mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-24 01:41:42 +02:00
572bef4ba7679451ac1543db25cb8ebd533bf919
15
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
b11010b0d4 |
Simplify failure banners and show only the latest error (#16982)
Remove dashed failure dividers and show only the latest adjacent run or recovery error. Preserve permitted retries, pending state and unrelated notice boundaries. Add production-component Storybook examples and browser regression coverage. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4145b5048a |
docs: deepen task, approval, secret, and recovery maps (#16994)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its feature map describes user journeys. Its access map describes the matching agent paths. > - The recent index and capability additions improved discovery and breadth. > - Broad baseline records still combined operations with different actors, permissions, and retry behavior. > - This pull request reviews the existing task, approval, secret, and recovery capabilities at operation level. > - Each operation now has its own access boundary, source evidence, and verification recipe. Source review remains separate from live proof. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16987, #16990, #16025. These related pull requests are merged. The search found no open duplicate or matching issue. **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** The paired task, questions-and-approvals, secrets, and recovery files under `maps/feature-map/` and `maps/agent-access-map/`. **What's wrong?** Baseline records do not show enough detail to verify who can perform each action, which state must persist, or what happens after a denial, race, or retry. A declared scenario tool can also be mistaken for an admitted production tool. **Suggested fix** Split the four areas into source-reviewed operation records. Add compact checkpoints to their user recipes. Preserve existing capability IDs and the map schema. ## What Changed - Promote 27 existing capability records to `operation-reviewed`, with 125 operation records: tasks 32, questions and approvals 39, secrets 28, recovery 26. - Give each operation its own API, agent surface, policy, source evidence, verification recipe, and remaining gap. - Separate human, legacy agent, run JWT, native binding, mode, and resource authority. Split operations where those rules differ. - Correct production completion paths, plan acceptance and handoff, question dismissal and withdrawal, secret proposal authority, runtime recovery grants, and explicit duplicate-risk decisions. - Preserve access gaps found in source, including the binding-proposal dependency cascade and narrower native/CLI fields. - Add one checkpoint table per product recipe for saved results, denial, races, and retries. - Keep all 191 existing capability IDs. Change only eight Markdown files. Keep every operation's evidence `source-only` and verification `not-run`; the subset below does not prove an entire operation across its actors and surfaces. ## Verification Source review uses revision `3bbc2104b65caf9f7763938a01260a5673e12f7a`. Read-only area reviews and a second source review covered the changed pairs. Passed: - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: 35 paired areas, 191 capability IDs, valid references and fields. This is structural verification. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs`: 17 passed. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs`: 308 files, 2,899 stories. Generated outputs remain ignored. - Capability comparison with the base: all 191 IDs unchanged; the four reviewed areas contain 27 capabilities and 125 source-only operation records. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. - `git diff --check`. - Focused existing interaction and proposal route tests: 80 passed. The two selected DB-backed suites skipped 119 tests because local embedded PostgreSQL could not start. These skipped tests are not passes. Live subset on a fresh local instance with a disposable PostgreSQL container: - Created the company and an unassigned task through the browser. Added a comment and completed the task. The saved status and comment survived reload. - Created a managed secret with inert dummy data through the browser. Its metadata and version survived reload. The metadata response did not contain the dummy value. - Created a question fixture through board REST. Invalid input returned 422 and left it pending. Browser dismissal kept it pending and preserved the draft. Reopening restored the choice. Submission survived reload. A duplicate response returned 409 and left the saved answer unchanged. - Used a real issued legacy agent API key. Task read and safe company-secret catalog returned 200. Full secret listing and run-only secret list/value routes returned 403. Revoked the key after the checks. - Read an empty recovery projection. Resolving a nonexistent action returned 404 and left the task unchanged. This did not execute recovery. - Closed the owned browser tab and stopped only the verified test runtime and labelled database container. Evidence survived cleanup. No provider or model ran. Limits and retained failures: - Native embedded PostgreSQL launch failed because the host could not allocate semaphores. The container-backed app was the successful alternate environment. - Full `pnpm test:run` was attempted. Fifteen DB-dependent native-session cases failed at database startup, and several DB suites skipped. The run was stopped after repeated failures of that prerequisite. The full local suite did not pass. - The sandboxed build attempt failed at the local tsx IPC socket. The required build passed outside the sandbox. - The first CI build job passed compilation and production boot, then its npm-install check was interrupted when the runner received a shutdown signal. The corrected head passed the full CI run, including the build and public-install checks. - Initial Greptile review found the recovery note field and native search/history limits were inaccurate. Corrected `resolutionNote` and the production cap of 100, then reran the map checks. Greptile reviewed the corrected head at 5/5; both earlier threads are resolved. - An initial harness used a nonexistent generic secret-value URL and received 404. The actual mapped agent routes were then checked separately. An initial recovery assertion expected 409; the actual missing-action contract returned 404. These were harness corrections, not product fixes. - Native run bindings, two-person ownership, secret delivery/rotation, external vaults, provider-stop proof, workspace repair, and actual recovery execution remain unexecuted. The map does not claim those journeys passed. The separate external **Paperclip Review** check is still in progress on `904509df80cc6de16d36906a410a66786f619b20`. The reviewer reports that its full changed-file request is pending. CI is green and Greptile is 5/5, but this external review has not published a final assessment. Its review service must finish that request and assessment. ## Risks Documentation can become stale as policy and runtime bindings change. Each operation cites source and retains its verification gaps. The records describe observed enforcement; they do not authorize broader access or certify live behavior. This pull request changes no product code, schema, or permission enforcement. