidance in heartbeat context and both native task-context tools. Add the guidance to fresh and resumed task prompts. - Replace automatic reminders for current ordinary questions with instructions to assess the real blocker, continue independent work, and withdraw obsolete questions through the existing API. - Preserve historical question rows during completion while cancelling their live native source runs through the existing post-commit and recovery paths. Let an authorized human answer them after completion without reopening work or creating a response wake. Preserve cancellation, current-input, approval, permission, credential, connection, and review gates. Add no dismissal storage or migration. - Document the rule in the execution contract and agent skill. Refresh generated capability source anchors. Add database-backed status, context, attribution, and governance regression tests. ## Verification - `pnpm build` passed. The server rebuild also passed after the lifecycle fix. Generated capability contract and inventory checks passed after the agent documentation update. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. Final `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` also passed after the last test additions. - Lifecycle and interaction regressions passed: 224 tests in 3 suites. Context and prompt tests also passed. Final historical-question cases passed (33 tests), native cancellation/recovery cases passed (6 tests), and the existing interaction/confirmation suites passed (72 tests). The full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after more than two hours with unrelated fixture/hook timeout failures; it did not pass. All 52 successful GitHub checks are green on the latest commit, including the complete test matrix; no checks are pending or failing. Greptile is 5/5 and both review threads are resolved. - Regression cases cover the old-question/new-human-message sequence, final task status, answering after completion with no wake, live-run cancellation and crash recovery, current input blockers, both task-context tools, API context, timestamp precision, attribution boundaries, and protected gates. ## Risks - A later human task message makes an earlier ordinary question historical even if its input is still missing. The agent must identify the current blocker and ask only for information that still prevents work. - Browser dismissal remains a local preference. Dismissal without a later human message is not recorded by this change. - No schema change or data migration. Completion retains ordinary historical questions; cancellation still expires them. A completed task accepts historical answers only from an authorized human and creates no response-delivery outbox row. Governed requests retain their gates. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository editing, code execution, and browser diagnostics. The exact deployment model ID 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>	2026-10-06 20:33:13 -05:00
5 people	1477d1ecea	test: remove the no-op sequential describe modifier (#15286) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip runs the server and runner test suites with Vitest. > - Vitest 5 removes the deprecated `describe.sequential` property, so the pending Vitest 5 upgrade fails the type-check and test jobs. > - `describe.sequential` only changes behaviour inside a `describe.concurrent` suite, or when `sequence.concurrent` is on. > - This repository has neither, so the modifier changed nothing at run time. > - The benefit is that the Vitest 5 upgrade can land, and the test files lose a modifier that did no work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #12969 ## What Changed - Replace every `describe.sequential` use with a plain `describe` call. - Drop the `{ concurrent: false }` suite option from the two runner test files. - Add a comment to `server/vitest.config.ts` that records why these suites must run one test at a time. - Leave the package manifests and the lockfile unchanged. ## Why the modifier did nothing The Vitest documentation states that `describe.sequential` is useful to run tests in sequence inside a `describe.concurrent` suite, or with the `--sequence.concurrent` option. `sequence.concurrent` defaults to `false`. This repository satisfies neither condition: - No test file uses `describe.concurrent`, `it.concurrent`, or `test.concurrent`. - `server/vitest.config.ts` sets `sequence.concurrent: false`, with `maxWorkers: 1`, `maxConcurrency: 1`, and `isolate: true`. - `packages/paperclip-runner/vitest.config.ts` sets no `sequence` block, so the `false` default applies. `packages/db` and `cli` already run the same embedded-Postgres suites with a plain `describe`, and those jobs are green. The server package was the only outlier. The modifier did carry one real piece of knowledge: these suites need their tests to run one at a time. The new comment in `server/vitest.config.ts` records that reason next to the setting that enforces it. ## Verification - `git grep` for `describe.sequential` returns nothing outside `node_modules`. - The author ran the changed server test files under the installed Vitest 4, and the results match the results without this change. - Two very large embedded-Postgres test files exceeded the author's local memory limit, so the CI test jobs cover those two. - The two changed runner test files have pre-existing local failures caused by a missing Rust toolchain and a missing global `pnpm` binary. The failures are identical with and without this change. - The author type-checked the changed files and found no new error. - CI must pass the typecheck, build, server test, and runner verify jobs. ## Risks - Low risk. Suite execution stays serial, because the Vitest config enforces it. - The change adds no dependency and changes no package manifest or lockfile. - A future change that turns `sequence.concurrent` on would break these suites. The new config comment warns against it. ## Model Used - Claude Sonnet 5 — code edits and local verification. - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 — the earlier revision of this branch. ## Test plan - [x] Every CI check reaches a terminal green state. A pending or queued check is not a pass. - [x] The `Typecheck + Release Registry` job passes. This change must not introduce a type error. - [x] The `Build` job passes. - [x] The server test jobs and the runner verify jobs pass. - [x] Greptile re-reviews this commit set and posts a passing verdict. The dependabot waiver does not apply to this pull request. - [x] `mergeable` reads `MERGEABLE` as a terminal value. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have linked the related public issue with `Refs: #12969` - [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: Priya Raman <priya.raman@paperclip.ing> --------- Co-authored-by: Priya Raman <priya.raman@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: nickyleach <331803+nickyleach@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-10-06 07:19:15 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	3bafac12f7	refactor: remove automatic productivity reviews (#13263) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its recovery loop keeps assigned work moving after execution failures. > - Productivity review used run counts, comment counts, and elapsed time to create management tasks. > - Infrastructure failures could satisfy those rules and create more tasks without evidence that the source work needed management review. > - This pull request removes that detector and its continuation holds. > - Bounded recovery, budgets, explicit blockers, and normal review stages remain in place. > - Existing task records stay readable and unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #5897. That request describes unwanted automatic productivity reviews and asks to preserve existing tasks. This change retires the feature instead of adding another configuration switch. Related prior approaches: Refs #9191, Refs #12489. Those changes excluded infrastructure failures or bounded review creation. This removal replaces the detector rather than tuning its thresholds. ## What Changed - Delete the scheduled detector, automatic task creation, evidence refresh, and productivity continuation holds. - Remove computed productivity fields, special attention items, badges, and Storybook fixtures. - Retain historical origin values, decision compatibility, and recovery recursion exclusions. Add no migration and change no existing task data. - Update the execution contract. Replace feature tests with regressions for legacy task reads, ordinary attention, and bounded continuation in the presence of an old review. ## Verification - Targeted attention, issue-route, startup, and UI tests: 4 files and 101 tests passed. - Updated issue-route and UI tests: 2 files and 61 tests passed. - Bounded continuation regression: 2 cases passed, including a legacy review plus pre-dispatch cancellation churn. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: all four gates passed. - `git diff --check`: passed. - `pnpm build-storybook`: passed. - Greptile: 5/5 on `a5a612eea`, with no actionable findings. - Scheduler and historical recovery regressions: 2 files and 28 tests passed. - Repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed. - The complete `pnpm test:run` suite passed across the CI server, serialized-server, and workspace shards on `a5a612eea`. Stopped the duplicate local monolithic run after the full CI suite passed; no completed local full-suite result is claimed. The targeted local suites above passed. - CI serialized shard 5 initially hit a 10-second timeout in the first interaction-route test. The complete file passed locally (78 tests), then the single CI rerun passed. - All CI gates are green, including the build and end-to-end suites. - A local merge check against current `master` (`ce09ea40b`) completed without conflicts. ## Risks - API responses no longer include the computed `productivityReview` field. Consumers must stop using it. - The scheduler no longer creates management work from elapsed time, run counts, or missing comments. This is the intended behavior change. - Existing review tasks and explicit dependencies remain in place. Historical origins still prevent recursive recovery treatment. No task cleanup or data migration occurs. - The native review handoff repair is separate from this removal. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. 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>	2026-09-11 15:46:35 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	889947c238	feat: add experimental native chat connectors (#13038) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People also ask agents for work in their existing chat tools. > - Each external conversation needs one task and a current authorized source. > - Retries, Stop, and provider failures must not duplicate work or expose private data. > - The first chat PR establishes the opt-in provider and data contracts. > - This PR adds experimental channel integration and its durable control plane. > - Users can request work from connected channels and inspect delivery in Paperclip. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13100 and #13092. This is the second of exactly two chat PRs. Foundation #13100 is merged and changed 143 files. Runner prerequisite #13092 is also merged. This PR changes 400 files against master, below the 500-file review limit. It contains no wireframe images or HTML galleries. ## What Changed - Add native Slack, GitHub, Microsoft Teams, Telegram, and Discord chat connections. Keep chat disabled unless the operator enables experimental chat connectors. Preserve the production GitHub tool connection and its normal setup path. - Bind each provider bot identity to one immutable Paperclip agent. Bind each admitted external conversation to one task. Paperclip owns tasks, runs, permissions, and audit records. - Add durable admission, per-conversation queues, questions, task controls, progress, final replies, images, files, and delivery receipts. Board comments remain internal unless explicitly sent to the channel. - Check current identity, provider reach, resource access, credentials, runtime generation, and exact source before provider effects. Keep private responses private. Never send raw reasoning, private logs, credentials, or tool arguments. - Hold uncertain sends for explicit audited resolution. Make Board Send-to-channel atomic and idempotent. Keep reconnect and setup credentials in Paperclip secret storage. - Preserve current native-runner authority across retries, lost acknowledgements, and recovery. Keep immutable input and completion contracts separate from newer user input. Receipt reconciliation cannot launch a provider. - Reconcile chat close/new ordering and provider-effect lock order. Audit resource access changes in the same transaction. Submit only the selected resource from each UI toggle so stale pages cannot undo unrelated access changes. - Drain Codex stdout before certifying process exit. Bound the drain with the existing shutdown grace. Preserve observed terminal authority without treating an undrained process as successful or reusable. - Incorporate master `018ca5da` with its ACP Stop, mobile task layout, runner packaging, and official lock changes. Preserve dedicated chat-answer continuations in both directions when ordinary queued comments are adopted after Stop. - Fence late adapter readiness behind an earlier Stop for the same run. Preserve verified cleanup for registered adapters. Handle single Stop, agent pause, duplicate Stops, and failure release without creating a false cancellation receipt. - Incorporate master's `6dd48cad4` wake-queue extraction. Preserve exact failed-chat retry authorization and lineage, retired question-source suppression, and the block on generic recovery that would discard the admitted source. Fresh deferred input retains its separate promotion path. - Incorporate master `2a05b5ed3` and its queue-admission extraction, simplified transaction ports, and separate runner CI job. Preserve exact durable receipts, actor separation, and dedicated-answer isolation through the new module. A failed receipt insert rolls back the accompanying deferred-wake merge. ## Verification Current head: `afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a`, incorporating master `2a05b5ed3457ea33efd6895520447d1d97fe98d8`. The conflicts are resolved. This successor fixes two test-harness boundaries exposed by CI: per-case route-module preparation and actual durable-save completion before intentional runner termination. Production code and all existing test/turn deadlines are unchanged. [Exact-head Greptile review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13038#issuecomment-5587250594) is **5/5**, completed September 10 at 13:20:55 UTC, with no actionable findings or open review threads. [Fresh exact-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34481724341) passes **all 24 jobs**, including Build and both required aggregates. Normal exact-head guarded merge was attempted and rejected by the remaining branch approval policy: CODEOWNER review is required and no human approval is present. Normal **squash auto-merge is enabled** as of September 10 at 13:36:26 UTC. Requested CODEOWNERS have been notified; no approval bypass or self-approval was used. Earlier-head results below remain historical evidence, not qualification of this successor. - Final exact-head Linux evidence: 995/995 chat integration cases; 36/36 agent-skills routes; 35/35 runner live-session cases, including real process kill/resume; 1948 runner Vitest cases with three existing benchmark/platform guards; 870/870 API-authority cases; and 104 browser cases with four existing optional skips. Rust, conformance/replay, full repository build, typecheck, canary, all server/workspace shards, and both required aggregates pass with normal CI concurrency. Earlier failed attempts remain recorded below. - Latest test-only qualification: 141/141 route/permissions/authentication cases pass in separate cold forks, with plain server types and independent review clear. The real-runner suite passes 35/35, with plain runner types and independent review clear. A controlled premature-save acknowledgement fails as expected; matching ownership/effect/process evidence, rejected saves, real turn outcome, test abort, and pre-kill liveness are covered. No local reproduction of the original CI scheduling failure is claimed. The preceding [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34479680858) passes 21/24 jobs, including all 995 Linux chat cases and browser aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional skips); only Build, the skills serialized shard, and the required verification aggregate fail. Its exact-head Greptile review was 5/5. Both failed job logs are retained. - Final fixture qualification: all eight focused Discord cases and all 995 chat integration cases pass. The exact modal statement/PID is observed before taking the real connection lock; the test then proves its actual blocking relationship before mutation. Original SQL execution, provider behavior, negative assertions, and 1s/15s timeouts remain unchanged. Independent review is clear and test/production hashes remain frozen. The preceding [CI attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34477184777) passed 22 jobs, including Build/runner, typecheck, canary, all other test shards, and browser aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional skips); the two fixture failures and failed verification aggregate remain recorded, not relabeled as a pass. - Current queue-module composition: 308/308 recovery/batching/queue/Stop tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 89/89 module tests, including real PostgreSQL receipt-insert rollback; 24/24 workflow/module-boundary tests; plain server and UI types. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass in 1.4 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries, stable reviewed source hashes. The initial boundary failure is retained; its no-op service wrapper was removed without changing recovery context or weakening the check. An exploratory standalone test-directory typecheck fails because its new upstream transformation config is not a standalone typechecking project; standard CI/build does not invoke it, and no configuration was weakened to suppress those diagnostics. - The preceding head `e02a63d462ce5d47433b0aeb632bb6fd20aab1ba` passed [all 24 CI jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34436462958) and exact-head Greptile review at 5/5. Required CODEOWNER review prevented its normal merge before master advanced again. - Final extracted-module composition: 307/307 recovery, batching, queue and Stop-control tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 49/49 module tests including eight PostgreSQL adapter cases; and 19/19 issue-update tests. Plain server types pass. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass in 1.3 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries in these cohorts, frozen source hashes, and independent review clear. - The preceding head `3e4e1c1c` passes [all PR CI jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34415826820), including Build and required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`. Both the original Rust failure and the previously load-sensitive lineage fixture pass with unchanged Linux concurrency. Master advanced afterward and required this reconciliation. - Final master composition: 448/448 focused UI tests, 186/186 adapter tests, 24/24 queue/control tests, and 11/11 packaging tests. Plain UI, server, shared, and adapter types pass. Token gates and diff checks pass. Independent server and UI reviews are clear. - Stop-registration regression: both real-service cases fail against exact `a95` source and pass with the fix. The full corrected recovery/control suite passes 265/265. Duplicate-owner and failed-Stop controls also pass. Plain server types pass. The readiness barrier prevents provider startup without adding an acknowledgment to an already terminal run. - Final qualification strengthens terminal-field equality and repeats both affected cases successfully on a fresh database. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass again in 1.3 minutes, without skips or retries. The final screenshot shows Cancelled, a paused subtree, retained input, and no error toast. - Two new actual-service regressions fail before the merge fix. They prove that queued-comment adoption could consume a dedicated chat answer or add unrelated input to that answer. The fixed four-case cohort passes, including ordinary upstream continuation and adapter Stop controls. Full recovery passes 257/257. All four actual local process/ACP Stop browser flows pass in 1.4 minutes, without skips or retries, on a fresh database. - The unchanged runner artifact was qualified with 171/171 transport tests, 870/870 API-authority tests, conformance 1/1, and replay 11/11. Six controlled reader tests prove the exit/drain repair. Its local serial Rust workspace passed 546 top-level cases plus two invoked helpers; the later passing Linux CI supplies default-concurrency evidence. - Prior exact-source full chat integration passes 995/995. Settings regressions cover concurrent stale pages, 501 destinations, pending state, rejected updates, and explicit retry. These deterministic tests do not prove live provider behavior. - Retained failed attempts and their causes are in the [qualification log](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-chat-queue-and-webhook-repair.md). The first merge adapter run timed out while macOS slept for 290 seconds. Its unchanged repeat passed with a temporary sleep guard. No assertion, deadline, or CI gate was weakened. Review commands include `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts` and `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. Database suites require fresh disposable databases. See the [browser runbook](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-04-chat-adapters-browser-e2e-runbook.md) for provider setup and separate live acceptance steps. ## Risks - This remains experimental. Deterministic tests and bounded live evidence do not establish every provider feature, tenant, permission layout, or media shape. Teams work-tenant qualification is still open. - Failed and uncertain provider effects remain visible and can require operator action. A transport receipt does not prove recipient visibility. - Native controller and runner artifacts must remain compatible. Preserve lease ownership, terminal authority, source binding, and quarantine during future changes. - Access and audit rows commit together, but activity notifications remain best-effort. This is not a new durable event outbox. - The PR operation does not deploy a live server, replace its runner, or change provider permissions. Remaining live qualification is documented in the [temporary handoff](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-open-qualification-followups.md). ## Model Used OpenAI Codex assisted with implementation, tool execution, testing, and review. The work records `gpt-6-astra` assistance. The environment does not report a context-window size. No private reasoning traces are included. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-10 10:06:45 -05:00
