mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-16 15:15:35 +02:00
5ee9e751fbb38787c055ee793c3412ecfc89da2e
4598
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 github-actions[bot]andlockfile-bot
|
4683f26c97 |
chore(lockfile): refresh pnpm-lock.yaml (#11036)
Auto-generated lockfile refresh after dependencies changed on master. This PR only updates pnpm-lock.yaml. Co-authored-by: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
TonioandClaude Opus 5
|
11e56654f8 |
feat(ui): port onboarding flow from prototype; add cloud + local variants (#10786)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - First-run onboarding is the subsystem that turns a brand-new install
into a working company: it creates the company, its goal, a lead agent,
and that agent's first task
> - The existing `OnboardingWizard` carried all of that wiring
correctly, but its UI had drifted from the current design direction, and
a separate design prototype (`paperclip-onboard`) existed as a
standalone visual mock with no backend
> - Porting the prototype's *logic* would have thrown away working,
well-tested backend orchestration; leaving the two apart meant the
design never shipped
> - Separately, cloud and local (self-hosted) installs need meaningfully
different first runs — local has no sign-in and must let the user pick a
locally-installed CLI adapter — so a single linear wizard could not
serve both
> - This pull request rebuilds the presentational layer from the
prototype on top of the existing backend orchestration, and splits it
into two thin flow containers over a shared core
> - The benefit is that the shipped onboarding matches the intended
design, cloud and local can diverge without duplicating logic, and each
can later ship to a different app version while sharing one set of step
components
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue — describing inline (feature request).
**What problem does this solve?**
Onboarding is the first thing a new user sees, and the shipped wizard
had drifted from the current design. In parallel, cloud and local
installs need different first-run paths: local has no hosted sign-in,
and its agent runs on a CLI adapter installed on the user's machine,
which the cloud path never has to ask about. There was no way to express
that difference without either forking the whole wizard or bolting
conditionals onto a single linear flow.
**Proposed solution**
Extract the onboarding step views and shell into a shared core, then
compose two thin flow containers (cloud and local) over it. Keep all
backend orchestration in the existing `useOnboardingFlow` hook so no
working logic is rewritten.
**Alternatives considered**
- *Single flow with a `variant` prop* — most DRY, but the two flows are
intended to ship on different app versions, and a shared file would have
to be split later anyway.
- *Two fully independent copies* — simplest per-flow, but every shared
refinement (spacing, motion, copy) would have to be made twice and would
drift.
## What Changed
- **Shared core** under `ui/src/components/onboarding/`:
`OnboardingScaffold` owns the full-screen shell and the single
`AnimatePresence` step crossfade, so both flows transition identically;
step views (Start / Company / Agent / Task), `FooterNav`, `AgentPreview`
and the motion constants are extracted for reuse.
- **`CloudOnboardingFlow`** — `start → company → agent → task`; mounted
in the real app via `OnboardingWizardVariant`. Behaviour matches the
retired wizard, including `previewMock` and the existing-company ("add
an agent") entry point.
- **`LocalOnboardingFlow`** — skips sign-in and adds an optional email
ask (with a privacy assurance), a local model/adapter step that hires
with `requireEnvProbe: true`, and a "star us on GitHub" interstitial
before completing. **Harness-only for now** — the real app still mounts
the cloud flow.
- **Deleted `OnboardingWizard.tsx`** (1,786 lines); updated its
Storybook stories and the `OnboardingWizardVariant` test to the new
components.
- **Orbiting 3D paperclip backdrop** behind the auth and welcome screens
(`three`), code-split so it only downloads on those screens; honours
`prefers-reduced-motion` and disposes its GL context on unmount.
- **`motion`** added for step transitions and the agent-capsule
choreography.
- Visual values routed through design tokens per `DESIGN.md`; `Stepper`
generalized to take a step total (backward compatible); `/design-guide`
page and the component index updated.
- **Standalone preview harness** (`ui/onboarding-preview.html`) with
`?flow=` and `?step=` for backend-free review, wired as a second Vite
rollup input.
- **Adapter env probe bound to the adapter it ran against.**
`hireLeadAgent` reused `adapterEnvResult` for any adapter, so when a
hire failed and the user picked a *different* local adapter and retried,
the previous adapter's verdict satisfied the `requireEnvProbe` guard
while the hire posted the new adapter's config — hiring it unprobed. The
cache is now keyed on the adapter type plus the exact config posted to
the test endpoint, the config is built once and shared by probe and
hire, a failed probe clears the cache, and `clearAdapterEnvResult()`
(called on adapter change) stops the step displaying a stale verdict.
