mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-23 09:07:46 +02:00
572bef4ba7679451ac1543db25cb8ebd533bf919
19
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 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
|
4b05795712 |
fix(github): reuse review instructions across native turns (#16971)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub events continue an ordinary task and can reuse its provider conversation. > - Each automatic event appended the full review policy and PR description. > - Native GitHub follow-ups also repeated task history because only Slack used the compact path. > - This pull request separates admitted review configuration from commit updates. > - A verified resume sends the current messages and changed configuration. A fresh session gets full context. > - This reduces repeated input while retaining review rules and current tool checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13959, #16645, #16901. **What happened?** Opening a PR and pushing twice stored three full review prompts. A later native turn repeated all three in a retained provider conversation. **Expected behavior** A new event supplies its commit and event data. The harness delivers stable review instructions once per retained conversation and configuration. Fresh sessions receive full instructions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable automatic GitHub reviews for a repository. 2. Open a PR, let the review finish, and push two new commits. 3. Inspect task messages and the native submitted envelopes. Before this fix, the policy and old requests repeat. ## What Changed - Store compact automatic event messages. Fetch the PR description through the existing metadata tool when needed. - Load review instructions from processed deliveries bound to the company, task, agent, and source comments. Preserve each admitted policy snapshot. - Use the existing verified native continuation path for complete GitHub text batches. Deliver configuration changes using a key over endpoint, PR conversation, revision, and instructions. - Keep full bootstrap input for fresh sessions and failed resume, including board follow-ups with no new GitHub event. Retain existing framing for incomplete batches, attachments, interactions, and recovery. - Keep the same configuration identity across automatic review, discussion, and automatic review. Coalesced requests use the last accepted request's admitted policy. - Add regression and database coverage. Update the execution contract and verification recipe. ## Verification - Red: the new event-size regression failed because policy and PR body repeated. The GitHub continuation regression failed because it returned no compact prompt. - Green: focused policy, continuation, native input, and adapter prompt tests passed (231 tests). Native resume/fresh-bootstrap cases passed (9 tests). - The signed-webhook/database case passed at `6296168253`. It checks configuration edits, queued older snapshots, coalesced policy selection, discussion continuity, board follow-ups, and company/task/agent/comment boundaries. The private PostgreSQL template used 12 connections because the host reached its semaphore limit with the default settings. - The earlier broad channel/session integration run passed 1,432 tests. Later review fixes invalidated that run. The latest focused database case passed after those fixes. - Reviewer regressions failed against the previous lookup, then passed with the fix: a mixed-revision batch delivered multiple policies, and a discussion lost the configuration identity. The board wake-to-rendered-prompt regression also failed before repair. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `git diff --check` passed on the final source. - Full local `pnpm test:run` exposed follow-up/fixture failures during development. Those cases are fixed and pass separately. The stale run was stopped after source edits. Full-suite validation for the final commit passed in CI. - All required CI checks passed for `6296168253`, including tests, typechecks, build, and clean public npm install checks. The two unrelated Storybook checks were skipped. - A live two-turn Codex smoke could not start: the local macOS sandbox helper rejected execution of the installed Codex 0.153.4 binary. No live GitHub/provider acceptance or deployment is claimed. ## Risks Skipping instructions is safe only after a verified checkpoint resume with the correct previous run. The full bootstrap remains available if resume fails. Changed or previously unknown configuration is sent again. Tests cover these cases. Tool authorization and publication checks still run under the current server policy. No database migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The exact deployment model identifier and context window are not exposed in this session. No delegated agents were used. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3b8324a233 |
fix(github): keep one main PR review comment and reconcile stopped work (#16901)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub connections send review requests to an assigned agent. > - A PR needs one main comment that shows its current review state. > - The response ledger used one comment per incoming request. Pushes and follow-up messages created more placeholders. > - Thread subscriptions also accepted requests addressed to external bots. Recovery could leave an acknowledged request without a final notice. > - This pull request shares the main PR comment, filters other recipients, and reconciles stopped work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #16874 showed the repeated placeholders. #15416 introduced the per-request response path. The prior summary path used one PR-level marker. **What happened?** Repeated pushes created new main PR comments. A subscribed `@greptile review` message also woke the Paperclip bot. If execution stopped before staging a milestone, its comment could keep claiming that work was active. **Expected behavior** One bot keeps one main comment per PR. Progress and review results update it. A message addressed to another recipient does not wake the bot unless it also explicitly mentions this bot. Stopped work gets an accurate notice. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Accept two review requests in one PR conversation. 