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	2026-08-27 12:11:05 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	d0d242e843	feat(server): reopen an archived isolated execution workspace in place (#11322) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue execution uses isolated workspaces that hold the issue worktree > - A terminal issue can leave its isolated workspace archived and unable to resume > - The existing closed-workspace guards returned a conflict and gave the user no self-serve recovery > - This pull request reopens the same isolated workspace row and rebuilds its worktree > - The benefit is that resume, checkout, and comment actions can continue without a new workspace row ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** A terminal issue can point to an archived isolated execution workspace. Resume, checkout, and comment actions then stop with a conflict. **What happened?** A terminal issue kept its issue-to-workspace link after the isolated workspace reached a closed status. The guarded actions returned HTTP 409 instead of restoring access. **Expected behavior** The next authorized resume, checkout, or comment action reopens the same isolated workspace row. The action rebuilds the worktree and then continues. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an issue that uses an isolated execution workspace. 2. Move the issue to a terminal state and let the workspace archive. 3. Try to resume the issue or add a comment. 4. Observe the closed-workspace conflict. **Paperclip version or commit** e6e79f458e **Deployment mode** Built from source with pnpm. **Proposed solution** Reopen the closed isolated workspace in place. Rebuild the worktree before the route reports success. **Alternatives considered** Create a new workspace row. This would require repointing the issue link and would not preserve access for issues that share the original row. **Roadmap alignment** ROADMAP.md has no matching reopen item. ## What Changed - Reopen closed isolated workspace rows in place and rebuild their worktrees. - Use the reopen path from resume, checkout, and comment guards. - Return a clear error when the rebuild fails and keep the workspace closed. - Fence terminal reaping and archive cleanup while a reopen is in flight. - Update the comment composer to allow the next action to reopen the workspace. - Add service and route tests for reopen, scope, failure, and lifecycle races. ## Verification - Server TypeScript check passes with the tsc --noEmit command. - UI TypeScript check passes with the tsc --noEmit command. - Seventy-two server tests pass across the affected test files. - The isolated worktree UI test suite has a dependency mismatch and fails before tests run with the error TypeError: act is not a function. - CI confirms the UI test job after a clean dependency install. ## Risks The reopen path changes behavior for closed isolated workspaces. A rebuild failure returns an error and keeps the row closed. Lifecycle locks and generation checks protect the worktree from stale cleanup. The UI test mismatch needs CI confirmation. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with tool use and code review assistance. The runtime did not provide 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 references) - [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>	2026-08-13 07:44:19 -07:00
3 people	678728f650	feat: maintained in_review review-path contract + stalled-review actions (#10675) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents move issues to `in_review` and rely on a "review path" (an interaction, an approval, a monitor, or a named reviewer) to tell them who decides next. > - That review path can silently disappear. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction, a monitor is exhausted, or a run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with nobody reviewing it and no visible action. > - Such issues become invisible zombies. Nobody knows a decision is owed, so the work stalls forever. > - This pull request makes the review path a maintained invariant, exposes a `reviewAttention` surface, and gives every stalled review three inline actions in the UI. > - The benefit is that an `in_review` issue always shows who reviews it, or shows an amber "nobody is reviewing this" notice with one-click Approve, Request changes, and Send back to work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request describes the problem inline. The tracking issue is internal. **Subsystem affected** The review and attention loop that agents and humans share: the `in_review` status, the `reviewAttention` surface, the /decisions attention feed, and the issue-page review panel. **Problem or motivation** Agent-owned issues in `in_review` can lose their last review path. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction. A monitor is exhausted. A run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with no reviewer and no visible action. It becomes an invisible zombie and the work never progresses. **Proposed solution** Maintain the review path as a server invariant. Expose a `reviewAttention` field that says what is under review, who decides, and since when. Render a persistent review panel on the issue page and inline actions on the /decisions feed. Keep human PATCHes into `in_review` ungated, but record the requesting user so the panel never renders empty. **Alternatives considered** A pure background auto-recovery sweep. This stays opt-in and is not enough on its own, because it is invisible to the human. A bare status banner. This is rejected, because it gives no action to resolve the stall. **Roadmap alignment** This improves the core review and attention loop that both agents and humans use every day. ## What Changed - **Server — maintained review-path invariant:** when an issue enters or sits in `in_review`, the server derives and persists a review path (interaction, approval, monitor, or the requesting user) and recovers a stale path with one bounded wake instead of leaving the issue pathless. - **Server — `reviewAttention` surface:** a new field describes what is under review (bound target with links), who decides, since when, and whether the review is stalled. Stalled agent-assigned reviews are now included in the attention feed. - **Server — inline stalled-review decisions:** secured routes let a permitted responder Approve (→ `done`), Request changes (→ `todo` + wake carrying the note), or Send back to work (→ `todo` + wake) directly from the attention feed. - **Server — resume-intent wake:** an `in_review -> todo` transition now wakes the assigned agent so a resumed review is not dropped. - **Server — user-entry symmetry:** user PATCHes into `in_review` stay ungated (no 422 for humans) and record the requesting user, who becomes the named responder when no other path exists. - **UI — review panel:** a persistent `IssueReviewPanel` renders above the thread whenever status is `in_review`. The covered state shows the bound target, responder, and outcomes and hoists the pending interaction/approval card. The stalled state shows the amber notice plus the three actions. - **UI — decisions card actions:** the same three actions render inline on the /decisions `AttentionQueueRow`. - **UI — responsive fix:** the stalled action row stacks to full-width buttons at phone width and returns to a horizontal row at `sm` and up. New 390px stories capture the phone layout. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueReviewPanel.test.tsx src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx src/lib/attention.test.ts src/api/issues.test.ts` — 91 tests pass. - Server suites added and updated: `issue-review-attention`, `issue-stalled-review-decision-routes`, `review-path-recovery`, `recovery-observability`, and related route/liveness tests (run by CI). - A designer reviewed the UI at 390px and desktop in light and dark themes on both the issue-page panel and the /decisions card. The stalled action row stacks cleanly at phone width with no overlap and keeps the horizontal row on desktop. ## Risks - **Migration:** adds migration `0200` (next after master `0199`, no renumber). It extends the agent-wakeup-requests schema and is additive. - **Behavioral shift:** `in_review -> todo` now dispatches a wake. This is intended (resume intent) and covered by tests. - **Authz:** the inline decision routes are permission-gated. Only a permitted responder sees and can trigger the actions. - Overall risk is moderate and contained to the review and attention loop. ## Model Used - Claude, Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-04 13:54:40 -05:00
3 people	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>	2026-07-16 16:49:18 -05:00
3 people	b13eb5b2b5	Skill Studio: three-pane skill IDE with sandboxed test runs (#9241) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Skills Manager gives operators a reusable skill layer, but iteration still required manual edits, ad hoc prompts, and indirect run inspection. > - Skill authors need a focused workflow for editing skill files, saving representative test inputs, and running those inputs through an agent without exposing harness tasks as normal company work. > - The backend therefore needs durable test inputs, reusable run templates, hidden harness issues, scoped run execution, retention metadata, and read-containment rules around hidden work. > - The frontend needs a three-pane Studio that keeps skill files, saved inputs/templates, and run output/history visible together while preserving the existing design system and token rules. > - This pull request ships that Skill Studio surface end to end: database migrations, shared contracts, server APIs/services, hidden harness execution behavior, UI routes/components, and focused tests. > - The benefit is faster and safer skill iteration, with inspectable outputs and fewer ways for internal harness work to leak into normal task lists, costs, or adjacent read APIs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. Feature request summary: - Problem: Skill authors need to edit and test company skills in one place instead of switching between the skill detail page, task creation, run output, and manual prompt history. - Proposed solution: Add a Skill Studio workbench with saved inputs, reusable templates, hidden sandboxed test runs, live run status, output inspection, run history, rerun/delete controls, and frontmatter-aware editing. - Expected users: Paperclip operators and agent-company maintainers who create, fork, import, and tune skills. - Related public PRs: Supersedes #9205, which was replaced so the public PR branch name follows contributor policy. - Duplicate search: searched public GitHub issues and PRs for "Skill Studio"; no other active public issue or PR directly covers this feature. ## What Changed - Added database migrations for Skill Studio test inputs, test runs, test run retention, and reusable run templates. - Added shared Skill Studio types, validators, route helpers, frontmatter utilities, and status handling. - Added server services and routes for saved inputs, test runs, templates, reruns, terminal-run deletion, hidden harness issue execution, and run-detail hydration. - Strengthened hidden-issue read containment across issue-adjacent routes and cost rollups used by skill test harness work. - Added the Skill Studio UI with skill file editing, frontmatter editing, saved inputs, templates, run creation/cancel/rerun/delete flows, output rendering, history, route support, and responsive pane behavior. - Added focused backend, shared, and UI tests for the new APIs, routing logic, editor/run behavior, hidden-issue containment, and migration safety. - Rebased onto current `master`, removed the generated lockfile diff from the PR, and verified no workflow files are changed. ## Verification - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - [x] `pnpm check:token-gates` - [x] `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skill-test-runs-service.test.ts ui/src/lib/skill-studio.test.ts ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx` — 5 files, 132 tests passed - [x] Greptile review on the latest PR head - [x] GitHub PR checks on the latest PR head ## Risks - Medium risk because this is a broad feature touching database schema, server orchestration, issue visibility, and a large UI surface. - Hidden harness issue containment is security-sensitive; this PR includes regression coverage for adjacent read paths and cost rollups. - The new migrations are additive and use idempotent guards where applicable, but deployed databases that previously tested draft migration numbers should still be checked carefully. - The UI depends on a new resizable panels package in `ui/package.json`; the lockfile is intentionally left to repository automation. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with shell, git, and GitHub CLI tool use. Earlier feature commits include assistance from other Paperclip coding agents; this PR preparation, rebase, cleanup commit, and PR body were completed by OpenAI Codex in a Paperclip worktree. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-09 13:08:56 -05:00
Dotta	88ce6d3575	Speed up issue detail payloads (#9125) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Operators spend a lot of time in issue detail pages and agent activity views while supervising work > - Those views were receiving large embedded project, workspace, runtime-service, and heartbeat context payloads > - Large payloads make issue comments and page loads slower, especially on active issues with workspaces and runtime metadata > - This pull request trims the issue detail and activity ledger response shapes to the fields those views need > - The benefit is faster issue detail loading without changing the underlying project, workspace, or run persistence model ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this exact problem, so this PR describes the bug inline using the bug report template fields. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip (or can reproduce on `master`). - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself — not in my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? Issue detail and related activity responses could include bulky embedded metadata such as project environment values, workspace metadata, stopped runtime services, and heartbeat context snapshots. On active issues with workspaces and long activity history, that makes issue comments and page loads slower than needed. ### Expected behavior Issue detail endpoints should return bounded, UI-oriented embeds that avoid shipping large or sensitive internal blobs when the full object graph is not needed. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create or open an issue with a project workspace and execution workspace. 2. Ensure the workspace has runtime services and heartbeat runs with context snapshots. 3. Inspect `GET /api/issues/:id` and the issue activity ledger payloads. 4. Observe that the response includes large embedded project/workspace/runtime/run fields unrelated to rendering the issue detail page. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced against current `master` lineage before this change. ### Deployment mode Local dev / server API behavior. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific (core API payload shape). ### Database mode Not database-related; no migration. ### Access context Board and agent-facing issue detail consumers can both benefit from smaller payloads. ### Node.js version Not version-specific. ### Operating system Not OS-specific. ### Relevant logs or output Not applicable. ### Relevant config (if applicable) Not applicable. ### Additional context Related search: - Searched public GitHub issues for `currentExecutionWorkspace metadata runtimeServices issue detail`; no matching issue found. - Searched public GitHub PRs for `compact currentExecutionWorkspace metadata runtimeServices`; no matching PR found. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII (usernames, file paths, API keys, tokens, company names) and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Added compact response shaping for issue detail project, project workspace, execution workspace, and runtime-service embeds. - Dropped large project `env`, workspace `metadata` / embedded runtime service lists, execution workspace `metadata`, and non-active runtime services from `GET /api/issues/:id` responses. - Removed heartbeat `contextSnapshot` from the activity ledger query result. - Added focused route and activity-service tests covering the compact response shape. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check public/master..HEAD` - Confirmed the branch is based on current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and contains no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. ## Risks Low to medium risk. The persisted data model is unchanged, but consumers relying on the full embedded project/workspace/runtime metadata from `GET /api/issues/:id` will now need to fetch the dedicated resource endpoint instead of depending on the issue detail payload. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with repository file access, shell command execution, GitHub connector usage, and local test execution. Context window and exact hosted model variant are not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-07-07 06:28:54 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	5e3d6e3627	[codex] Preserve plan review context in agent wakes (#8649) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Planning work relies on issue documents, request-confirmation interactions, and inline plan annotations > - Agents can be woken after a plan comment, annotation, or confirmation decision > - The wake payload needs enough plan-review context for the agent to act on the specific feedback instead of losing the thread and falling back to broad refetches > - This pull request adds bounded plan-review context to wake payloads and heartbeat context > - It also teaches the adapter wake prompt renderer to surface those open plan annotations and interaction results directly > - The benefit is that agents can continue plan review and plan acceptance flows with the relevant comments in hand while keeping wake payloads bounded and company-scoped ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue was found. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and `packages/adapter-utils`. ### Problem or motivation Plan-review continuations can wake an agent after a plan comment, inline annotation, or request-confirmation decision without enough inline context about the open plan annotations or accepted/rejected confirmation target. That makes scoped wakes less reliable because the agent may need to refetch broad issue history before it can tell what feedback should be incorporated. ### Proposed solution Include bounded, company-scoped plan review context in wake payloads and heartbeat context. The context includes open `plan` annotation threads, recent annotation comments, truncation metadata, and plan-confirmation interaction target/result details. Render that information in the adapter wake prompt so agents see the relevant plan-review feedback immediately. ### Alternatives considered Relying on agents to fetch the full issue thread after every plan-review wake was rejected because it is slower, harder to audit, and easier to mishandle when the wake is meant to be scoped to a specific comment, annotation, or interaction result. ### Roadmap alignment This supports the roadmap areas for Agent Reviews and Approvals, Deep Planning, and Enforced Outcomes by making plan approval continuations explicit and actionable. ### Additional context The implementation keeps payload size bounded with per-thread, per-comment, and total-body limits. Resolved annotation threads are intentionally omitted so the wake focuses on feedback still needing action. ## What Changed - Added shared `PlanReviewContext` types for plan annotation threads, comments, interaction targets, and continuation results. - Added server-side plan review context assembly for open `plan` annotation threads with bounded thread/comment/body limits. - Included plan review context in heartbeat context and scoped wake payloads for planning, annotation, comment, and plan-confirmation interaction wakes. - Rendered plan annotation deltas, open plan comments, interaction results, and accepted target revisions in adapter wake prompts. - Added focused regression coverage for scoped plan review context, wake prompt rendering, annotation filtering, and safe standard-mode annotation wakes. - Addressed Greptile feedback by bounding the plan-comment DB fetch and removing unused plan review context input fields. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1 server/src/__tests__/document-annotations-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` - GitHub PR checks are green on `36d0ac6a5dce27b9d62e201bf6d9829170c5974e`n- Rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and confirmed GitHub reports the PR as mergeable - Greptile Review completed successfully after 2 comments were addressed and resolved; 0 unresolved review threads remain ## Risks - Medium: wake payloads now include additional plan-review data, so limits and truncation behavior need to stay conservative as annotation volume grows. - Low migration risk: no database schema or migration changes. - Low repository hygiene risk: this PR does not touch `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows`, or media assets. > 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` as a coding agent with shell/tool execution. Reasoning mode and exact context window were not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-29 13:26:26 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	43b005b704	Add pipeline workflow primitives and operator UI (#7903) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The pipeline subsystem models repeatable work as items moving through stages, with agent automation, review gates, blockers, drift notices, and linked work. > - Operators need this to be usable as one coherent workflow surface, not just as backend primitives or disconnected route experiments. > - The branch now carries the pipeline data model, service/routes, CLI/tutorial path, aggregation feeds, operator UI, stage automation controls, liveness/retry handling, and follow-up polish that make the primitive reviewable end to end. > - This pull request is the single review target for that pipeline workflow primitive stack. > - The benefit is that reviewers can evaluate the full operator experience and server contract together against `master`. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work. The underlying feature request is described inline. ### Problem or motivation Paperclip needs a first-class way to model multi-stage agent/company workflows where upstream items can spawn downstream work, request review, carry fields across pipelines, surface drift, retry automation, and show operators where work is blocked or active. Without a unified pipeline primitive, these workflows spread across ad hoc issues, routines, and comments, making the state hard to inspect or operate. ### Proposed solution Add the pipeline workflow primitive stack: database schema and migrations, shared validators/types, server services and REST routes, aggregation and liveness helpers, CLI/tutorial smoke support, and the React operator UI for pipeline lists, boards, item detail, review/learnings views, settings, stage automation, secrets, carry-over fields, and retry/recovery flows. ### Alternatives considered - Keep workflows as loosely linked issues and routines: rejected because operators need a single board/detail/settings surface for repeated workflow patterns. - Ship backend primitives first and defer UI: rejected for this branch because the operator experience is the main way to validate the primitive. - Add a narrower one-off content workflow: rejected because the same primitives are useful across future company processes. ## What Changed - Added and evolved pipeline schema, migrations, shared contracts, server services, REST routes, route tests, and CLI/tutorial smoke support. - Added pipeline aggregation, health/liveness, drift acknowledgment, blocker/carry-over, automation retry, stage automation environment, and permission recovery behavior. - Added the operator UI for pipeline index/board/item detail/settings/review/learnings flows, including stage secrets, automation controls, markdown/item descriptions, linked issue assets, liveness banners, and source automation metadata. - Refactored issue document frame rendering through the shared `DocumentFrameHeader` component to keep document controls consistent with the pipeline document surfaces. - Kept this PR as the single base-branch review target for the current pipeline branch. ## Verification Current branch refresh: - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-service.test.ts` — 31 passed - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-routes.test.ts` — 19 passed - `pnpm --filter ./server typecheck` — passed - `pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck` — passed - Verified Pipelines remains gated by `enablePipelines === true`: sidebar item is hidden unless the flag is enabled, direct pipeline routes redirect to `/dashboard` when disabled, and the Experimental settings UI still has no Pipelines toggle. - GitHub status checks on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` — all complete with no failing conclusions, including Actions, Socket, Superagent/Security, and Greptile Review - Greptile summary on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` — Confidence Score 5/5 - GitHub review-thread sweep — 0 unresolved Greptile threads Previously recorded during branch development: - Server pipeline service/route and aggregation tests - Shared validator tests - UI pipeline page/settings/item-detail/learnings/liveness tests - Pipeline tutorial smoke path ## Risks - High review surface: this is a large feature branch spanning database, shared contracts, server behavior, CLI/docs, and UI. - Migration ordering and schema compatibility need reviewer attention because this branch has been kept current across multiple `master` syncs. - GitHub still reports merge state `BLOCKED` because the PR is awaiting normal human review/branch-protection completion; all current status checks are green. - Branch-name checklist exception: this PR uses the pre-existing requested branch name, which predates the current public-branch naming rule. The PR title/body avoid internal issue references. > 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 based on GPT-5, with repository tool use, shell execution, git/GitHub CLI operations, and local verification commands. Earlier commits in this branch were assisted by Paperclip agents and other AI coding agents as recorded in commit authorship. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-26 12:02:44 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	dbebf30c89	Add low-trust review containment (#7530) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract. > - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads. > - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context, which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer assigned to hostile content. > - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging, route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations. > - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection, preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion, documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks, enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic. > - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot surfaces. Fixes #7531. ## What Changed - Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work products. - Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context. - Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime containment, and quarantine redaction. - Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views. - Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review contract plan under `doc/plans/`. - Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered migration are not broken by the renumbered migration. ## Verification - Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata. - Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not broken. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` - `git diff --check` - GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify, policy/review, Socket, and Snyk. - Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved Greptile review threads. - No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata, and UI preset controls. - Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions. - Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover the current known routes but future integrations must route through the same containment layer. - The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is 5/5. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell and GitHub CLI workflow. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically required - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-05 16:48:02 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	b7545823be	[codex] Add document annotations and comments (#6733) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through issues, documents, runs, and durable company-scoped state. > - Issue documents are where agents and operators capture plans, handoffs, and work products. > - Before this change, document collaboration could only happen through whole-document edits and detached issue comments. > - Inline document annotations need stable anchors, revision-aware persistence, and UI affordances that do not break existing document editing. > - This pull request adds company-scoped document annotation threads, comments, anchor snapshots, API routes, and board UI. > - The benefit is that operators and agents can discuss specific document passages without losing context as documents evolve. ## What Changed - Added document annotation tables, schema exports, shared types, validators, anchor hashing, and text-anchor helpers. - Added server-side document annotation services and issue routes for listing, creating, commenting, resolving, and reopening annotation threads. - Included annotation summaries in relevant issue document reads and backup/recovery document workspace behavior. - Added React UI for inline document highlights, comment panels, mobile sheet behavior, deep-link focus, and resolved/open filtering. - Added annotation design artifacts, Storybook coverage, screenshots, and a screenshot helper script. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` and renumbered the annotation migration from `0085_old_swarm` to `0091_old_swarm`; the SQL uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards so environments that previously applied the old migration number can safely apply the new one. - Adjusted the new annotation UI tests to use a local async flush helper because this workspace's React 19.2.4 export does not expose `React.act`. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/document-anchors.test.ts server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/document-annotations-service.test.ts ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotationLayer.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx ui/src/lib/document-annotation-hash.test.ts ui/src/lib/document-annotation-selection.test.ts` - Confirmed `git diff --check` passes. - Confirmed no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` files are included in the PR diff. ## Risks - Medium risk: this adds new persisted annotation tables and routes across db/shared/server/ui. - Migration risk is reduced by moving the branch migration to `0091_old_swarm` after upstream `0090_resource_memberships` and keeping the SQL idempotent for old `0085_old_swarm` adopters. - UI risk is mostly around text range anchoring and panel positioning across long documents, folded content, and mobile layouts; the PR includes focused unit coverage and design screenshots. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-using software engineering mode. Context window size is not exposed in this Paperclip 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-26 06:41:23 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	d734bd43d1	[codex] Roll up May 17 branch changes (#6210) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so agent work needs visible ownership, recovery, and operator controls. > - This local branch had accumulated several related control-plane reliability and operator-experience fixes across recovery actions, watchdog folding, model-profile defaults, mentions, markdown editing, plugin launchers, and small UI polish. > - The branch needed to be converted into a PR against the current `origin/master` without losing dirty work or including lockfile/workflow churn. > - The safest standalone shape is a single rollup PR because the recovery/server/UI files overlap heavily across the local commits and splitting would create avoidable conflicts. > - This pull request replays the local branch onto latest `origin/master`, preserves the uncommitted work as logical commits, and adds a Zod 4 validator compatibility fix found during verification. > - The benefit is that the May 17 local branch can be reviewed and merged as one coherent, conflict-free branch under the 100-file Greptile limit. ## What Changed - Rebased the local May 17 branch work onto current `origin/master` in a dedicated worktree. - Preserved and committed previously dirty changes for recovery retry handling, plugin/sidebar launcher polish, and `.herenow` ignores. - Added recovery-action behavior for returning source issues to `todo` when retrying source-scoped recovery. - Included the existing local recovery/liveness/watchdog fold, Codex cheap-profile, markdown/mention, duplicate-agent, and UI polish commits from the branch. - Normalized shared validator `z.record(...)