Cloud is unaffected — it hires with `requireEnvProbe: false`. Reported
by Greptile.
- **E2E specs re-pointed at the new flow.** Four specs still drove the
deleted wizard (`onboarding`, `conference-room-typing-intro`,
`planning-mode-visual-verification`, `nux-phase4-screenshots`) and
failed with `element(s) not found` on `"Name your company"` /
`input[placeholder="Acme Corp"]`. Rather than repeat the new drive
sequence four times, `tests/e2e/onboarding-flow.ts` adds one driver per
step (`startCloudOnboarding`, `completeCompanyStep`,
`completeAgentStep`, `completeTaskStep`, `completeCloudOnboarding`) and
the specs import it, so the next flow change touches a single file. Two
now-dead `**/test-environment` route stubs went with it — the cloud flow
hires with `requireEnvProbe: false`, so that probe never fires.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean.
- `npx vitest run` over the onboarding suites
(`OnboardingWizardVariant`, `AgentCapsule`, `onboarding-launch`,
`onboarding-goal`, `onboarding-route`, `onboarding-adapter-config`) — 33
tests pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — succeeds; the three.js chunk
splits out separately (522 kB raw / 133 kB gzip) rather than entering
the main bundle.
- Both flows driven end-to-end in the preview harness in `previewMock`
(no database writes), plus the cloud flow rendered in the real
authenticated app at `/onboarding` to confirm the mount swap.
- The four re-pointed e2e specs pass locally against the new flow.
- New `ui/src/hooks/useOnboardingFlow.test.tsx` — 4 cases pinning the
adapter-probe cache (switch-adapter retry, cold path, explicit clear,
and the cloud flow's `requireEnvProbe: false`). Verified non-vacuous:
the switch-adapter case fails against the pre-fix code.
- Rebased onto current `master`; `pnpm-lock.yaml` is deliberately
**not** committed — `.github/workflows/pr.yml` regenerates it when a
manifest changes and shares it with downstream jobs as the `pr-lockfile`
artifact.
## Risks
- **Deleting `OnboardingWizard.tsx` is the one change that alters
existing app behaviour.** The cloud flow is intended to be
behaviour-equivalent, and its entry points are covered by the updated
`OnboardingWizardVariant` test, but this is the area to review most
closely.
- **Conflict risk with open PRs that touch the old wizard**: #9900,
#9501, #8982 and #6636 all modify
`ui/src/components/OnboardingWizard.tsx`, which this PR removes.
Whichever lands second will need its change re-applied to the new step
components. Flagging so ordering can be decided deliberately.
- **New dependencies**: `motion` and `three` (+ `@types/three`). `three`
is large, so it is lazily imported and code-split — it does not affect
the main bundle. Both are MIT.
- The **local flow is not reachable in the app** yet (harness/canary
only), so it carries no runtime risk today; wiring it up is a follow-up.
- The auth screens remain **presentational only** — they are not wired
to real auth, unchanged from before this PR.