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`; 475,000-token context window; xhigh reasoning; tool use and code execution. Read-only source agents assisted the area reviews. ## 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 map and route checks; full-suite host blocker recorded above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (existing map regression tests cover this documentation-only change) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3bbc2104b6 |
docs: map missing product and operator capabilities (#16990)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map records product entry points and verification recipes. > - The paired agent access map records APIs and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. > - The new index in #16987 made several missing capabilities easier to find. > - Those gaps hid existing assistant, privacy, cost, and operator workflows. > - This pull request adds 15 capabilities with source references, test scope, and manual checks. > - Readers can find these workflows without treating documentation or structural checks as live proof. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16987. Related map work: #16025 and #16214. A search of related pull requests found no duplicate of these additions. **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `maps/feature-map/` and `maps/agent-access-map/`. **What's wrong?** The maps omit public assistant MCP connections, private task and project sharing, subscription fees, cost-recording recovery, agent API keys, keyboard entry points, and several operator CLI workflows. **Suggested fix** Add product recipes and matching access records. Show the full capability IDs in the README index and each page. Keep the existing ID format and all 175 existing IDs. Exclude AI account pools. ## What Changed - Add the `assistant-connections` family with setup, consent, device login, client use, and revocation. - Add `tasks/privacy`, `projects/privacy`, `budgets-costs/subscriptions`, and `budgets-costs/accounting-recovery`. - Add `agents/api-keys`, `agents/managed-agent-setup`, and `navigation-preferences/command-palette`. - Add `cli-operations/feedback-export`, `chat-channels/outbound-email`, and `instance-operations/runtime-setup`. - Pair all 15 additions with access rules, source evidence, manual checks, and explicit coverage gaps. Update the visible index to 35 families and 190 capability IDs. - Add cross-links from existing access, connection setup, search, and CLI recipes. Do not change the schema or add AI account pools. - Clarify that the task Share sheet displays direct and inherited access. Manage inherited access at its ancestor or project source. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes: 35 areas and 190 paired capability IDs, with valid references and contract fields. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs` passes: 17 tests. - `node scripts/storybook-feature-index.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - A comparison with the base confirms all 175 existing IDs remain and exactly the intended 15 IDs were added. The README index matches the discovered feature metadata. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` cannot run because this checkout lacks `storybook/internal/csf-tools` and installed workspace dependencies. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build` were attempted. All stopped before their task ran: the pnpm 9.15.4 bootstrap could not fetch and verify its registry packages in this environment. - Source review covers the documented UI, CLI, routes, services, and existing tests. No live browser, provider, or authorization journey was run. New access records remain `baseline`, `source-only`, and `not-run`. - Greptile and the Paperclip reviewer both rate current commit `bb8eb797b0a1dc26256faf2f0e57cbe7abc9adcf` 5/5. The inherited-access review thread is resolved. - [GitHub CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39466772379) passes for that commit, including typecheck, build, unit tests, Runner checks, and browser tests. Browser shard 7 passed after one retry for a runner shutdown. All PR checks are successful, neutral, or skipped. ## Risks - Low runtime risk: this change only edits maps. No application behavior, API, dependency, or schema changes. - Source-reviewed recipes can drift or miss deployment-specific behavior. The records state their limits and require live checks before a capability is marked verified. > 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 ID `gpt-6.1-sol`, 475,000-token context window, xhigh reasoning effort, with 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 - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9ef434fe79 |
docs: expose feature map IDs and add a recipe index (#16987)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its feature map describes user journeys and their verification paths. > - The map already defines feature IDs and full capability IDs. > - The README and child pages did not show those IDs consistently. > - Readers need those IDs to connect issues, tests, stories, and evidence. > - This pull request adds a recipe index and displays the existing IDs. > - The benefit is clear references across the product and agent access maps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `maps/feature-map/README.md`, the child recipes, and their agent access companions. **What's wrong?