2. Add `@greptile review` to that subscribed conversation. 3. Fail the assigned run before it stages a milestone. Run channel maintenance. ## What Changed - Add a durable main PR response target. Keep per-request receipts and the existing publication lease. - Recover the target from App-owned provider markers. Adopt older placeholders and point verified duplicates to the current review. - Use a queued notice before a PR run starts. Preserve version ordering and final responses. - Filter leading mentions addressed to another recipient. Explicit mentions of this bot take precedence. Incidental mentions keep normal thread behavior. - Reconcile acknowledged requests after terminal execution. Show paused state for saved requests on a blocked task. Preserve newer work and confirmed or uncertain tool delivery. - Keep a request open when its stale acknowledgement is suppressed. Close placeholders after replies published elsewhere. Retire old coalesced placeholders before replacing their receipts. Resolve native request identity when legacy wake fields are absent. - Update guidance, connection documentation, and feature/access maps. ## Verification - Red: all three behavioral regressions failed on the original code. A second review created a second comment; an external-bot request was processed; stopped execution retained its working placeholder. - Green: the same three cases passed after the fixes. - Review regressions also failed before their repairs: a delayed acknowledgement closed a new request; normal and stored formal-review receipts left a live placeholder; coalesced completion lost a duplicate receipt; native terminal work without legacy wake fields stayed queued. All 13 combined regression and safety cases passed after repair. - The same legacy receipt-loss bug was also reproduced in the superseded-acknowledgement branch. Its four affected cases passed after adding retirement before that receipt replacement. - A further review regression reproduced paused requests rejecting resumed progress and skipping stopped-run cleanup. Four cases failed before repair; all eight resume and neighboring safety cases passed afterward. Both paused-notice branches keep the request open. - Repeated paused maintenance reproduced two needless GitHub edits. The writer now skips an identical complete comment body. Nine affected cases passed, covering repeated maintenance, resumption, stopped work, final assessment preservation, and main-comment reuse. - Safety cases cover lost receipts, legacy adoption, newer progress, published assessments, provider-verified mention aliases, and old replies that must not complete new requests. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, map validation, and module boundaries passed. The server TypeScript check passed after the final repair. The broader local GitHub workflow and policy run passed 188 tests. Full CI passed on the final commit (`554979d79285b68bcbf90cd639e3d2d053f4ea4b`), including all three chat shards, server/workspace/Runner suites, typecheck, build, and E2E gates. Greptile is 5/5 with no open review findings. One serialized job received a runner shutdown signal mid-test; its single retry passed. - Preserved failure evidence: the first CI run exposed an overbroad recipient filter and an old queued-text assertion. The next commit passed all three CI chat shards. Greptile then found the receipt transitions covered by the new regressions above. Local full-suite runs were stopped when those defects required source changes; no clean full local pass is claimed. - Tests use real PostgreSQL and controlled provider responses. They do not establish a live GitHub App rollout. The original instance needs the fixed server before its comments change. ## Risks - Leading mentions now select a recipient even when that account has no Paperclip connection. A leading human mention also selects that person. Mid-message incidental mentions retain normal subscription behavior. - Existing comment adoption edits only comments proven by this endpoint's request ledger or prior summary marker and App identity. Deleted and replaced comments remain protected. - Failure cleanup uses current authority and does not replace newer progress or unresolved provider writes. It does not restart failed execution. - No schema migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. The model used reasoning, tools, code execution, and browser inspection. ## 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
|
9e8a9f28d5 |
fix(github): recover long publications from durable receipts (#16883)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents publish GitHub reviews through governed tools. > - GitHub can accept a publication before the caller receives its result. > - Exact retries must return the existing publication receipt. > - The gateway compared a shortened audit hash with a complete request hash. > - Long reviews therefore failed the retry check even when their content was unchanged. > - This pull request checks the complete saved publication and returns its current receipt. > - Agents can confirm their work without another provider write. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16284, which added durable publication recovery. Refs #16275, which extended the GitHub tool deadline. **What happened?** An exact review retry returned an idempotency conflict after GitHub had published the review. The invocation hash uses an audit preview that shortens strings to 500 characters and arrays to 50 entries. The gateway compared that hash with the complete request hash. The earlier retry tests used short assessments. **Expected behavior** An unchanged request returns its durable receipt. Changed content, changed authority, or a missing publication must not cause another write. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Submit a review with a summary and rationale longer than 500 characters. 2. Let publication finish after a short caller deadline. 3. Repeat the exact request. Before this fix, the gateway returns an idempotency conflict. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master at `c5226daf7a37559ddc007446681717791d80a223`. ## What Changed - Use the durable publication's complete request check for GitHub retries. Keep run, agent, task, connection, tool, and current authority checks. - Return the saved receipt through normal gateway validation and bookkeeping. Leave pending provider work to the durable worker. - Refuse retries without a saved publication. Keep existing invocation keys and audit previews unchanged. - Cover long reviews, comments, progress updates, text suffix changes, nested coverage changes, pending receipts, missing publications, and revoked access. - Document the recovery contract and verification recipes. ## Verification - Red: both long-review receipt cases failed on unchanged production code with the expected idempotency conflict. - Green: all 144 GitHub review workflow tests passed on the final source. This includes long reviews, comments, progress updates, pending and missing receipts, revoked policy, and the native assigned-tool entry point. - Server and workspace typechecks passed. The production build passed. - Map checks passed. These are structural checks. - The first broad run found an incorrect new fixture assumption: its discovery query returned two review tools. The fixture now selects the exact submission tool. An existing description-edit polling test also timed out; it passed separately without a production change, then passed in the complete 144-test rerun. Both earlier failures remain recorded. - Final commit `7cdcdc3a1ac79cb4ed77510a32d795228e3315e8` passed all 55 CI checks. Two optional Storybook jobs were skipped. [Complete CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39304187397). Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit, with zero unresolved review threads. - The earlier local full-suite attempt was stopped after the fixture correction. The final local full-suite attempt was stopped after complete final-head CI passed. No complete local full-suite pass is claimed; full-suite acceptance uses the current-head CI matrix. - Provider responses are controlled fixtures. Native assigned-tool coverage uses the production gateway and disposable PostgreSQL. No live GitHub fault injection, deployment, or historical task recovery is claimed. ## Risks A pending receipt remains pending. It does not complete the task. Caller retries no longer dispatch provider work; the durable worker retains that responsibility. A missing durable publication returns a conflict because the gateway cannot establish the original write's outcome. Existing approval and revocation checks remain effective. No database migration or audit hash change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The session does not expose a more specific serving model ID or 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
|
5245959023 |
fix(github): simplify App reconnection and credential recovery (#16856)
Show clear GitHub connection recovery guidance and reconnect the saved App before requesting replacement credentials. Preserve PEM bytes through paste, upload, and retry, with production-page Storybook and browser regression coverage. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
2cbca4ceb0 |
fix: retain channel tools across task continuations (#16806)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels give an agent tools for its assigned task. > - Each later run must resolve the task and its accepted requester again. > - Some native runs store the task in a database column without the older JSON fields. > - Tool discovery read only the JSON fields. GitHub calls also required a new inbound comment. > - This pull request uses the durable task binding and accepted request history. > - Later runs retain their channel tools while current access checks still apply. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A GitHub task can find `begin_review` on its first run, then receive an empty tool list on a later native run. If discovery is repaired alone, a call can still fail because the later run has no new inbound comment. Slack and voice tool access also read the older JSON task fields. **Expected behavior** A later run for the same task can find and call its assigned channel tools. The current requester, task, company, agent, endpoint, and access rules must still allow the call. Revoked access must fail. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a GitHub task and accept its linked requester. 2. Confirm that the runtime can find `begin_review`. 3. Start a later native run with `nativeIssueId`, accepted parent identity, and no JSON task ID or new wake comment. 4. Search for `begin_review` again. Before this change, the search returns an empty list. 5. Repair discovery alone and call `read_pull_request`. Before the request-history fix, the call fails with no active conversation capability. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced in source tests before this patch. The branch includes master at `fa50cab5685b9cdbb26ad9c610cc5b6c373d3ff4`. **Additional context** This is a core run-binding bug. The tests use PostgreSQL and synthetic provider responses. They do not send live reviews, Slack messages, or phone calls. ## What Changed - Resolve run task IDs from durable columns, with legacy JSON fields as a fallback. - Use the same binding in the gateway, access policy, identity service, and channel runtime preparation. - Recover accepted channel request history across later runs. Keep company, task, agent, and requester boundaries. - Recover older wake sources through verified parent runs, including after same-user board follow-ups. Clear the board message’s own legacy wake fallback. Keep cycle checks without a fixed limit on valid task history. - Retain the GitHub origin after a board comment from the same accepted user. Skip GitHub origin lookup results from other providers. - Keep ordinary board tools available when the requester changes. Accept legacy user comments without an author-type field. Still reject explicit malformed task IDs. - Prevent a later failure reply from replacing an earlier final GitHub answer. Recheck this rule under the publication lease. - Rotate the native tool contract to replace retained sessions with an older tool list. - Add continuation, publication, revocation, and boundary tests. Update the access and feature maps. ## Verification - Red: the later GitHub assigned-tool search returned an empty list before the binding fix. - Red: the later GitHub read failed with no active conversation capability before the