` schemas to explicit string-key records for Zod 4 compatibility. - Confirmed the PR has no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` changes and stays below the 100-file Greptile limit. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `npm run install` in `node_modules/.pnpm/sqlite3@5.1.7/node_modules/sqlite3` to build the local native sqlite3 binding after installing with scripts disabled - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts packages/shared/src/project-mentions.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` - First pass: 13 files passed with 201 passing tests; 3 server files failed before sqlite3 native binding was built. - After rebuilding sqlite3: `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts`, `server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts`, and `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts` passed/loaded; embedded Postgres tests were skipped by the local host guard. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` ## Risks - Medium risk: this is a broad rollup PR across recovery semantics, server tests, shared validators, and UI surfaces. - Some embedded Postgres tests skipped locally due the host guard, so CI should provide the stronger database-backed signal. - UI changes were covered by component tests, but no browser screenshot was captured in this PR creation pass. - This branch may overlap with existing recovery/liveness PR work; merge this PR independently or restack/close overlapping branches rather than merging duplicate implementations together. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool-enabled local repository and GitHub workflow, 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-17 17:15:06 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	0808b388ee	[codex] Add source-scoped recovery actions (#5599) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where work must end with a clear disposition rather than ambiguous agent liveness. > - Recovery currently detects stalled or missing-next-step issues, but source issue recovery can become split across child recovery issues, blockers, and comments. > - That makes it harder for operators and agents to see who owns recovery and what exact action is needed on the original issue. > - Source-scoped recovery actions give the original issue a first-class active recovery state with owner, evidence, wake policy, and resolution outcome. > - This pull request adds the recovery-action data model, backend reconciliation and resolution APIs, and board UI indicators/actions. > - The benefit is clearer stalled-work recovery without losing source issue context or relying on comments as the liveness path. ## What Changed - Added the `issue_recovery_actions` schema, shared types/constants/validators, and an idempotent `0084_issue_recovery_actions` migration ordered after current `master` migrations. - Updated stranded/missing-disposition recovery to create source-scoped recovery actions, wake the recovery owner on the source issue, and avoid locking the source issue for recovery-action wakes. - Added API support for reading active recovery actions on issue detail/list surfaces and resolving them with restored, blocked, cancelled, or false-positive outcomes. - Require blocked recovery resolutions to have an unresolved first-class blocker, and removed the UI shortcut that could mark recovery blocked without a blocker selection path. - Surfaced recovery indicators/actions in the issue UI, blocker notices, active run panels, issue rows, and Storybook coverage. - Updated docs and focused tests for recovery semantics, ownership, races, stale comments, and UI behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 5 files, 72 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering check. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up verification after blocker-resolution guard: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 3 files, 27 tests passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - UI states are available in `ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`; screenshot capture helper is `scripts/screenshot-recovery-card.cjs`. ## Risks - Medium: recovery behavior changes from child recovery issue ownership toward source-scoped actions, so operators may see stalled-work state in new places. - Migration risk is mitigated by using the next migration slot after `master` and making the table/constraints/index creation idempotent for anyone who previously applied the old branch-local `0082_dizzy_master_mold` migration. - Existing child recovery issue paths are still guarded for already-created recovery issues, but new source-scoped flows should be watched in CI and Greptile review. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use enabled for shell, Git, GitHub, and local test execution. Context window not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-12 09:37:15 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	772fc92619	Add issue controls and retry-now recovery (#5426) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Issue operators need clear controls for execution settings, model overrides, and recovery retries > - Existing issue properties hid useful adapter override state and did not expose a board-triggered retry for scheduled heartbeat recovery > - Scheduled retries also need to respect the same safety gates as normal execution instead of bypassing budget, review, pause, dependency, or terminal-state checks > - This pull request adds the issue property controls and retry-now surfaces together because they share the issue details/properties UI > - The benefit is that operators can inspect and adjust issue execution settings and safely trigger pending scheduled recovery without hidden control-plane behavior ## What Changed - Adds editable issue assignee model override controls in `IssueProperties`, with focused coverage. - Removes the stale workspace tasks link from issue properties. - Adds a scheduled retry `retry-now` backend path and shared response types. - Adds main-pane and properties-pane scheduled retry UI, backed by a shared `useRetryNowMutation` hook. - Adds suppression coverage for budget hard stops, review participant changes, subtree pause holds, unresolved blockers, terminal issues, and company scoping. - Updates the `IssueProperties` test harness with toast actions required by the retry-now hook. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueScheduledRetryCard.test.tsx` — 31 passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-scheduled-retry-routes.test.ts` — exited 0, but this host skipped the embedded Postgres route tests with: `Postgres init script exited with code null. Please check the logs for extra info. The data directory might already exist.` - Pairwise merge check against the assigned-backlog PR branch completed without conflicts via `git merge --no-commit --no-ff` in a temporary worktree. ### Visual verification screenshots Storybook story: `Product/Issue Scheduled retry surfaces / ScheduledRetrySurfaces`.   ## Risks - Medium: this touches issue execution/retry behavior, so CI should run the embedded Postgres route tests on a host that can initialize Postgres. - Low-to-medium UI risk around duplicated retry-now entry points; both surfaces share one mutation hook to keep behavior consistent. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool-enabled Paperclip heartbeat environment. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-07 12:23:13 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	a1b30c9f35	Add planning mode for issue work (#5353) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board users and agents coordinate execution. > - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead of immediate implementation work. > - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution comments from planning-oriented issue work. > - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI affordances for standard vs planning mode. > - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed, discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing the normal issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB, shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and adapter heartbeat payloads. - Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for `issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations. - Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested follow-up issues. - Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles. - Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual verification spec for planning-mode surfaces. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts` ## Screenshots Desktop planning detail:  Desktop planning row:  Desktop staged standard toggle:  Mobile planning detail:  Mobile planning row:  ## Risks - Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final numbered migration safely. - Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by defaulting missing values to `standard`. - UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning display and toggle 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, GPT-5 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with shell/tool use. Exact 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-06 07:01:28 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	454edfe81e	Add recovery handoff system notices (#5289) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Agent runs can end productively while the source issue still lacks a durable final disposition. > - That leaves the control plane unsure whether to resume, escalate, or close the work. > - Issue comments also need a presentation contract so system-authored recovery notices can render as first-class thread messages without overloading normal comments. > - This pull request adds successful-run handoff recovery, comment presentation metadata, and system notice rendering. > - The benefit is stricter task liveness with clearer operator-facing recovery state. ## What Changed - Added successful-run handoff decisions, wake payloads, escalation behavior, and recovery tests. - Added issue comment presentation metadata with migration `0078_white_darwin.sql` and shared/server/company portability support. - Rendered recovery/system notices in issue chat with dedicated UI components, fixtures, tests, and storybook/lab coverage. - Included the current recovery model-profile hint patch so automatic recovery follow-ups use the cheap profile. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts ui/src/components/SystemNotice.test.tsx ui/src/lib/system-notice-comment.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx` ## Risks - Migration-bearing PR: merge this before any other branch that might later add a migration. - The branch touches both recovery services and issue-thread rendering, so review should pay attention to recovery wake idempotency and comment metadata compatibility. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with shell/git/GitHub CLI 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-06 06:05:58 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	1991ec9d6f	[codex] Split backend control-plane QoL slice (#4700) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so backend task ownership, recovery, review visibility, and company-scoped limits need to stay enforceable without UI-only coupling. > - Closed PR #4692 bundled those backend changes with UI workflow, docs, skills, workflow, and lockfile churn. > - PAP-2694 asks for a clean backend/control-plane slice from that closed branch. > - This branch starts from current `master` and mines only the `cli`, `packages/db`, `packages/shared`, and `server` contracts/tests needed for the backend behavior. > - It explicitly excludes UI workflow/performance work, `.github/workflows/pr.yml`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, docs, skills, package-script, adapter UI build-config, and perf fixture script changes; the only UI files are fixture/test updates required by the tightened shared `Company` contract. > - The benefit is a smaller reviewable PR that preserves the control-plane fixes while staying under Greptile s 100-file review limit. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped attachment-size limits through DB schema/migrations, shared company portability contracts, CLI import/export coverage, and server attachment upload enforcement. - Added productivity review service/API behavior for no-comment streak, long-active, and high-churn review issues, including request-depth clamping and issue summary exposure. - Hardened issue ownership and recovery/control-plane paths: peer-agent mutation denial, issue tree pause/resume behavior, stranded recovery origins, and related activity/test coverage. - Preserved related backend contract updates for routine timestamp variables and managed agent instruction bundles because they live in shared/server contracts from the source branch. - Addressed Greptile feedback by making `Company.attachmentMaxBytes` non-optional, simplifying review request-depth clamping, fixing the migration final newline, and enforcing the process-level attachment cap as the final ceiling for uploads. - Added minimal company fixtures needed for repo-wide typecheck/build and kept the PR to 66 changed files with forbidden/non-slice paths excluded. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` - `git diff --name-only origin/master..HEAD | wc -l` -> 66 files - `git diff --name-only origin/master..HEAD -- .github/workflows/pr.yml pnpm-lock.yaml package.json doc skills .agents scripts packages/adapters` -> no output - `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts packages/shared/src/routine-variables.test.ts packages/shared/src/adapter-types.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` -> 12 files, 147 tests passed - `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts cli/src/__tests__/company-delete.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts` -> 3 files, 18 tests passed - `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts` -> 1 file, 6 tests passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` ## Risks - Includes migrations `0073_shiny_salo.sql` and `0074_striped_genesis.sql`; merge ordering matters if another PR adds migrations first. - This is intentionally backend-only apart from fixture/test updates forced by shared type correctness; UI affordances from PR #4692 are not present here and should land in separate UI slices. - The worktree install emitted plugin SDK bin-link warnings for unbuilt plugin packages, but the targeted tests and package typechecks completed successfully. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected; check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled terminal/GitHub workflow. Exact runtime context window was not exposed by the harness. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-28 16:46:45 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	deba60ebb2	Stabilize serialized server route tests (#4448) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The server route suite is a core confidence layer for auth, issue context, and workspace runtime behavior > - Some route tests were doing extra module/server isolation work that made local runs slower and more fragile > - The stable Vitest runner also needs to pass server-relative exclude paths to avoid accidentally re-including serialized suites > - This pull request tightens route test isolation and runner serialization behavior > - The benefit is more reliable targeted and stable-route test execution without product behavior changes ## What Changed - Updated `run-vitest-stable.mjs` to exclude serialized server tests using server-relative paths. - Forced the server Vitest config to use a single worker in addition to isolated forks. - Simplified agent permission route tests to create per-request test servers without shared server lifecycle state. - Stabilized issue goal context route mocks by using static mocked services and a sequential suite. - Re-registered workspace runtime route mocks before cache-busted route imports. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `node --check scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs` ## Risks - Low risk. This is test infrastructure only. - The stable runner path fix changes which tests are excluded from the non-serialized server batch, matching the server project root that Vitest applies internally. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled with shell/GitHub/Paperclip API access. Context window was not reported by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-24 19:27:00 -05:00
Dotta	5a0c1979cf	[codex] Add runtime lifecycle recovery and live issue visibility (#4419)	2026-04-24 15:50:32 -05:00
Devin Foley	70679a3321	Add sandbox environment support (#4415) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - The environment/runtime layer decides where agent work executes and how the control plane reaches those runtimes. > - Today Paperclip can run locally and over SSH, but sandboxed execution needs a first-class environment model instead of one-off adapter behavior. > - We also want sandbox providers to be pluggable so the core does not hardcode every provider implementation. > - This branch adds the Sandbox environment path, the provider contract, and a deterministic fake provider plugin. > - That required synchronized changes across shared contracts, plugin SDK surfaces, server runtime orchestration, and the UI environment/workspace flows. > - The result is that sandbox execution becomes a core control-plane capability while keeping provider implementations extensible and testable. ## What Changed - Added sandbox runtime support to the environment execution path, including runtime URL discovery, sandbox execution targeting, orchestration, and heartbeat integration. - Added plugin-provider support for sandbox environments so providers can be supplied via plugins instead of hardcoded server logic. - Added the fake sandbox provider plugin with deterministic behavior suitable for local and automated testing. - Updated shared types, validators, plugin protocol definitions, and SDK helpers to carry sandbox provider and workspace-runtime contracts across package boundaries. - Updated server routes and services so companies can create sandbox environments, select them for work, and execute work through the sandbox runtime path. - Updated the UI environment and workspace surfaces to expose sandbox environment configuration and selection. - Added test coverage for sandbox runtime behavior, provider seams, environment route guards, orchestration, and the fake provider plugin. ## Verification - Ran locally before the final fixture-only scrub: - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` - Ran locally after the final scrub amend: - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/runtime-api.test.ts` - Reviewer spot checks: - create a sandbox environment backed by the fake provider plugin - run work through that environment - confirm sandbox provider execution does not inherit host secrets implicitly ## Risks - This touches shared contracts, plugin SDK plumbing, server runtime orchestration, and UI environment/workspace flows, so regressions would likely show up as cross-layer mismatches rather than isolated type errors. - Runtime URL discovery and sandbox callback selection are sensitive to host/bind configuration; if that logic is wrong, sandbox-backed callbacks may fail even when execution succeeds. - The fake provider plugin is intentionally deterministic and test-oriented; future providers may expose capability gaps that this branch does not yet cover. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent on a GPT-5-class backend in the Paperclip/Codex harness. Exact backend model ID is not exposed in-session. Tool-assisted workflow with shell execution, file editing, git history inspection, and local test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-04-24 12:15:53 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	a957394420	[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > 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-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00
Dotta	09d0678840	[codex] Harden heartbeat scheduling and runtime controls (#4223) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through issue checkout, heartbeat runs, routines, and auditable control-plane state > - The runtime path has to recover from lost local processes, transient adapter failures, blocked dependencies, and routine coalescing without stranding work > - The existing branch carried several reliability fixes across heartbeat scheduling, issue runtime controls, routine dispatch, and operator-facing run state > - These changes belong together because they share backend contracts, migrations, and runtime status semantics > - This pull request groups the control-plane/runtime slice so it can merge independently from board UI polish and adapter sandbox work > - The benefit is safer heartbeat recovery, clearer runtime controls, and more predictable recurring execution behavior ## What Changed - Adds bounded heartbeat retry scheduling, scheduled retry state, and Codex transient failure recovery handling. - Tightens heartbeat process recovery, blocker wake behavior, issue comment wake handling, routine dispatch coalescing, and activity/dashboard bounds. - Adds runtime-control MCP tools and Paperclip skill docs for issue workspace runtime management. - Adds migrations `0061_lively_thor_girl.sql` and `0062_routine_run_dispatch_fingerprint.sql`. - Surfaces retry state in run ledger/agent UI and keeps related shared types synchronized. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run src/tools.test.ts` from `packages/mcp-server` ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches heartbeat recovery and routine dispatch, which are central execution paths. - Migration order matters if split branches land out of order: merge this PR before branches that assume the new runtime/routine fields. - Runtime retry behavior should be watched in CI and in local operator smoke tests because it changes how transient failures are resumed. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent runtime, shell/git tool use enabled. Exact hosted model build and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip heartbeat environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-04-21 12:24:11 -05:00