- **Pre-existing, not introduced here:** `OnboardingWizardVariant`
renders outside `<Routes>` in `App.tsx`, so its `useParams()` never
resolves `:companyPrefix` and `/{prefix}/onboarding` opens the welcome
screen instead of jumping to the agent step. `master` has the identical
structure, so this PR faithfully ports existing behaviour; the working
"add an agent" entry is the launcher card behind the overlay, which is
what the screenshot spec drives. Worth a separate fix.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`) via Claude Code, with extended thinking
and tool use (repo search/edit, local test + build execution, and
browser-driven visual verification of the rendered flows). Portions of
the session also ran on `claude-opus-4-8` and `claude-fable-5`.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
canary/v2026.807.0-canary.7
|
||
|
|
b67c512f82 |
feat(ui): live run label → run detail, running row → task detail (#11034)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The agent detail page has a Dashboard tab. The Dashboard tab shows a "Live Run" section for the agent's current heartbeat. > - The "Live Run" section has two clickable pieces: the section heading and the running row. Both pieces linked to the same run detail page. > - Two controls that go to the same place waste a navigation affordance and hide the task the agent runs. > - This pull request splits the two destinations. The heading goes to the run. The running row goes to the task. > - The benefit is that a user reaches the run internals from the label and the work item from the row, in one click each. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. The description follows the enhancement issue template. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The "Live Run" section on the agent detail page, Dashboard tab (the `LatestRunCard` component in `ui/src/pages/AgentDetail.tsx`). **Current behavior** The "Live Run" heading and the running row both link to the run detail page (`/agents/:agentId/runs/:runId`). The row shows the run code and an invocation-source chip. There is a separate "View details →" link that also goes to the run detail page. A user cannot reach the task the run works on from this section. **Proposed behavior** The heading becomes a link to the run detail page and appends the short run code, shown as `Live Run · <run code>`. The redundant "View details →" link is removed. The running row links to the task detail page when the run's context snapshot resolves to a known issue, and the row then shows the task status glyph, the task slug, and the task title. A pure timer heartbeat with no resolvable task keeps the previous behavior: run code plus source chip, linking to the run detail page. **Reason and benefit** The heading and the row now go to distinct, intuitive destinations. A user reaches the run internals from the label and the work item from the row, each in a single click. The fallback keeps heartbeats with no task readable and avoids a blank or broken row. ## What Changed - Made the "Live Run" / "Latest Run" heading a `Link` to the run detail page and appended the short run code (`run.id.slice(0, 8)`) in a mono span, formatted `Live Run · <run code>`. Kept the pulsing live dot. - Removed the redundant "View details →" link. - Changed the running row `Link` target to the task detail page (`/issues/:identifier`) when a task resolves, falling back to the run detail page otherwise. - Resolved the task from the run context snapshot (`contextSnapshot.issueId`, falling back to `contextSnapshot.taskId`) against a `Map` of the agent's assigned issues threaded in from `AgentOverview`. - When a task resolves, replaced the run code and source chip in the row with the task status glyph (`StatusGlyph`), the task slug, and the task title. Kept the running spinner, the run status badge, and the timestamp. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 gates clean. - `pnpm --filter ui typecheck` → passes. - `pnpm --filter ui exec vitest run src/pages/AgentDetail.progress.test.ts src/pages/AgentDetail.instructions.test.tsx` → 10/10 pass. - Manual (needs a reviewer with a browser): open an agent detail page → Dashboard tab. - For a live issue-execution run: the heading reads `Live Run · <run code>` and opens the run detail page; the row shows the task status icon, slug, and title and opens the task detail page. - For a pure timer heartbeat with no task: the row falls back to run code + source chip and opens the run detail page. No blank row. - Confirm both states in light and dark mode. ## Risks Low risk. The change is presentational and scoped to one component. The task lookup is defensive: it reads the context snapshot with a fallback key and only renders the task row when the issue is present in the already-loaded assigned-issue set, so an unknown or missing issue degrades to the previous run-detail behavior rather than breaking. ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic (Claude). - Model: claude-opus-4-8 (Opus 4.8). - Context window: 200K. - Reasoning mode: extended thinking, tool use. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>canary/v2026.807.0-canary.6 |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
4e76227f12 |
feat(plugin-daytona): stream session command logs behind useLogStream (#11021)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Sandbox provider plugins let agents run commands in remote environments. > - The Daytona provider polls the exit code while it waits for command logs. > - Polling delays log delivery and does not support long-lived streamed commands. > - This pull request adds an opt-in Daytona log stream with one reconnect and a poll fallback. > - The benefit is faster log delivery while the existing default path stays unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #10941 **Subsystem affected** packages/plugins — sandbox provider plugins. **Problem or motivation** The Daytona provider polls the command exit code every 50 milliseconds while it waits for logs. This delays output and does not support a long-lived streamed command. **Proposed solution** Add the `useLogStream` provider option. Stream stdout and stderr from the Daytona callback log form, read the