request-history fix. - Green: runtime MCP discovery, GitHub read/begin/submit review, and response publication pass for monitor and same-user board continuations. - Green: Slack history, retained access controls, revocation, and voice gateway continuation pass. - Green: 35 channel, failure-publication, legacy-origin, long-history, and provenance tests pass. Both review findings had failing tests before their fixes. - Green: 107 gateway, operation-credential, identity, and provenance tests pass. These cover both first-run CI failures without changing their tests. - Green: 122 runtime, discovery-policy, and native-session tests pass; 2 unrelated tests are skipped. - Map checks and whitespace checks pass. - Updated to master in `cfcaba22628772d7fe1fb32b57ff7031c7072781`. The sole conflict was two tests added at the same location. Both the continuation test and the publication 403/401 test are retained. - Current local verification: all 179 gateway, credential, requester-identity, access-policy, runtime-context, and session-resume tests passed. Repository typecheck and build passed. Map and whitespace checks passed. - The new review regression first returned no source for a same-user board follow-up over legacy wake metadata. After the repair, all 27 provenance and channel cases passed. The combined GitHub discovery/read/begin/submit path and revoked access are covered. - The broader local channel run passed 176 cases and failed four timing/setup cases: a 15-second Slack authorization timeout, webhook-verification polling, a Slack acknowledgement deadline, and Discord setup polling. All four passed in isolation without source, assertion, or deadline changes. The earlier failure record is retained; the exact load/order cause is not established. Full CI must pass on the latest commit. - Current head: `7b9a08dcbc7b8140b589742f136944270b0496bb`. Repository typecheck and build pass on this commit. Greptile completed on this exact commit with 5/5; all four review threads are resolved. The final-head [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39278921653) passed: 55 checks passed and 2 intentionally skipped, with no failures or pending checks. This includes the full sharded test matrix, browser tests, typecheck, build, and Runner verification. Results were delayed during the [GitHub Actions incident](https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/8tzbpcnl75jp). An additional unsharded local full test run has not completed; the completed full-suite evidence is CI. - Earlier verification: the first PR commit failed two server suites. Those failures were fixed and verified before this update. The original 4 GiB sandbox could not complete full local typechecking or tests; the current checkout completed typechecking and build. The full test suite runs through the CI shards. No full local test-suite pass or live provider delivery is claimed. ## Risks - Request history can restore the wrong authority if its scope is too broad. The resolver checks each accepted parent against the task, company, agent, and requester. Tests cover invalid and cyclic history. - The native contract change starts a new provider session for older contracts. - No database migration or public API schema changes are required. Each tool call still checks live access. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment model ID or context-window size. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, code edits, and local test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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
|
9966f31bee |
fix(chat): keep permission failures scoped to the rejected operation (#16847)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - External channels deliver agent replies through a durable publication queue. > - A provider can reject one operation while other operations remain allowed. > - The shared error classifier treated generic 403 and permission errors as failures of the whole connection. > - Failure handlers then changed the user's enabled setting and removed all assigned channel tools. > - This pull request limits permission failures to the rejected operation and preserves connection intent during authentication failures. > - Unrelated work can continue, while confirmed authentication failures still stop endpoint traffic. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16137. Follows #16138, which distinguishes local authorization errors from provider errors. This change also narrows provider permission failures. Related #16806 handles a separate task-continuation tool-binding defect. A provider 403 or missing-scope response currently disables a connection that may still support other operations. The expected behavior is a visible operation failure with unrelated work preserved. Confirmed authentication failures must stop sends without changing the user's enabled setting. ## What Changed - Classify generic 403, adapter permission errors, and Slack missing-scope/no-permission responses as failed operations. - Preserve rate-limit retries, known destination quarantine, and confirmed authentication failures. - Preserve connection status and enabled intent when publication, provider-reply, or form-open authentication fails. The endpoint still enters attention and its runtime stops. - Add GitHub regressions for retained discovery and successful later publication after 403, and no further sends after 401. - Mark authentication health failed and fence persistent receiver startup, background reconciliation, and receiver callbacks. Keep signed GitHub lifecycle events available during an authentication stop. Verify Discord reconciliation and Photon restart preserve the stop, while transient Discord disconnects still recover. - Update provider, publication, and modal regression expectations and the execution contract and verification maps. ## Verification - Red: five new classifier cases returned endpoint attention before the repair. The signed-installation-removal regression also reproduced a blocked lifecycle event after a 401 before narrowing the receiver guard. - Green: all 35 classifier tests pass. - Green: 19 PostgreSQL-backed cases pass through the production channel services, including GitHub discovery/publication, Slack provider replies and question modals, Telegram credential/destination failures, rate limiting, and Discord/Photon authentication-stop persistence. - Map structural checks and `git diff --check` pass. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. All CI gates are green on `7e379bcd98aa8363e42efe7f8a4b2589b7111ae6`; Greptile is 5/5 on that exact commit with no unresolved findings. - The monolithic local `pnpm test:run` was started, then stopped after its revision passed the full CI matrix and was superseded by the authentication-stop repair. Final full-suite verification passed in CI shards; all 19 final local provider regressions pass. - The tests run from this source checkout on macOS arm64 with isolated PostgreSQL and controlled provider failures. They do not prove live GitHub recovery or deployment. No live connection settings were changed. ## Risks - Permission failures now leave unrelated work available. The rejected operation remains failed and is not automatically replayed. Provider authorization still applies to every request. - Keeping a connection enabled must not bypass an authentication stop. GitHub verifies blocked tool discovery and later sends; Discord and Photon verify background reconciliation and restart cannot clear the stop. Failed connection health is an execution gate while the endpoint requires attention. - Explicit disable, disconnect, signed installation revocation, and existing destination-specific denial handling remain unchanged. No migration or API schema change is required. - Previously disabled connections are not automatically re-enabled because an upgrade cannot safely infer the user's intent. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment model ID or context-window size. Used reasoning, shell tools, repository edits, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
669d329f25 |
perf(slack): avoid unused catalog revision scans (#16630)
Slack catalog discovery now checks live task, user, endpoint and credentials without calculating an unused compatibility revision. Full authority callers retain the unchanged revision and search-token path. Validation: 44 affected cases, full repository typecheck/build, current-head full CI/E2E and security checks, Greptile Base 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Identical production catalog output with revision statements reduced from two to zero in real-PostgreSQL comparisons. Hosted latency acceptance remains pending. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3db33c131e |
perf(slack): overlap endpoint preparation and narrow credential reads (#16593)
Prepare Slack endpoints in pairs with a per-call concurrency limit of two, and resolve only the current bot token for live tool authority. Preserve candidate-order errors, active-sibling settlement, credential rotation and authorization revocation. Verified with real PostgreSQL regression controls, full repository CI/E2E, security checks and current-head Greptile Plus5/5 with no unresolved findings. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
becdc3b08e |
perf(slack): remove delays before mention acknowledgements (#16491)
Slack mentions now start eyes reactions after the authorized task/comment commits, independently of attachments, subscription and scheduler acceptance. Omit unused optional URL-preview polling while retaining message text, links and files. Keep receipt failures and missing-file warnings independent, including terminal cleanup of older multi-line diagnostics. Verified with full current-head CI and E2E, Superagent and legacy security checks, Apex 5/5 with no unresolved findings, 19 selected real-PostgreSQL receipt/authorization/cleanup cases, and full frozen-source typecheck/build. The first CI attempt's unchanged Cursor probe timeout is retained in the PR; the one failed-only retry passed under unchanged deadlines. Live Slack latency still requires deployed acceptance. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
89ef37d7e0 |
fix(slack): accept linear DM receipt destinations (#16494)
Accept the pinned Slack SDK linear DM address for receipt add/remove while preserving channel, source message, credential and timeout checks. SDK regressions, 106 affected tests, repository typecheck/build, full CI/E2E, Superagent, legacy Snyk and exact-head Apex 5/5 passed. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f69c6a8a35 |
fix(github): retry and recover review publication (#16284)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agent work and its published results.
> - GitHub review bots publish task-bound assessments through governed
tools.
> - A review can survive a caller timeout because its publication intent
is durable.
> - A transient provider failure still returned a failed receipt before
recovery.
> - Gateway replay could return an empty cached result, and publication
retries had no dedicated scheduler deadline.
> - This pull request adds bounded retries, receipt recovery, and an
independent durable worker.
> - A temporary GitHub failure can recover without another review or
duplicate publication.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #16275. That change increased the GitHub tool deadline. This change
repairs retry and recovery behavior.
**What happened?**
A one-off GitHub HTTP 503 or 429 left the caller with a failed
publication receipt. The saved retry did not have its own scheduler
worker. An identical gateway call after a timeout could return an empty
cached result instead of the saved publication receipt.
**Expected behavior**
Temporary failures should retry under current authority. Pending work
should resume at its saved deadline after restart. Exact retries should
return the current receipt. Lost responses must not create duplicate
comments, findings, or checks.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Admit an advisory PR review request and begin its assessment.
2. Return HTTP 503 or 429 for the first summary-comment PATCH, then let
GitHub succeed.
3. Submit the assessment through the run-scoped tool gateway.
4. On master, the result says publication failed. With this change, the
same call returns the processed receipt and neutral check.
5. For receipt recovery, use a shorter caller deadline and repeat the
exact call after publication finishes.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on master at `6cb6ac3b8e40cb90d734ba115a2f22f850ff9477`.