** The README sends readers to Storybook to browse features. Child pages show local keys, such as `installation`, without the full `plugins/installation` ID. Readers must inspect the generator to find the full reference. **Suggested fix** List recipe links and existing IDs in the README. Show each feature ID and full capability ID in its child pages. Explain capability IDs and entry-point references. Keep the current keys and anchors. Related work: Refs #15288. Refs #16052. Refs #15983. No duplicate open PR or issue was found by title search. ## What Changed - Add an index grouped by feature area. It lists every recipe, feature ID, and full capability ID. - Explain how IDs are formed and used in issues, tests, Storybook, and evidence. - Add feature IDs to all product recipes and agent access companions. - Show full capability IDs beside recipe keys and below access and Storybook guidance headings. - Preserve existing keys, heading anchors, and generated ID values. Keep the latest upstream company capability in the index. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes for 34 feature families and 175 capability IDs. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs` passes all 17 tests. - `node scripts/storybook-feature-index.mjs` passes on this checkout and generates the feature indexes and overview inputs. - `git diff --check` passes. - A source comparison confirms that the README matches the recipe index. After removal of the added ID labels, all 68 child pages match the upstream prose and headings. - Full workspace checks were attempted: `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build`. They could not start because the local pnpm wrapper could not fetch and verify the pinned pnpm 9.15.4 release. This checkout also has no workspace dependencies installed. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` could not run because `storybook/internal/csf-tools` is not installed. The direct map and index checks above pass without that dependency. - Remote typecheck, release-registry, and full build checks passed. The first attempts of [server shard 3/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758430448) and [server shard 12/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758429932) stopped after their runners received a shutdown signal. The test steps were canceled. GitHub rejects the rerun request with HTTP 403: "The workflow run containing this job is already running". Five other CI jobs remain active. The next action is to rerun the two interrupted shards after workflow 39460473910 ends. No application changes were made to address these runner interruptions. - To inspect the result, open the feature-map README, follow a recipe link, and compare its full capability IDs with its access companion. ## Risks - Low risk. The change updates map documentation only. It changes no application code or ID schema. - The readable README index and child labels repeat source IDs. Keep them aligned when a capability changes. - Generated capability descriptions now include the visible ID prefix. Generated IDs, labels, navigation order, and verification fields remain the same. - Full local workspace checks and catalog generation remain unverified for the environment reasons above. > 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-6.1-sol`, with a 475,000-token context window and `xhigh` reasoning effort. The model used local file tools, shell commands, and GitHub CLI access. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
98d17da1e2 |
Fix native monitor dispatch and finalization recovery (#16975)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native runs persist their results and workspace before they release execution. > - A task monitor must wait for that settlement before it starts the next run. > - The scheduler checked provider status but did not check unfinished finalization. > - A timer could dispatch too early, then its old finalizer could no longer find the consumed schedule. > - This pull request delays dispatch and reconciles prior delivery from server records. > - The task can continue without repeating the provider turn or removing a newer run's ownership. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native run saved a yielded monitor result while workspace finalization needed recovery. Its timer dispatched after the provider stopped. The follow-up failed because the earlier run still held workspace recovery. The old finalizer then retried `monitor_wait_authority_lost` indefinitely. **Expected behavior** Timer dispatch waits for native finalization. If an older timer already dispatched, the finalizer uses its saved scheduling receipt and admitted successor to settle the old result. It preserves current task state and ownership. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Schedule a task monitor from a native run and save a yielded result. 2. Leave native finalization retryable after the provider reaches a terminal state. 3. Let the monitor become due. Before this change, the scheduler consumes it. 4. Restore workspace persistence and retry the old finalizer. Before this change, the missing schedule leaves it retryable. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against master `34be1b831bcaba070264ae8d214ceffe6a8f9eab`. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server built from source, with PostgreSQL and the native runner. Related recent recovery work: #16962 and #16963. No duplicate repair found for this failure. ## What Changed - Scheduled and manual monitor dispatch wait for unfinished native finalization. If the monitor expires during workspace recovery, the accepted result can settle into the persisted schedule, and the scheduler then applies its existing expiry policy. New monitor-wait results still require an unexpired, unexhausted schedule. - A narrow reader joins the run's server-issued monitor receipt to its durable wake and admitted successor. - The finalizer and locked status commit verify that evidence and preserve current task ownership. They do not create another wake. - Monitor delivery participates in assessment identity, so recovery can replace a prior error decision without violating the decision ledger's uniqueness constraints. - PostgreSQL regressions cover saved-result replay, active successors, wrong task or agent, missing receipts, unadmitted wakes, ownership races, and failed workspace persistence. - The execution contract and verification maps describe the recovery boundary. ## Verification - Red: the saved monitor regression remained `retryable_failure` instead of `committed` on unpatched code. - Red: the scheduler admitted a wake while terminal-run finalization remained retryable. - Red/green: two PostgreSQL cases reproduce timeout during workspace recovery for scheduled and manual checks. Before the review repair, both remain `retryable_failure` with `monitor_wait_authority_lost`. Afterward, both commit, apply board escalation once, preserve the saved result, and enqueue zero provider wakes. New completion still rejects the expired schedule. - Typecheck: `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - Build: `pnpm build` passed. - Maps: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - Review: Greptile 5/5 and Ponytail Paperclip Review 5/5 on the current head, with no unresolved findings. Both reviews are static; execution evidence is recorded separately above and below. - Linux staging: the original repair passed 170 tests across monitor integration, scheduling, status arbitration, and workspace finalization. The expanded suite passes all 172 tests, including both new timeout regressions. - Live acceptance: deployed the original repair to the authorized Linux ARM64 self-hosted instance. The stranded saved result finalized automatically; the original task then completed through normal admission, with its final answer persisted after browser reload. The other original task was already complete and its external delivery was verified without repeating it. - The initial Mac regression run passed 68 tests, but three suites failed during embedded PostgreSQL startup. A subsequent focused run confirmed the host had exhausted its PostgreSQL semaphore allowance. Linux verification uses isolated databases; the local failure logs remain preserved. - The local full test suite is not claimed as passed. It is blocked by the same PostgreSQL startup limitation; full-suite CI passed on head `8bc29d1b7783446f397b858e558083570a96bb66` ([run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39447913466)). ## Risks - A delivery match must not grant new execution authority. The lookup requires the original run's server receipt and a matching company, agent, task, wake, and admitted successor. The locked commit rejects old-run checkout ownership and permits no status effects. - Workspace persistence must succeed before settlement. Its existing failure path remains effective. - The scheduler waits while a native finalizer is unfinished. Workspace recovery must settle before dispatch; elapsed monitor limits transfer to the existing scheduler recovery policy instead of stranding the result. Neither settlement path renews a deadline or changes budget, approval, pause, or provider authority. - No schema, migration, credential, or provider configuration change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The exact backend 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7c58ea07b2 |
fix(issues): guard prepared task promotion by status version (#16893)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Integrations can prepare a backlog task before its assigned agent starts. > - A person can change its status or assignment during preparation. > - An unconditional promotion can replace that newer decision. > - Safe promotion needs a saved revision that includes every assignment path. > - This pull request checks that revision under the task row lock and derives policy cleanup from the locked row. > - The benefit is safe initialization recovery with the existing company, task, and run authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Prerequisite #16896 has merged. This PR now targets master and contains only the conditional promotion API. The prerequisite fixed the confirmed baseline first-upload browser regression. **What happened?** A client that saves a task's initial documents and then sends an unconditional status update can override a concurrent status or assignment decision. The update validator previously dropped an expected version, so clients could not make this promotion conditional. Some direct assignment and release paths also did not advance the revision. **Expected behavior** A prepared task moves from backlog to todo only if its original status and assignment revision still matches. A stale request returns 409 before a task mutation, audit publication, or wake. Policy cleanup preserves unrelated saved settings. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a backlog task and save its statusVersion before preparing it. 2. Release its assignment, or change an assignee and then restore that assignee. 3. Send `{ "status": "todo", "expectedStatusVersion": <original revision> }` to its PATCH endpoint. 4. The stale promotion must return 409. A matching revision on an unchanged backlog task must succeed. Duplicate and related PR searches found no existing prepared-task promotion fix. ## What Changed - Accept an optional nonnegative expectedStatusVersion for exactly a status-only backlog-to-todo promotion. Reject extra public fields before parsing can discard them. - Check the current revision and backlog state under the issue row lock. Reject stale requests before checkout adoption or execution-control effects. - Add SQL migration 0358 to advance the revision for both assignee fields at the database boundary. Release, administrative release, direct writes, and assignment round trips now invalidate an old version. - Derive guarded policy cleanup from the locked row. Preserve review limits and protected authorization when removing a monitor. Reject derived ownership changes or review decisions. - Add schema, real HTTP/PostgreSQL, concurrency, migration replay, and policy regression coverage. Update the response type, OpenAPI, developer docs, and access map. ## Verification - Red before the initial fix: stale requests returned 200 instead of 409, validation removed the expected version, and a stale active task could adopt a checkout. - Review found two further defects. Four new release/direct-assignment tests showed unchanged revisions. The real HTTP/service test returned 422 for a valid two-field promotion after monitor cleanup. Helper tests also proved that cleanup lost valid review limits and protected authorization. All now pass after focused repairs. - Green: 124 route and policy tests, including 7 real Express/PostgreSQL cases, 37 existing route tests, and 80 policy/helper tests. The real row-lock race preserves a policy edit committed while promotion waits. - Green: all 23 database client tests, plus 9 focused assignment and replay checks. Historical migration 0227 receipt recovery cannot remove the new assignment trigger. Reapplying migration 0358 leaves existing rows unchanged and installs one trigger. Combined status/assignment writes increment once; unchanged assignees do not increment. - Earlier verification passed all 218 schema/route/service cases and the generated OpenAPI capability test. Rebased focused regressions passed all 27 selected cases. Final server TypeScript passed after all repairs; shared TypeScript passed. Migration safety/numbering, five-snapshot retention, map validation, and diff checks pass. - The baseline browser