exit code after the stream ends, retry the read with bounded backoff, and fall back to the existing poll path after a disconnect. **Alternatives considered** Keep polling for all commands. This keeps the current behavior but does not provide timely logs or a path for long-lived commands. **Roadmap alignment** This supports the roadmap item for cloud and sandbox agents, including Daytona. ## What Changed - Add the opt-in `useLogStream` option with a default of `false`. - Stream stdout and stderr from the Daytona callback log form. - Drop replayed log prefixes by delivered byte offset after reconnect. - Retry once after disconnect, then use the existing poll path. - Read the exit code once after a successful stream and retry when the code is not ready. - Add tests for ordered output, exit-code reads, disconnect fallback, and reconnect replay handling. ## Verification - Run `node_modules/.bin/vitest run --config packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/vitest.config.ts packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/src/plugin.test.ts`. - Confirm that the full Daytona plugin test project passes with 127 tests. - Confirm that the changed files type-check against Daytona SDK 0.203.0 types. - Review the PR against parent PR #10941 before it reaches `master`. ## Risks - The stream path changes behavior only when `useLogStream` is `true`. - A stream failure can add one reconnect attempt before the existing poll fallback. - The stream path has no command deadline because it supports long-lived commands. - No endpoint, stored data, telemetry shape, authentication rule, or result shape changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code execution. The context window and reasoning mode are not exposed by this run. ## 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>canary/v2026.807.0-canary.5 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9485ffea70 |
fix(config): preserve env files during managed updates (#10980)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The CLI and server both update Paperclip values in `.env` files > - The server preserved operator content, but the CLI rebuilt the complete file > - A CLI rerun could remove comments, custom values, ordering, and newline style > - Both paths need one editor with one value encoding and duplicate key policy > - The final integration also needs one regression test across the related setup and sync safety mechanisms > - This pull request moves the editor to the shared package and adds cross-cutting rerun-survival coverage > - The benefit is safe setup and worktree repair reruns that preserve operator edits ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The CLI rebuilt the complete `.env` file when it wrote a managed Paperclip value. This action removed comments, blank lines, custom keys, original quoting, and the original newline style. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must update only the managed assignments. It must preserve all unrelated bytes. It must skip the file replacement when all managed values are current. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Add comments, custom keys, quoted values, and CRLF newlines to the Paperclip `.env` file. 2. Run a CLI path that calls the agent JWT secret setup. 3. Observe that the old writer replaces the complete file. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this pull request. Related public context: Refs #437. ## What Changed - Add one shared line-preserving `.env` editor for the CLI and server. - Define minimal and JSON value encodings in the shared helper. - Update every stale duplicate of a managed key and preserve current duplicate encodings. - Preserve comments, ordering, blank lines, unknown keys, export prefixes, trailing comments, and newline style. - Write changed files through a same-directory temporary file and atomic rename. - Limit CLI updates to non-empty `PAPERCLIP_*` entries. - Skip the write when all managed values are current. - Add shared, CLI, and server regression coverage. - Refresh the branch after the related config, sandbox, and skill safety changes landed. - Add a cross-cutting integration test for config, env-file, managed-sandbox, and managed-instructions rerun survival. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/env-file.test.ts packages/shared/src/config-schema.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/agent-jwt-env.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/config-store.test.ts server/src/__tests__/config-file.test.ts server/src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` passes 39 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/rerun-survival.integration.test.ts` passes 4 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes on the previous head. GitHub CI reruns it on the refreshed head. - The previous head passed the complete general, serialized, workspace, and E2E matrix. GitHub CI reruns that matrix on the refreshed head. - `pnpm build` passes on the previous head. GitHub CI reruns it on the refreshed head. ## Risks - Low risk. The production change only affects managed `.env` assignments. - Existing managed assignments can keep their original quoting when their decoded values are current. - Changed CLI values keep the prior minimal encoding policy. Changed server values keep the prior JSON encoding policy. - Duplicate managed assignments now follow one explicit rule: Paperclip updates each stale occurrence. - The master refresh had one import-block conflict. The resolution keeps both the config merge imports and the env-file imports. - The added integration file is test-only. It has no database, API, or UI contract effect. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex from the GPT-5 family produced this change with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime did not expose the exact 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
|
5da382fd59 |