## What Changed
- Classify transient transport, server, and rate-limit failures. Honor
Retry-After and primary reset deadlines. Stop retries for permanent
permission and validation errors.
- Retry safe reads and installation-token issuance within a bounded call
window. Retry publication writes through the existing outbox and
provider receipt checks.
- Wait for up to three publication attempts within a 45-second retry
window. Keep the durable eight-failure cap and enforce saved deadlines
on explicit retries.
- Register an independent GitHub publication worker with
transaction-owned wake notifications, startup recovery, and per-PR lease
deadlines.
- Recover exact comment, progress, and assessment gateway calls from
their stored publication. Require the same company, agent, task, run,
connection, tool, arguments, and current policy. Clear stale timeout
errors after recovery. Approved exact retries read the current receipt
through the existing signed replay path; the worker retains the verified
approval for deferred writes and still rejects revocation.
- Add regression coverage and update the connector guide and
feature/access maps.
## Verification
- Red: both one-off HTTP 503 and 429 regressions failed on master with a
failed publication receipt.
- Green: the same tests passed after the change.
- GitHub review workflows: 133 covered against isolated PostgreSQL 18.
The final combined run passed 132 and hit one fifteen-second timeout
under concurrent build load. All three variants of that workflow passed
in isolation. The earlier combined run passed all 131 workflows before
the two approval regressions were added.
- Retry policy and delivery coordinator tests: 35 passed.
- Additional focused checks passed for the actual eight-failure cap,
exact-argument conflicts, policy revocation, and timeout receipt
recovery. The approved deferred-publication and revocation regressions
failed before the review repair and passed after it, with one approval
request preserved.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. `pnpm build`: passed. `node
scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed.
- The broad local `pnpm test:run` path remains blocked by the host's
exhausted PostgreSQL shared-memory slots. The changed database-backed
workflows use an isolated Docker database instead. All Paperclip CI jobs
passed at
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
22d05644f4 |
feat(ui): add Speko voice setup, task calls, and Storybook coverage (#15728)
Runtime #15727 is merged. This PR adds the UI. Qualification follows in
#15729.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agent work through tasks and governed connections.
> - Chat connections already bind external conversations to those tasks.
> - Speko handles voice and telephony, while the selected Paperclip
agent does the work.
> - A call needs durable session authority, ordered follow-ups, and safe
result delivery.
> - This PR adds the Speko setup and call controls to the existing Apps
and task UI.
> - This PR depends on #15727. The qualification suite follows
separately. Speko stays experimental.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
Phone and browser voice conversations cannot use the chat connection
task lifecycle. A separate voice runtime is needed to preserve task
authority, retries, and reply history.
**Proposed solution**
Add company-scoped voice sessions, signed callbacks, durable replies,
inbound intake, and an agent-facing outbound-call tool. Reuse existing
tasks, queues, secrets, and publications.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the experimental chat connector entry points under Agent
Chat and Connected Apps. The project owner requested this feature.
Refs #11418 for the original provider catalog proposal. This
implementation uses the newer chat connection infrastructure rather than
an MCP catalog-only integration. Refs #15721 for remote OpenCode
startup.
## What Changed
- Add the Speko Apps catalog entry, provider artwork, and browser SDK.
- Reuse existing agents in setup. Keep the optional Company Phone Agent
in the catalog, with connection instructions available to any assigned
agent.
- Add task voice controls, transcripts, phone callbacks, inbound-line
settings, and call Activity entries.
- Surface retryable connection and incoming-task inventory failures,
preserve active call controls and cached tasks, restore keyboard focus
after recovery, and bound notification polling so a stuck request cannot
hide later results.
- Put Save & exit and Connect Speko in the credential step’s shared
footer.
- Add deterministic production-component Storybook fixtures for setup,
lifecycle, failures, permissions, and phone surfaces.
- Include voice components in the design guide. Stories never request a
real microphone or place calls.
## Verification
- All 27 focused UI/controller regressions, UI typecheck, token gates,
and 28 map/catalog structural tests pass. The shared connection cache
test covers pause/resume invalidation during the 30-second fresh period.