attachment case failed twice on the earlier head. Separate #16896 proved the lost-composer cause, passed 335 component tests and the real first-upload journey, and has green CI with a 5/5 review. No assertion or timeout was weakened. - Some early local checks were blocked by missing or stale sibling dependency artifacts. This worktree now has its own frozen offline install and standard SDK prerequisites. The failures and successful reruns remain in the task evidence. - Before rebasing, head `3304bb00de6ad6a248b5e046c008072ad20ac8f5` passed all CI (55 successful checks and one neutral), Greptile 5/5, and a secondary source review at 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The secondary reviewer did not execute project tests, inspect CI, or exercise a live agent journey. Earlier incomplete and must-fix assessments remain visible; both established findings are repaired above. - After #16896 merged, all five CAS commits were rebased onto master `87d9386ae637c652d1fed09d2046be1bcaeb413b`. Migration 0358 was regenerated because master added another 0357. Range comparison shows no other change to the CAS patches; inherited UI commits are absent. The original head is preserved locally. - Rebased head `1c0264e51a280b1dbf597725a7e42e72d4be1b1b` passes all 124 route/policy tests, 9 selected assignment/promotion tests, and all 24 database client/snapshot-drift tests. Database build, migration checks, generated snapshot linkage, five-snapshot retention (0354–0358), maps, and diff checks pass. Fresh-head CI and review are pending. No deployment or live agent journey was performed for this API. ## Risks - The guard supports prepared backlog promotion only. Other statuses or mixed public mutation fields return 422. A stale revision or non-backlog row returns 409. - Preserve the original version from a server that already advertises this guard before initialization. Older versions did not track every assignment path. Reconcile older or uncertain initialization instead of fetching a new revision and blindly retrying. - Migration 0358 is SQL-only and idempotent. It adds no table, column, or task backfill. Its separate trigger survives historical status-migration replay. - Existing authorization and unguarded updates remain in place. Guarded promotion does not provide a general lifecycle or review-stage control API. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this session. Used tool calls, code execution, and test-first regression 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 searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c145475cae |
fix: admit documented sandbox task context routes (#16892)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip agents use task context to complete assigned work. > - Sandboxed agents reach the controller through a bounded callback bridge. > - The bridge rejects several documented context routes before controller authorization runs. > - An authorized agent cannot read a task screenshot or referenced skill file, or inspect a missed monitor wake. > - This pull request admits only the exact context routes and supported methods. > - The controller continues to enforce company, resource, task and monitor authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Both callback transports return `Route not allowed` for task asset content, company skill detail and files, wake diagnostics, and the monitor check-now action. These operations already exist in the controller. **Expected behavior** A sandboxed agent can use these documented operations when the controller authorizes its request. Other methods, deeper paths, skill mutations, and recovery resolution remain restricted. **Steps to reproduce** Use a sandbox callback to read an asset URL from a task description, read a company skill's referenced file, or inspect a task's wake diagnostics. The baseline bridge rejects each request. The new regression matrix runs all five operations against both transport allowlists. Related: #16772 documents refused callback routes. This PR fixes the context routes listed above; it does not add company-wide activity or labels access. ## What Changed - Admit asset content, skill detail/files, and wake diagnostic reads. - Admit the existing monitor check-now action with controller authorization. - Add a focused allow/deny matrix for both transports. - Update the operational API reference and access maps. ## Verification - With the pre-fix bridge rules, all 10 allowed-request cases fail with `Route not allowed` across the two transports; all 24 deny controls still pass. - With the fix restored, all 34 route cases pass. The matrix plus existing callback suite passes 119 tests across two files. - Local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. - The access-map checker, capability contract generation check, and capability inventory check pass. - Full repository CI passes on `97f9f06b2c`: typecheck/release registry, all test shards, build, Docker context, canary dry run, and aggregate verify. - The duplicate local full-suite run was stopped after 24 minutes once full CI passed; it is not claimed as a completed local pass. - Greptile is 5/5 on the current head with no inline findings. Independent source review checked asset, skill, wake-diagnostic, and monitor controller authorization and found no actionable issues. - The secondary Paperclip automated review is neutral/incomplete. Independent review covered its missing controller checks; the real Vitest cases and full CI provide execution evidence. ## Risks This widens transport admission for five existing operations. It does not change controller authorization. Asset reads still check company/task visibility; skill reads keep source policy; monitor checks keep ownership and management permission. No schema or UI change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with tool use and code execution. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID or context window. The work used failing-before and passing-after regression tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b928c6698f |