feat(skills): require explicit merge modes (#10978)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents can select company skills and synchronize them to adapter runtimes > - The skill sync API replaced the complete selection without an explicit destructive choice > - Company package import also replaced conflicting skills by default > - These defaults could remove operator edits during setup and import reruns > - This pull request adds explicit assignment merge modes and safe package conflict handling > - The benefit is that reruns preserve operator work unless the caller explicitly requests replacement ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This change improves agent skill synchronization and company package import. **Subsystem affected** This is a cross-cutting change across the shared contracts, server, CLI, and UI. **Current behavior** Agent skill synchronization replaces the full desired skill set from a modeless request. Package import replaces a conflicting skill when the caller does not select a conflict mode. **Proposed behavior** Agent skill synchronization requires `add`, `remove`, or `replace`. Package import skips conflicts by default. Each imported skill reports whether it was created, renamed, replaced, or skipped. **Reason and benefit** Setup and import reruns must preserve operator edits by default. Explicit destructive modes make data loss less likely and make each outcome inspectable. **Breaking changes** Callers of the agent skill sync API must now send `mode`. Callers that need the former behavior must send `replace`. Package import now uses `skip` when `onConflict` is absent. ## What Changed - Added required `add`, `remove`, and `replace` modes to the shared agent skill sync contract. - Added actionable `422` validation for missing or invalid modes. - Updated first-party UI and CLI callers with explicit modes. - Changed package skill conflict handling to use `skip` by default. - Kept plugin-owned and built-in stock skill imports on explicit `replace`. - Added created, renamed, replaced, and skipped results to company imports. - Added regression coverage for merge modes and package conflict outcomes. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm test:run:serialized` (128 suites passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` (20 tests passed) - Focused agent skill route, company skill service, portability, CLI, and UI tests passed. - GitHub CI passed build, typecheck, canary, all general and serialized test shards, all browser shards, policy, security, and final verification on commit `2cfbb3e4c5`. - Greptile reviewed the latest commit at 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. ## Risks - This change intentionally rejects modeless agent skill sync requests. - The safe package default can leave an existing skill unchanged where the old default overwrote it. - All first-party callers now select a mode. Regression tests cover each outcome. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI `gpt-5.6-sol` through Codex. The runtime used agentic reasoning, tool use, code execution, and repository editing. The runtime did not expose the context window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.807.0-canary.4 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f6c6452b25 |
fix(server): preserve managed environment drift on boot (#10979)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip creates a managed sandbox environment for each company during boot > - Operators can change environment fields after Paperclip creates the environment > - The boot reconciler replaced those changes without checking for drift > - This pull request adds stock hashes and transactional drift reconciliation > - The benefit is that Paperclip can update untouched stock fields without losing operator work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The managed sandbox boot reconciler rewrote the stock description, configuration, metadata, and status on every start. It did not detect operator changes first. A restart could therefore remove an operator's changes. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must preserve operator changes by default. It must update an untouched stock environment when Paperclip ships new stock values. It must perform each row update and stock-hash update atomically. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start Paperclip and let it create the managed sandbox environment. 2. Change one Paperclip-owned stock field on that environment. 3. Restart Paperclip. 4. Observe that the previous reconciler replaced the change. **Paperclip version or commit** This bug reproduces on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local development and self-hosted server boot are affected. ## What Changed - Add a shared deterministic stock-hash and drift classifier for built-in resources. - Track the managed sandbox stock hash with the company-scoped built-in resource binding. - Reconcile the environment and its stock metadata in one transaction with a row lock. - Preserve operator-modified and unmanaged rows and report their skipped update state. - Use archive ownership tokens so provider recovery reactivates only Paperclip-archived rows and preserves later operator archive decisions. - Keep operator-owned environment variables and unrelated metadata out of the stock fingerprint. - Add activity records for managed environment creation, updates, skipped drift, tracking initialization, and archive changes. - Add regression tests for current stock, available stock updates, operator drift, unmanaged rows, archive and reactivation, user-owned fields, and concurrent reconciliation. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run -- --mode serialized` (128 suites passed) - Repository general server, UI, CLI, shared, skills catalog, database, adapter, plugin SDK, and plugin creator projects passed. Two embedded-Postgres tests exceeded the host's five-second default under the aggregate run and passed in the complete database project with `--testTimeout=20000`. One timing-sensitive sandbox stream test passed on its focused retry. - Focused managed-environment unit and integration coverage passed: 49 tests across the drift classifier, boot report, and environment service suites. ## Risks - The main risk is an incorrect ownership boundary in the stock fingerprint. The fingerprint includes only Paperclip-owned stock fields. Tests confirm that environment variables and unrelated metadata survive reconciliation. - Concurrent reconciliation could otherwise overwrite a late operator edit. The implementation locks the environment row and updates the row and hash binding in one transaction. A concurrency test covers this path. - There is no schema migration. Existing managed rows initialize tracking without replacing their current values. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex. The exact serving snapshot and context-window size were not exposed. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