3 people	ab9051b595	Add first-class issue references (#4214) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators and agents coordinate through company-scoped issues, comments, documents, and task relationships. > - Issue text can mention other tickets, but those references were previously plain markdown/text without durable relationship data. > - That made it harder to understand related work, surface backlinks, and keep cross-ticket context visible in the board. > - This pull request adds first-class issue reference extraction, storage, API responses, and UI surfaces. > - The benefit is that issue references become queryable, navigable, and visible without relying on ad hoc text scanning. ## What Changed - Added shared issue-reference parsing utilities and exported reference-related types/constants. - Added an `issue_reference_mentions` table, idempotent migration DDL, schema exports, and database documentation. - Added server-side issue reference services, route integration, activity summaries, and a backfill command for existing issue content. - Added UI reference pills, related-work panels, markdown/editor mention handling, and issue detail/property rendering updates. - Added focused shared, server, and UI tests for parsing, persistence, display, and related-work behavior. - Rebased `PAP-735-first-class-task-references` cleanly onto `public-gh/master`; no `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes are included. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run packages/shared/src/issue-references.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-references-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRelatedWorkPanel.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx` ## Risks - Medium risk because this adds a new issue-reference persistence path that touches shared parsing, database schema, server routes, and UI rendering. - Migration risk is mitigated by `CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS`, guarded foreign-key creation, and `CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS` statements so users who have applied an older local version of the numbered migration can re-run safely. - UI risk is limited by focused component coverage, but reviewers should still manually inspect issue detail pages containing ticket references before merge. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool-using shell workflow with repository inspection, git rebase/push, typecheck, and focused Vitest verification. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: dotta <dotta@example.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-21 10:02:52 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	236d11d36f	[codex] Add run liveness continuations (#4083) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Heartbeat runs are the control-plane record of each agent execution window. > - Long-running local agents can exhaust context or stop while still holding useful next-step state. > - Operators need that stop reason, next action, and continuation path to be durable and visible. > - This pull request adds run liveness metadata, continuation summaries, and UI surfaces for issue run ledgers. > - The benefit is that interrupted or long-running work can resume with clearer context instead of losing the agent's last useful handoff. ## What Changed - Added heartbeat-run liveness fields, continuation attempt tracking, and an idempotent `0058` migration. - Added server services and tests for run liveness, continuation summaries, stop metadata, and activity backfill. - Wired local and HTTP adapters to surface continuation/liveness context through shared adapter utilities. - Added shared constants, validators, and heartbeat types for liveness continuation state. - Added issue-detail UI surfaces for continuation handoffs and the run ledger, with component tests. - Updated agent runtime docs, heartbeat protocol docs, prompt guidance, onboarding assets, and skills instructions to explain continuation behavior. - Addressed Greptile feedback by scoping document evidence by run, excluding system continuation-summary documents from liveness evidence, importing shared liveness types, surfacing hidden ledger run counts, documenting bounded retry behavior, and moving run-ledger liveness backfill off the request path. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-liveness.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-continuation-summary.test.ts server/src/services/heartbeat-stop-metadata.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueContinuationHandoff.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db build` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "treats a plan document update"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "activity service|treats a plan document update"` - Remote PR checks on head `e53b1a1d`: `verify`, `e2e`, `policy`, and Snyk all passed. - Confirmed `public-gh/master` is an ancestor of this branch after fetching `public-gh master`. - Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the branch diff. - Confirmed migration `0058_wealthy_starbolt.sql` is ordered after `0057` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards for repeat application. - Greptile inline review threads are resolved. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches heartbeat execution, liveness recovery, activity rendering, issue routes, shared contracts, docs, and UI. - Migration risk is mitigated by additive columns/indexes and idempotent guards. - Run-ledger liveness backfill is now asynchronous, so the first ledger response can briefly show historical missing liveness until the background backfill completes. - UI screenshot coverage is not included in this packaging pass; validation is currently through focused component tests. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.4, local tool-use coding agent with terminal, git, GitHub connector, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Screenshot note: no before/after screenshots were captured in this PR packaging pass; the UI changes are covered by focused component tests listed above. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-20 06:01:49 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	5f45712846	Sync/master post pap1497 followups 2026 04 15 (#3779) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The board depends on issue, inbox, cost, and company-skill surfaces to stay accurate and fast while agents are actively working > - The PAP-1497 follow-up branch exposed a few rough edges in those surfaces: stale active-run state on completed issues, missing creator filters, oversized issue payload scans, and placeholder issue-route parsing > - Those gaps make the control plane harder to trust because operators can see misleading run state, miss the right subset of work, or pay extra query/render cost on large issue records > - This pull request tightens those follow-ups across server and UI code, and adds regression coverage for the affected paths > - The benefit is a more reliable issue workflow, safer high-volume cost aggregation, and clearer board/operator navigation ## What Changed - Added the `v2026.415.0` release changelog entry. - Fixed stale issue-run presentation after completion and reused the shared issue-path parser so literal route placeholders no longer become issue links. - Added creator filters to the Issues page and Inbox, including persisted filter-state normalization and regression coverage. - Bounded issue detail/list project-mention scans and trimmed large issue-list payload fields to keep issue reads lighter. - Hardened company-skill list projection and cost/finance aggregation so large markdown blobs and large summed values do not leak into list responses or overflow 32-bit casts. - Added targeted server/UI regression tests for company skills, costs/finance, issue mention scanning, creator filters, inbox normalization, and issue reference parsing. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-filters.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-reference.test.ts` - `gh pr checks 3779` Current pass set on the PR head: `policy`, `verify`, `e2e`, `security/snyk (cryppadotta)`, `Greptile Review` ## Risks - Creator filter options are derived from the currently loaded issue/agent data, so very sparse result sets may not surface every historical creator until they appear in the active dataset. - Cost/finance aggregate casts now use `double precision`; that removes the current overflow risk, but future schema changes should keep large-value aggregation behavior under review. - Issue detail mention scanning now skips comment-body scans on the detail route, so any consumer that relied on comment-only project mentions there would need to fetch them separately. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with terminal tool use and local code execution in the Paperclip workspace. Exact internal model ID/context-window exposure is not surfaced 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-15 21:13:56 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7f893ac4ec	[codex] Harden execution reliability and heartbeat tooling (#3679) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep regressions visible > - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area > - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch overlapping issue APIs > - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat, telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch > - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting ## What Changed - Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and blocked-to-todo wake resumption - Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads, compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces - Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material - Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation from local state, and repo verification follow-ups - Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were dropped during branch reconstruction ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts` - `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`, `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they are noted as environment-limited ## Risks - Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow rather than isolated UI polish - Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure modes and not just reshaping harness behavior ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-14 13:34:52 -05:00
dottaandPaperclip	dde4cc070e	Add blocker relations and dependency wakeups ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-06 09:03:13 -05:00
plind-dm	3513b60dbc	test: assert attachments field in heartbeat-context response ... Add missing assertion for the empty attachments array in the heartbeat-context test to verify the field mapping is present.	2026-04-05 21:57:15 +09:00
plind-dm	1350753f5f	fix(api): include attachment metadata in heartbeat-context response ... Agents receiving issue context via GET /issues/:id/heartbeat-context had no way to discover file attachments — the endpoint returned issue metadata, ancestors, project, goal, and comment cursor but omitted attachments entirely. Users attaching files through the UI would then see agents ask for documents that were already uploaded. Fetch attachments in parallel with the existing queries and append a lightweight summary (id, filename, contentType, byteSize, contentPath) to the response so agents can detect and retrieve attached files on their first heartbeat without an extra round-trip. Closes #2536	2026-04-03 01:53:57 +09:00
dottaandPaperclip	c0d0d03bce	Add feedback voting and thumbs capture flow ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-02 09:11:49 -05:00
dottaandPaperclip	eb73fc747a	Seed onboarding project and issue goal context ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-03-24 11:48:59 -05:00