- Storybook builds 157 Speko production-component stories. The complete
prior 156-story set passed all 624 checks on UI source
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7eea9d8214 |
fix(github): use bot names in review summaries (#16212)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A GitHub bot can send a pull request to an agent and publish its review. > - Each bot has its own GitHub App identity, but every summary currently starts with "Paperclip Review". > - A generic heading makes it harder to identify reviewers when several bots review the same pull request. > - This pull request uses the bot display name in review summary headings. > - Users can identify each reviewer while required checks keep their existing name. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The heading of a GitHub bot's published pull request review summary. **Current behavior** Every summary uses "Paperclip Review", regardless of the bot's name. The check also uses "Paperclip Review" and must keep that name for existing branch rules. **Proposed behavior** Complete and incomplete review summary headings use the GitHub bot display name. The heading falls back to the bot login, then the assigned agent name, when old connections have no display name. Separate GitHub Apps keep independent checks with the same name. **Reason and benefit** Readers can identify each bot's review. A regression test confirms that publishing a review does not update a check owned by another App or endpoint. **Breaking changes** The summary heading changes. Consumers that parse the old heading must accept bot names. No API, prompt configuration, database schema, or check name changes are included. No duplicate PR was found in the GitHub bot title search. ROADMAP.md does not contain a duplicate of this change. ## What Changed - Use the bot display name in complete and incomplete review headings. - Escape Markdown in names and fall back to the bot login or agent name. - Verify the heading through the publication workflow and keep check updates scoped to the App and endpoint. - Document bot-named summaries and independent checks. Update both access maps. ## Verification - Focused policy, heading, and existing UI tests: 67 passed. - Database-backed regression cases: 2 passed, including bot-name publication and independent checks. - Map checks, token gates, and git diff --check passed. - Typecheck and build passed on the final rebased branch. The final focused run passed 44 tests; the two database-backed regression cases also passed in a separate run. All final-head CI checks passed, including full test suites, build, typecheck, E2E, and security scans. Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings. No review threads remain unresolved. ## Risks - Consumers that parse the old summary heading must accept bot names. - The GitHub check remains Paperclip Review. Multiple-bot check isolation was tested with provider fixtures; a live two-bot GitHub test was not run for this change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact backend model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, 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
|
433d94ee0b |
refactor(maps): generate indexes from local story and feature metadata (#16214)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Feature recipes and Storybook help contributors find behavior, examples, and verification steps. > - Independent feature changes currently update shared catalogs, indexes, and review hashes. > - Those shared files cause merge conflicts and repeated bookkeeping during parallel work. > - This pull request stores metadata in each feature recipe and story, then generates the combined views. > - Contributors can merge independent work without editing a common index. Git and PR evidence retain change and review history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Maintaining the product, agent-access, and Storybook maps while multiple agents change different features. **Current behavior** A story or recipe change can update `catalog.json`, `INDEX.md`, review hashes, verification tables, and tracked generated navigation. Two unrelated changes then conflict in the same files. **Proposed behavior** Each story declares capability links and classification in `parameters.paperclip`. Each feature recipe declares its navigation and optional verification guidance. Startup, build, and UI typechecking discover these sources and generate ignored indexes and Storybook pages. **Reason and benefit** A routine change edits its own source files. Aggregate metadata is rebuilt from the merged checkout. There is no sidecar registry, shared review journal, or hash acknowledgment to maintain. **Breaking changes** The tracked Storybook catalog and index paths are retired. Consumers use `ui/storybook/generated/` or `maps/generated/` after generation. Contributor instructions and the existing feature-gap browser suite use the new paths. Story and overview IDs remain stable. ## What Changed - Move the existing annotations into 262 story files. Preserve classifications, capability associations, exports, and explicit IDs. - Discover all 35 feature recipes. Store section/order beside each recipe and move durable verification routes out of the shared table. - Remove tracked catalogs, inventories, overview pages, and inline preview ordering. Keep authored preview behavior in `preview-base.tsx`. - Generate the Storybook guide, feature/access Markdown indexes, gap report, page-reference inventory, and preview wrapper automatically. - Update the map contracts and maintenance skills to use Git history and revision-specific PR/CI evidence. - Add schema, identity, regeneration, and actual Git merge tests. Run these through the existing UI Vitest suite. Add focused browser navigation checks. This is one coordinated migration. Most of the 367 changed files contain only moved metadata or deleted generated content. Review the generator scripts, map contracts, Storybook configuration, and tests first. No product API or authorization behavior changes. ## Verification Passed: - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: 35 paired areas and 175 capabilities. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check`: 262 suites and 2,485 authored stories after incorporating current master. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs`: 28 tests, including independent branches merged in both orders with identical generated output and no tracked changes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run storybook/map-tooling.test.ts`: the CI entrypoint runs those map tests. - `pnpm check:token-gates`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` before the final master rebase. - `pnpm build-storybook`: all 2,517 original story/docs URLs retained. Current master contributes exactly four additional recovery stories. - Focused Playwright navigation checks: search and open a feature without examples; expand verification guidance and check source links; retain capability order and follow a related Foundations suite. The final clean Storybook build passed after deleting every ignored map output. Post-rebase UI typechecking and both browser tests passed. The working tree stays clean after generation. The concurrent-cleanup regression fails with `ENOENT` without the fix and passes with it. All GitHub CI gates passed on `00fc7ec18e`, which also received Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The final merge commit `1c3c5143a6` incorporates master and resolves only the two modify/delete conflicts by retaining removal of the aggregate index and catalog. Master’s new workspace feature and access guidance is preserved. Map validation, catalog generation, overview generation, all 28 map tests, and diff checks pass after conflict resolution. The maintainer explicitly requested merging without another Greptile review. CI has not been rerun to completion on this merge commit. The local repository-wide `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after the earlier CI matrix passed; it is not reported as a local pass. No screenshot baselines or production acceptance are claimed. To repeat the browser check against an owned Storybook server: ```sh PAPERCLIP_GAP_STORYBOOK_URL=http://127.0.0.1:6136 pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/storybook-visual/feature-gap-stories.config.ts map-navigation.spec.ts ``` ## Risks - Existing branches need a one-time rebase to move their catalog changes into local annotations. The PR incorporates the recovery changes from current master. - Changing the same story or capability can still produce a meaningful conflict. This removes the shared aggregate bottleneck. - The generator uses Storybook's existing CSF parser. Literal-only annotations and parser regression tests protect the current contract. - Generated Markdown is available after running the generator; the published Storybook provides a browsable guide. - Shared source changes still require review. Removing hashes removes mechanical acknowledgments; it does not establish runtime parity. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and browser-test tools. The exact deployment model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the previously reviewed head `00fc7ec18e`; final conflict-resolution checks are documented above - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on `00fc7ec18e`; another review was waived by the maintainer - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
df06df2306 |
fix(slack): allow direct messages without at-mentions (#16151)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Slack connections let people start and continue agent tasks. > - The Require at-mention setting currently applies to channels and direct messages. > - A person who sends a direct message has already selected the agent. > - This pull request exempts direct messages from mention checks, including queued work. > - People can talk normally in DMs while channel messages keep the configured mention rule. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15612, which introduced the Require at-mention setting. Searches found no duplicate PR for the DM exemption. **What happened?** With Require at-mention enabled, a plain Slack DM does not start or continue agent work. New Slack connections enable the setting by default. **Expected behavior** Direct messages do not need an at-mention. Top-level DM replies remain top-level. Channel messages and channel thread replies still follow the saved mention setting. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable Allow direct messages and Require at-mention on a Slack connection. 2. Send a plain DM from an authorized sender. 3. Confirm the agent responds without an at-mention. Send a plain follow-up and confirm it also works. 4. Confirm unmentioned channel messages remain filtered when Require at-mention is enabled. 5. Disable Allow direct messages and confirm new DMs remain blocked. **Paperclip version or commit** Source baseline: `eb06c9fedd`. **Deployment mode** Built from source. Automated tests use disposable local Postgres and provider fixtures. This change has not been deployed or retested in live Slack. ## What Changed - Exempt DMs at inbound admission, task mutation, work authorization, and heartbeat queue claim. - Keep channel mention checks and all existing sender, endpoint, and destination checks. - Update regressions for new connections, follow-ups, deferred delivery, and coalesced queued messages. - Clarify the Slack settings copy, connection documentation, and verification maps. - Refresh the affected Storybook review references after source inspection. ## Verification - Passed 55 Slack and durable scheduler tests with Vitest on the current rebased commit, including admission through the extracted inbound module. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` on the rebased PR commit. - Passed token gates and map checks. - Passed Storybook catalog validation after rebase: 223 files and 2,210 stories. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after three failures in the unchanged tool-access suite. All 418 tests in that suite passed in a standalone rerun. The focused regressions passed; full GitHub CI remains the merge gate. - Greptile reviewed commit `b0293fa6571403c5e01c30bb7b5fcc5e91b88c97`: 5/5, with no findings or unresolved review threads. All 55 GitHub checks passed on this commit; two optional Storybook jobs were skipped. - No live Slack messages were sent during implementation verification. ## Risks Existing Slack connections now accept authorized plain DMs even when Require at-mention is enabled. Allow direct messages and sender authorization still apply. Queued DM work follows the same exemption. Channel behavior and DM reply routing are unchanged. No schema or migration change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running as Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific 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
|
f329b24ee1 |
feat: give tasks durable project-optional workspaces (#15749)
Give tasks durable company-scoped workspace bindings independent of project assignment, channel defaults and authorized repository preparation. Reuse verified input seeds and sparse output recovery while preserving trust, privacy and controller provisioning boundaries.
Full CI and E2E, Superagent, legacy checks and Greptile Apex 5/5 passed on reviewed head
|
||
|
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> |