35132af161 |
fix(config): preserve extensions and guard invalid repairs (#11005)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The CLI and server share a JSON configuration contract for local installations and worktrees. > - Existing config writes removed extension keys because Zod stripped unknown object properties. > - Invalid config files could also be replaced with defaults before an operator preserved the original bytes. > - Configuration updates must preserve operator edits and must not rewrite files when the effective value is unchanged. > - This pull request adds extension-preserving merges, guarded invalid-config repair, atomic writes, and focused regression tests. > - The benefit is safe setup and configuration reruns without data loss or unnecessary mtime changes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Known-field updates through the CLI or server removed unknown top-level and nested config keys. Non-interactive configure and onboard paths could replace a present but invalid config with defaults. **Expected behavior** Writers preserve extension keys, skip semantic no-op writes, and require explicit interactive confirmation before an invalid config is replaced. Repair preserves an exact collision-safe backup first. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Add an unknown top-level key and an unknown nested provider key to `config.json`. 2. Update a known field through the CLI or worktree config writer. 3. Observe that the extension keys are removed on the base branch. 4. Write invalid JSON and run configure or onboard without an interactive terminal. 5. Observe that the original file can be replaced without a durable invalid-file backup on the base branch. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at the pull request base commit. ## What Changed - Accept unknown properties at each extensible config object boundary while keeping every known field validated. - Merge known-field updates into the parsed source config and preserve only unknown extension data. - Warn about near-match key names without deleting or changing them. - Skip writes when the effective config is unchanged, which keeps file mtimes stable. - Write config changes through a temporary file, file sync, rename, and directory sync. - Distinguish a missing config from an invalid config in configure and onboard. - Back up invalid bytes as `config.json.invalid-N` and verify the source still matches that backup before repair. - Require interactive repair confirmation and reject non-interactive replacement with an actionable message. - Document the config preservation and repair behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/config-schema.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/config-store.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/configure-repair.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/configure.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts server/src/__tests__/config-file.test.ts server/src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID= AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY= VITEST_MAX_WORKERS=1 pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` - Confirm all pull request checks are green on the latest commit. - Confirm Greptile reports 5/5 with no unresolved comments. ## Risks - Passthrough keeps misspelled keys. Near-match warnings make this visible without destructive cleanup. - Merge behavior must distinguish unknown extension keys from optional known keys. Schema-aware regression tests cover preservation and known-key deletion. - Repair must not overwrite bytes that changed after backup. The writer compares the current source with the selected backup before atomic replacement. - The change does not alter database schema, company scoping, or activity logging. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 model family. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
9ace548fd2 |
feat(observability): rename sandbox provider spans and add run-time wrapper spans (#10999)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip uses adapter and sandbox code to start agents and run sandbox work > - The current sandbox spans use mixed names and do not group related run-time work > - Mixed names make traces harder to read and compare across providers > - This pull request renames provider spans, adds run-time wrapper spans, and keeps the host allowlist closed > - The benefit is clearer traces with the same sandbox behavior and trust boundary ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves OpenTelemetry span names and grouping for sandbox startup, execution, callback relay, and agent session work. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (multiple of the above): adapter utilities, sandbox providers, shared telemetry documentation, and server instrumentation. **Current behavior** Sandbox provider spans use mixed names. Related run-time operations expose inner `sandbox.exec` spans without a named wrapper span. The host mapper uses a closed allowlist for provider span names. **Proposed behavior** Use descriptive provider-scoped span names. Add wrapper spans for agent session input, agent session output polling, and callback relay. Keep the host mapper allowlist closed and map unknown names to `other`. **Reason and benefit** Clear names make traces easier to read and reduce ambiguity during sandbox operation analysis. Wrapper spans show the full operation while preserving the inner execution spans. **Breaking changes** None. This change updates telemetry span names and grouping only. It does not change sandbox behavior, endpoint behavior, or the host trust boundary. **Additional context** Related prior