fix(heartbeat): explain deferred monitor dispatch (#16891)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - One-shot task monitors request future work through the normal heartbeat queue. > - Queue admission can hold execution until recovery or ownership is reconciled. > - The scheduler retained those monitor schedules but recorded no monitor diagnostic. > - Agents could repeatedly reschedule the same blocked check without seeing why it did not run. > - This pull request records safe deferral and failure activity while retaining all execution gates. > - Agents and operators can inspect the actual blocker and use its existing recovery path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #15556 handles transient monitor client errors. #14590 handles parked monitor wakes. This change records the diagnosis when queue admission defers or fails; it does not change their admission or monitor consumption policies. **What happened?** A due monitor on a task with an unresolved execution-recovery hold was claimed, passed to queue admission, and released without monitor activity. The saved monitor continued to look scheduled. Unexpected dispatch errors had the same audit gap. Repeated rearming could not clear the recovery hold. **Expected behavior** Keep the monitor and the recovery hold. Record the reason that prevented its wake. Do not execute uncertain work or consume an attempt. Limit repeated identical diagnostics. If audit storage fails, release the claim so a later tick can retry. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Schedule a due monitor on an agent-owned task in progress. 2. Add an active recovery action for an interrupted legacy execution. 3. Run the monitor scheduler twice. No provider may start while the hold remains. 4. Before this fix, neither attempt writes monitor deferral activity. 5. Resolve the hold through its existing recovery path. The saved monitor can then request one wake. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
985d3b12b6 |
fix(runner): explain rejected task monitor arguments (#16868)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents use task monitors to resume work after a future check. > - The runner rejects monitor arguments that fail the tool schema. > - It returned a generic error with no field or repair guidance. > - An agent could treat a repairable call as a scheduling outage and block its task. > - This pull request adds safe repair guidance and shows the nested request shape. > - Agents can correct the call and confirm a saved schedule before they yield. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15446, #16686. **What happened?** A rejected native `set_task_monitor` call returned `invalid_tool_call` with only “Paperclip rejected this semantic tool call.” The agent could not identify the invalid field. A retry could fail again and leave unfinished work without a scheduled wake. **Expected behavior** Reject invalid arguments before any mutation. Give the provider bounded schema locations and clear repair guidance. A corrected call must save a monitor and allow one wake without duplicate effects. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Call `set_task_monitor` with `idempotencyKey`, `nextCheckAt`, and `notes` at the top level. 2. The schema rejects the call because scheduling fields belong inside `monitor`. 3. Before this change, the provider received no guidance about the required shape. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against master `35c75b56d4` with a failing Rust regression. **Deployment mode** Source checkout. This affects the native runner tool bridge. ## What Changed - Add monitor-specific repair guidance to the runner's existing safe schema error path. - Keep feedback within 512 bytes and omit submitted values and unknown field names. - Show the nested monitor request in the production tool description. Refresh generated contracts and catalog identities. - Test flat and nested invalid input, private value handling, and unchanged authorization errors. - Test rejection, correction with the same key, saved schedule and audit, receipt replay, and one timer wake with real PostgreSQL and the native tool authority. - Update execution documentation and the task verification recipes. ## Verification - Red/green: the Rust provider error regression failed on master because monitor repair guidance was absent. It passed after the fix. - Passed: 29 PostgreSQL monitor and scheduler integration tests. These use the real tool authority and scheduler, with a no-op process agent for wake delivery. - Passed: the native Codex server vertical-slice test. It runs the rebuilt Runner binary with a fake provider and checks durable results and session resume. - Passed: map structure checks, Rust formatting, and `git diff --check`. - Passed locally: full repository `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and all 392 Rust library unit tests. - Passed on commit `3b667ad24763c1828edd48f56ef7a10766aeb946`: [CI run 39290889768](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39290889768), including all server, Runner, serialized, browser, typecheck, build, and canary gates. Across the PR, 56 checks passed and four conditional checks were skipped. No check remains pending or failed. - Greptile: 5/5 on that exact commit. The check concluded success, with no review comments or unresolved threads. - The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` attempt did not complete. It was stopped after the full CI suite passed; it is not counted as a local full-suite pass. - The first PostgreSQL attempt could not bind localhost inside the shell sandbox. It passed with normal localhost access. The first broader Rust attempt had 37 socket-permission failures and 355 passes; all 392 passed with localhost access and no code change. - Live model recovery was not run. Local execution policy did not authorize an extra acceptance run through the signed-in provider account. This PR does not include a deployment or recovery of an existing task. ## Risks - Error feedback must not reveal submitted values. Tests cover private values, unknown keys, nested constraints, length bounds, and unchanged generic authorization errors. - This changes guidance only. It does not relax the schema, retry calls automatically, or change scheduling authority. - A new runner binary and refreshed provider contract must reach the target instance before agents receive this guidance. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact runtime suffix and context window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3e5a9f5afe |
perf(ui): load recent tasks with bounded summaries (#16851)
Replace passive recent-task detail reads with bounded, authorized summaries. Keep account isolation, stored history, task actions, and live recovery behavior. Overlap access checks with shell settings and avoid duplicate session and health reads on the first healthy socket opening. Retain domain reconciliation. Add focused coverage and local performance evidence. Isolate the existing cache capacity test from entry expiry on slow CI runners. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d20cb69ce5 |
