5 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	d5766e4074	perf(chat): scope task questions and batch inbox queue checks (#18422) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Standing chats show recent messages and current task questions. > - Recent-message pagination bounds history work, but it does not bound question work. > - The question read built the full company attention feed before it selected the chat's tasks. > - Each feed read also checked seeded queue membership with one insert per item. > - This pull request scopes question collection in the attention owner and batches queue membership checks. > - Chats keep their current question cards and initial layout while doing less work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Follow-up to #18358 and #18323. Related work: #18312. **What happened?** A hosted standing chat remained slow after recent-message pagination shipped. On commit `4eaa435bf4`, an embedded-browser reload made the conversation usable at about 8.6 seconds. Recent comments finished at about 1.9 seconds. The pending-question request held the initial reveal until about 8.4 seconds. That request called the complete company attention feed and then filtered its results. The separate badge summary also did broad work. **Expected behavior** Chat question cost should depend on the relevant tasks. Reading an existing queue must not require a separate insert for every member. Current access and decision policy must remain in force. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a standing chat with questions on tasks assigned to its agent. 2. Add many unrelated tasks and pending questions to the company. 3. Open the chat from a fresh application cache. 4. Compare recent-comment arrival with the pending-question response and content reveal. **Paperclip version or commit** Baseline: `909e29dd071b1aeeb24c2933af049da90a6066d3`. Its affected services match the observed hosted revision `4eaa435bf4`. ## What Changed - Add an internal task-question projection to the attention service. Filter pending interactions by company, task IDs and question kind before card enrichment. - Keep the same access, audience, dismissal, queue, snooze, retention, archive and training-example logic. Ranks are local to the returned question list. - Use the projection from the conversation receipt service. Keep current chat audience and session checks there. - Batch seeded membership inserts in groups of 500. Keep the queue lock, conflict protection, audit events and activity logging for each new membership. Existing members produce no new audit records. - Add real PostgreSQL regression cases and a reproducible paired benchmark. No schema migration or UI reveal change is needed. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. The final server typecheck also passed after the queue change. - `pnpm build` passed. - Real PostgreSQL service coverage: 57 attention and chat-handoff tests passed. Seven queue-route tests passed, including concurrent reads, mixed existing/new items, duplicates, disabled seeds and audit preservation. - Red/green proof: the unrelated-attention regression fails with the baseline conversation implementation and passes with the scoped read. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed. - Full `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped with exit 130 after embedded PostgreSQL startup failures and 17 failures in the untouched native-session executor suite. It is not a local pass. The focused Docker/PostgreSQL results above completed before Docker Desktop became unavailable. A direct native PostgreSQL probe identified the host semaphore limit (`could not create semaphores: No space left on device`). No shared kernel settings or other test clusters were changed. [Full CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41162314995) passed on `2809f096b3fb2c01b44a96a1b82a27809c9359df`, including all eight browser shards. Final status: 55 successful checks/statuses, three skipped and one neutral. Greptile is 5/5 with no findings or unresolved threads. The fresh local browser retest is blocked because Docker Desktop cannot start and native PostgreSQL cannot allocate semaphores. The original hosted reproduction above is complete; no candidate browser pass is claimed. Local service benchmark: PostgreSQL 17.11, two relevant tasks, five alternating pairs per scenario, after warmup. These are local service timings, not a claim about deployed latency. | Fixture | Read | Baseline median (range) | Candidate median (range) | SQL calls | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1,000 unrelated tasks/questions | Chat questions | 670 ms (632–1,905) | 12 ms (11–15) | 1,076 → 22 | | 1,000 unrelated tasks/questions | Company badge summary | 641 ms (622–717) | 167 ms (161–171) | 1,068 → 69 | | Small company | Chat questions | 38 ms (37–52) | 13 ms (12–16) | 52 → 22 | | Small company | Company badge summary | 34 ms (33–39) | 34 ms (32–40) | 44 → 43 | All question fields and ordering matched, except rank is relative to the scoped list. Summary fields matched except the generation timestamp. The interaction plan changed from 1,002 selected rows to two rows through the existing company/issue/status index. The benchmark loads baseline attention, conversation and queue modules together so the queue change cannot contaminate the baseline. ```sh pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-chat-questions.ts \ --baseline-ref=909e29dd07 --unrelated=1000 ``` ## Risks - Scoped and complete feeds must share policy. This change reuses the same attention collection and finalization path and tests dismissals, named audiences, snoozing, archives and private access. - Batched inserts must audit only new members. The concurrent PostgreSQL test checks unique membership and one event/activity record per new item across batch boundaries. - Full inbox summaries still collect the company feed. The small-company summary timing is unchanged. Other chat requests and transcript hydration can still contribute to hosted latency. - The first reveal still waits for question cards to preserve layout. This follow-up has not been deployed, so its hosted effect remains unverified. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution and browser profiling. The exact serving 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 #` 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>	2026-10-31 07:37:47 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4e27a82a42	fix(server): wake approval queue seeding from committed changes (#17510) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work and human decisions for AI-agent companies. > - Automatic decision queues store membership for pending attention sources. > - The old attention maintenance scan created that membership as a side effect. > - Moving approval retention out of the scan also removed approval queue discovery. > - Queue API consumers do not build the attention feed first, so they can miss pending PR approvals. > - This pull request gives approval queue discovery its own worker and commit signals. > - The worker becomes quiet after it saves every missing membership. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17497. Stacked on #17508, following #17505. This is a correctness dependency for the approval retention migration in #17497. Do not treat that migration as complete without this queue-population path. A real PostgreSQL regression found no PR queue when a pending approval had a linked PR work product and the maintenance feed excluded approvals. Related: #13364 proposes pruning stale seeded memberships. This PR preserves existing membership retention and does not implement pruning. #15149 documents the decision-queue APIs. ## What Changed - Add an approval queue worker that selects missing PR-queue memberships from existing durable records. Bound each pass to 100 rows. Continue past failed rows and revisit them on retry. - Reuse the queue service's seed writer through a normalized source contract. Keep queue rules, uniqueness, and audit writes in that service. Keep feed readers compatible. - Wake from committed approval and link changes, issue/company visibility, PR work-product changes and imports, and queue-rule changes. Reuse the existing transaction boundaries. - Recheck approval status under a row lock. Serialize queue-rule changes with the seed writer. Preserve required recovery during drain and shutdown. - Register startup reconstruction under the existing maintenance switch. Leave other attention-source seeding with its current owner until its own migration. - Document the complete producer audit and stack dependency. Add a validated external PostgreSQL option to the existing queue route suite so it runs on hosts without embedded database support. ## Verification Current tested revision: `7948136ef8`. This PR targets master after #17508 merged as `8406047b4e`. Normal ancestry reconciliation preserved the complete tested integration tree, before the review repairs below. Only the original 25 seeding paths differ from master, and database schema/migration metadata is identical. - **56 cases pass in the three complete affected suites:** 28 approval seeding, 6 queue routes and 22 task-watchdog cases. Server typecheck and production build pass. - Three real PostgreSQL retry regressions failed then passed: new matching arrivals cannot postpone a recovered failure indefinitely; successful partial progress resets old failure penalties; an empty cursor rollover does not reset outage backoff. Exact one- and two-second retry assertions, eventual complete recovery and existing capped-backoff/company isolation tests pass. - Three genuinely empty external databases failed before setup repair because tables were missing. Each suite now applies migrations itself. All 55 cases passed on a second set of fresh databases; adding the final rollover guard then passed all 56 cases using those now-migrated fixtures. No production migration or table is added. - The initial expanded fresh run passed 54 cases but failed a cleanup expectation that omitted a required cursor rollover pass. The fixture now permits that explicit continuation while preserving exact deadline and complete-membership assertions. All failure records remain in `doc/idle-approval-queue-seeding.md`. - The prior integrated revision `4e725e2055` passed **522 cases in fifteen complete producer/consumer suites**, plus types/build. Its unchanged consumer code and historical deadlock, cross-company amplification, backoff, gateway integration and setup evidence remain documented; those counts are not relabeled as current acceptance. Commands: server Vitest for approval queue seeding, queue routes and task watchdogs; server typecheck/build. Fresh exact-head Greptile/Ponytail reviews and all CI checks remain required. No full local repository-suite, deployed suspension or cost claim is made. ## Risks - Signals cover the supported in-process service writers. Independent SQL writers and multiple server replicas need a separate notification contract. - The source predicate must stay aligned with unscoped attention maintenance. The first linked issue, company scope, pending status, and execution visibility are tested. A pending approval itself keeps its linked external conversation active. - Existing enabled seed rules can re-add manually removed matching memberships. This preserves the old scan's behavior. Completed or archived membership is not pruned. - Queue seeding and retention are separate owners. Other attention sources still need their own event-driven discovery before the aggregate scan can be retired. - This PR does not extend Cloud wake coverage, relax sleep admission, or claim measured host/database suspension. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context window were not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-27 20:33:01 -05:00
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
3 people	0a09e4d975	feat(decisions): add desk workflow and retention (#10672) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Decisions desk shows work that needs a human decision > - The queue foundation can group and rank decision work > - Operators also need a focused daily view and a safe way to handle old work > - This pull request adds the desk controls, the aging shelf, and reversible retention > - It also binds bulk archive decisions to the exact reviewed item set > - The benefit is a smaller daily queue without lost or orphaned work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server, UI, database, and shared contracts. **Problem or motivation** Decision work can grow into one large company list. Operators need quick queue and date controls. Old items also need a safe retention path that does not delete work. **Proposed solution** Add queue and date controls to the Decisions desk. Compute the aging shelf on the server. Archive idle items after 90 days unless an operator keeps them. Keep archived items searchable and revivable. Notify origin agents in one batch per sweep. Bind bulk archive proposals to a signed, exact item manifest. **Alternatives considered** Client-only aging can drift across browsers and source kinds. Deleting old rows removes audit and recovery paths. An unsigned dynamic bulk query can archive items that the reviewer did not inspect. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports the Work Queues and decision-memory directions in `ROADMAP.md`. It extends the Decisions and attention-feed foundation from #10651. Related earlier work includes #9380, #10010, and #10474. ## What Changed - Added the queue rail, date chips, decide split, triage strip, queue page, and aging shelf UI. - Added server-owned shelf state with per-queue retention overrides. - Added reversible retention state, archive history, and an idempotent notification outbox. - Added the 90-day archive sweeper, Keep exemption, archived feed query, and revive actions. - Added one origin-agent notification per agent and sweep. - Added signed bulk archive proposals with exact-set and version checks. - Persisted queue-exclusion reasons atomically and kept cross-domain source resolution per-item until it has an exact-set transaction contract. - Added API contracts, OpenAPI entries, migration coverage, focused tests, and Storybook screens. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` (server: 329 files and 3,453 tests passed; UI: 408 files and 3,362 tests passed) - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - Focused retention, attention, decisions, migration replay, startup, and UI API tests. - Complete queue snapshot regression with 51 items across the normal 50-item page boundary. The unmodified CLI test reports one warning assertion in this runtime because the harness injects static AWS credential variables. The isolated test passes when those two variables are removed. ## Risks - The migration adds retention and notification outbox tables. It uses idempotent table, index, and foreign-key creation. - Retention runs on the heartbeat scheduler interval. Compare-and-set version checks prevent stale archive writes. - Bulk archive acceptance fails closed when authority, activity, version, or the reviewed set changes. - Archive is reversible and does not delete source records. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The model used tool calls, code execution, database migration generation, and test execution. The context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-02 10:47:03 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	30c49c8327	feat(decisions): add queues and prioritized attention feed (#10651) ... <!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane for companies of AI agents. > - Operators use the attention feed to find decisions that need action. > - The feed has eleven source kinds, but it has no durable queue or triage state. > - The feed also returns every item and lacks decision deadlines, snooze state, and decision-focused ordering. > - This pull request adds secure queue sidecars and enriches the attention feed with triage data, filters, cursor pagination, and decide-now ranking. > - The benefit is a bounded feed that can show the most urgent decisions first without weakening source visibility rules. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request replaces the closed [#10634](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10634). It combines that queue foundation with the dependent attention-feed change as one review unit. **Subsystem affected** Database schema, shared contracts, server authorization and REST APIs, and the UI attention client library. **Problem or motivation** The attention feed can contain hundreds of mixed decision items. Operators cannot group them into durable queues, set a decision deadline, snooze an item, or request a bounded page ordered by urgency. The current client must download the full feed on each refresh. **Proposed solution** Store queue membership and triage state by stable attention identity. Re-authorize each source during queue reads and writes. Enrich attention items with queue, deadline, snooze, expiry, rule, and origin data. Add activity and queue filters, opaque cursor pagination, decide-focused ordering, and a decide-now count. **Alternatives considered** Adding queue fields to every source would duplicate schema and authorization logic across eleven source kinds. Client-only filtering and sorting would still transfer the full feed and would make pagination unstable. **Roadmap alignment** This change improves the core decision-attention surface and operator oversight. It does not implement the separate general-purpose work queue milestone in `ROADMAP.md`. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped queue, membership, triage, and append-only event tables with actor and run provenance. - Added queue CRUD, item membership, starter-rule discovery, and decide-by and snooze endpoints. - Kept source authorization on each queue mutation, read, and count. - Added attention fields for expiry, rule, origin agent, queues, decide-by attribution, and snooze state. - Added activity date filters, queue filters, opaque cursor pagination, and configurable page limits. - Added decide-now ordering by deadline, expiry, severity, and activity. - Added `decideNowCount` and excluded actively snoozed items from the default feed. - Updated the shared and UI client contracts. - Added focused server, route, OpenAPI, and UI client tests. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/decision-queues-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/api/attention.test.ts ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts` (72 tests passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/db --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` ## Risks - The migration adds four company-scoped tables and provenance foreign keys. Migration numbering and safety checks pass. - Attention reads can lazily create starter queues and memberships. Inserts are idempotent, audited, and transactional. - Cursor validity depends on the filtered feed. The API returns a clear validation error when the cursor item no longer exists in that feed. - Queue reads re-check source visibility. This favors correct authorization over fewer queries. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-5`. The runtime used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. The runtime did not expose the context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-01 20:37:39 -05:00