fix(heartbeat): preserve active retries when comments arrive (#16855)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their work. > - Heartbeat retries preserve task ownership after a recoverable failure. > - The issue read model includes retries that are scheduled, queued, or running. > - The human comment route treated every retry in that model as parked work. > - A normal status comment could therefore cancel a running continuation and return its task to Todo. > - This pull request limits comment supersession to parked retries and checks that state at the cancellation fence. > - The agent can keep working when a person adds context. Explicit Stop and Interrupt remain available. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A Board comment on an in-progress task cancelled its running recovery continuation. The handler read a live retry from `getCurrentScheduledRetry` but did not check its status. The cancellation also forced workspace recovery when copy-back did not complete. **Expected behavior** A comment must preserve queued and running execution. Only a retry that is still `scheduled_retry` may be superseded. If promotion wins the race, the comment must keep the task in progress and follow the normal wake path. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let a task retry advance from `scheduled_retry` to `running`. 2. Keep its retry reason and source run identity in the stored row. 3. Post a normal human comment, without an Interrupt request. 4. Observe the old handler cancel the run and move the task to Todo. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master base `9966f31bee`. The staging incident served `f3cd3f4ea89539b68410841d39ec15a5c626007f`. **Deployment mode** Staging server with a remote runner. The defect is in the core comment and cancellation path. Refs #16835 and #16843. Those repairs cover runner health and workspace preservation. This change prevents a normal comment from requesting the wrong cancellation. Related #9732 promotes human wakes on parked retries; it does not protect a retry that is already running. ## What Changed - Check the live retry status in both comment routes: POST comments and PATCH issue with a comment. - Add an optional expected-status fence to cancellation. A concurrent promotion or terminal outcome returns a no-op result. - Make due-retry promotion honor a cancellation claim under its issue and run row locks. A scheduler cannot promote work after cancellation has won. - Finish persisted cancellations of parked retries through the existing startup and periodic recovery sweep. Preserve their original request and retry a failed settlement without starting provider work. - Keep the task active when guarded cancellation does not win. Do not record a cancellation that did not occur. - Add route regressions, real PostgreSQL race tests, and pending-retry and explicit Stop safety coverage. - Exercise both normal HTTP comment routes with real services, stored Board membership, PostgreSQL, and a live child process. Assert that the process can still perform work, the task keeps its original execution, and no second executor starts. - Document the comment supersession contract and update the task feature/access maps with the local regression coverage and deployed acceptance recipe. ## Verification - Before the fix, all four POST/PATCH regressions cancelled queued or running work. - Before the fix, the real PostgreSQL race test cancelled a retry that became running after lookup. - The comment-route suite passes **103 tests**. The final dispatch, cancellation, restart recovery and HTTP/live-process suites pass **119 tests**, for **222 affected tests** across these runs. They cover comment delivery, both sides of the promotion race, concurrent terminal outcomes, pending retries, explicit Stop, and a live process that can continue work. - Command: `node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/services/heartbeat/run-control.test.ts`. - The normal HTTP/live-process acceptance suite passes all **14 tests**, including both comment endpoints with stored Board membership and deterministic wakeup teardown. - Review exposed a second race after the cancellation claim. Its new PostgreSQL test failed before the dispatch guard with `promoted` and passes afterward with `not_promoted`, followed by completed cancellation. - A real PostgreSQL constraint interrupts the terminal cancellation write after its intent commits. The assembled recovery service failed to settle that row before the repair. Afterward a fresh service settles it, clears its task lock, cancels its saved wake, preserves the original request and leaves unrelated parked retries alone. A repeated database failure preserves the intent for a later successful sweep; a second successful sweep adds no duplicate event. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. Server typecheck and build pass again after the final server-only review fix. A local full-suite attempt started on `f8773bf` did not return an overall result; its log is preserved and no local full-suite pass is claimed. The new recovery change passes the focused suites and fresh server typecheck/build. Latest-head CI on `8f928adee67c089e1ac405d2ad3b169eedb8da27` is green: the full PR workflow and commitperclip review passed; only the two optional Storybook jobs skipped. - Greptile reviewed final head `8f928adee67c089e1ac405d2ad3b169eedb8da27` at **5/5**, with no unresolved findings. All actual latest-head CI checks passed; the two optional Storybook jobs skipped. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes after the map updates (34 areas, 172 capability IDs); it checks structure only. - Fixed-revision staging acceptance is pending deployment. The original workspace remains held and its latest source checkpoint is backed up and verified. ## Risks - A promoted retry must keep its execution and ownership when a comment arrives. The database status predicate and route no-op handling enforce this at the race boundary. - A cancellation intent must prevent promotion without leaving work parked forever after a restart. The recovery sweep consumes at most 20 such intents per pass through guarded cancellation, and a failed settlement keeps its intent for retry. - A parked retry must still accept fresh instructions. Its existing cancellation and wake behavior remains covered. - Ordinary Stop and Interrupt calls omit the expected-status option. Their cancellation authority is unchanged and remains covered by the run-control suite. - No schema migration or API request contract changes are required. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` in Codex, with extra-high reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The session does not expose its context-window limit. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
be380ba155 |
fix(ui): hide agent-created tasks by default (#16157)
Hide agent-created, system-created, and chat-channel tasks from independent collections by default. Preserve task hierarchy context and existing inbox participation. Add a saved opt-in checkbox without helper text. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
fc3b15537b |
fix(runner): match call_api to existing agent REST permissions (#16040)
Route native call_api through existing agent REST permissions. Preserve admitted credentials across restarts, protect sensitive replies and private snapshots, and compare saved completion with provider history through the same redaction projection. Add permission, privacy and recovery regressions and update the access map and run-log guide. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
6c198d616e |
fix(issues): preserve human handoffs from the active agent run (#16082)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks have one owner, and the server records assignment changes. > - An agent can finish its work by handing the task to a human for review. > - The assignment route stops the active run before it saves that handoff. > - When the caller is that run, a slow workspace restore can exceed the stop timeout and prevent the assignment from saving. > - Recovery can then mark the task Blocked while its comment says the handoff succeeded. > - This pull request lets the authenticated legacy run save a human handoff and finish its turn normally. > - Other actors and transfers to executable agents keep the verified stop requirement. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13730. Related: #13782, #14700, and #15094. **What happened?** An agent posted its review handoff, then sent `PATCH /api/issues/{id}` to assign the task to its human creator with status `in_review`. The route cancelled that same run before saving the assignment. Workspace restore took 66 seconds. The stop limit is 60 seconds. The assignment never committed. Recovery marked the task Blocked, and it stayed assigned to the agent. **Expected behavior** The authenticated active legacy run can hand its own task to a human and finish normally. The human assignment and requested review status must save without waiting for workspace restore. Native runs, board reassignment, agent API keys, and transfers to another agent still require a verified stop. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a legacy agent on its assigned task with a signed run token. 2. Send a task PATCH from that run with a human `assigneeUserId`, a null `assigneeAgentId`, and status `in_review`. 3. Make stopping the sandbox take more than 60 seconds. Before this fix, the handoff fails before the task update. With this fix, the update saves and the run finishes normally. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced in hosted execution. The patch is based on master at `56a0bf0d492`. **Deployment mode** Hosted authenticated server with a legacy agent in a remote sandbox. The same route serves local deployments. PR #13782 proposes a broader exemption for all self-handoffs. This focused change limits the exemption to human recipients and legacy runs. It checks the exact active run, agent, company, and task, and it retains the stop requirement before an executable successor can take ownership. PRs #14700 and #15094 address later wake and recovery behavior after a reassignment stop. ## What Changed - Skip the reassignment cancellation only for an authenticated legacy run handing its own task to a human. - Reject later mutations from the outgoing run against its human-owned task, both in route authorization and under the update transaction locks. - Keep assignment permission checks, goal control, and queued human response protection. - Add route regressions for slow stops, active-run lookup, actor and runtime boundaries, recipient types, permission denials, and follow-up edits, completion, and reassignment. - Update the real HTTP low-trust handoff test to prove the run stays alive, its late edit fails, and the human wake receipt remains invalidated. - Add Postgres tests for saved assignment, former-owner rejection, and review state after the outgoing run succeeds or fails. - Document the handoff rule and update the task feature and agent access maps. ## Verification - 328 relevant tests passed across the route, issue service, low-trust HTTP, and legacy recovery suites. The route suite passed all 160 tests, and all 13 low-trust HTTP tests passed after updating the obsolete cancellation expectation. - Removing the production guard makes both slow-shutdown handoff regressions fail with HTTP 500. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - `git diff --check` passed. - All 54 current-head checks passed; 2 optional Storybook checks were skipped. The CI lanes cover the full Vitest suite, typecheck/build, Runner checks, and product E2E checks. - Apex reviewed `c68fbfb356c3d80eb7136babb49940709a3c3459` at 5/5 with no findings; both earlier review threads are resolved. - The complete test lanes passed in CI. The duplicate local full `pnpm test:run` was stopped after CI completed; it did not finish locally. All 328 focused local tests and full local typecheck/build passed. ## Risks - The outgoing legacy turn stays alive after the human takes ownership. Route and transactional ownership checks reject its later mutations of the human-owned task. Read and comment access follows normal policy. Goal control still runs before the handoff. - This exemption does not apply to native runs or another agent as recipient. Those paths still stop the old execution before assignment. - This fix prevents future failed handoffs. It does not infer or replay old assignment requests. - There is no schema change or API shape change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The session does not expose a more specific runtime model ID or context window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7d9b93aee2 |
docs: establish paired feature and agent access maps (#16025)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. **Issue type** Missing documentation and maintenance contract. **Where is the issue?** The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. **What's wrong?** There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. **Suggested fix** Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression tests. ## 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> |