work: [#10758](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10758). ## What Changed - Rename Daytona provider sync and session spans with descriptive provider-scoped names. - Add three run-time wrapper spans for agent session input, output polling, and callback relay. - Add a shared span runner that preserves no-op behavior without a real tracer. - Keep the host mapper allowlist closed and map unknown names to `other`. - Update telemetry documentation and span-name tests. ## Verification - Focused adapter-utils span tests pass for startup timing, callback relay, and sandbox execution. - Focused Daytona plugin span tests pass for renamed leaf spans and session open or close spans. - Focused server tests pass for host mapping and instrumentation. - The stacked diff contains one commit on top of `feat/daytona-persistent-session-model`. ## Risks - Span names change for existing telemetry consumers. - The wrapper spans add trace structure but do not change sandbox execution. - The host mapper keeps the existing closed allowlist and `other` bucket. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 (Codex agent); exact deployment revision and context window are not exposed in this run; tool use and code execution enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [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] 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>canary/v2026.807.0-canary.3 |
||
|
|
03cfad7ceb |
feat(apps): connect Notion through MCP OAuth (#11009)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Apps give agents governed access to external tools. > - The Apps gallery lists Notion, but the server required manually configured OAuth credentials. > - Notion's hosted MCP server supports OAuth discovery and dynamic client registration. > - Notion also requires HTTPS or a loopback HTTP redirect URI. > - This pull request adds a direct Notion MCP OAuth path with PKCE and reusable dynamic clients. > - It also adds the current Apps UI states for connect and reauthorization. > - The benefit is a secure Notion connection with no manual client credential setup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Apps gallery, Apps connect route, OAuth token lifecycle, and managed MCP gateway. **Subsystem affected** `server/`, `packages/shared/`, `scripts/`, and `ui/`. **Current behavior** The Notion gallery cards are disabled. The server uses the classic Notion OAuth endpoints and requires operator-supplied client credentials. It does not register an OAuth client from provider metadata. Concurrent refreshes can also replay a rotating refresh token. **Proposed behavior** Enable the Notion Apps flow. Discover OAuth metadata from `https://mcp.notion.com/mcp`. Register and reuse a public RFC 7591 client with PKCE. Require HTTPS or loopback HTTP callbacks. Serialize refreshes, store each rotated refresh token before the new access token can be used, and show a reconnect state for `invalid_grant`. **Reason and benefit** Operators can connect the built-in Notion MCP app without creating or copying OAuth credentials. Paperclip keeps dynamic clients and rotating tokens in the company secret store. **Breaking changes** None. Explicit environment client credentials still take priority. Existing Slack and Linear OAuth endpoint hints remain unchanged. Other OAuth apps remain disabled unless they are allowlisted. **Additional context** PR #10910 is a related, broader Connections v3 wizard replacement. This PR is the focused current Apps flow. The MCP Tool Gateway and Connected Apps items in `ROADMAP.md` cover this planned capability. ## What Changed - Classify all 20 reviewed Notion MCP tools with provider-scoped read and write defaults. - Require approval for selected Notion mutations, including move, duplicate, and convert actions that generic verb matching missed. - Preserve company-scoped connection and catalog resolution for Notion profiles and policies. - Add RFC 7591 dynamic client registration with `token_endpoint_auth_method=none` and mandatory PKCE. - Store the dynamic client ID on the connection and store any returned client secret in the company secret store. - Reuse the registered client for later connects and keep explicit environment credentials as the first choice. - Discover protected-resource and authorization-server metadata from the Notion MCP endpoint. - Add `redirectConstraints: "https-or-loopback-http"` to the generated Notion app definition and shared contract. - Reject non-loopback plain HTTP callbacks before network access with a TLS setup error. - Serialize client registration and token refresh operations within the server process. - Store a rotated refresh token before publishing the refreshed access token. - Treat `invalid_grant` as terminal and move the connection to a clear reauthorization state. - Add focused coverage for registration reuse, callback constraints, refresh rotation, and terminal grants. - Enable the Notion Apps route and add connect, redirect, success, error, and reconnect UI states. - Keep non-allowlisted OAuth apps blocked and cover the UI policy with regression tests. ## Verification - The focused Notion policy integration test passed with embedded PostgreSQL. - The focused 20-tool classification test passed. - The server typecheck passed on the governance head. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the rebased head. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the security follow-up. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t \u0027DCR|refresh tokens|invalid_grant|abandoned lease\u0027` passed 10 focused security tests. - `pnpm build` passed on the rebased head. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t 'OAuth|oauth'` passed 14 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts` passed 5 tests. - The complete server group passed 3,686 tests with 4 skipped. - The complete UI group passed 3,656 tests. - The full local runner found one environment-only CLI failure because this agent runtime injects static AWS credentials into a test that expects `AWS_PROFILE` only. `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` passed all 8 tests. - The prior UI verification passed 55 focused tests, `pnpm check:token-gates`, the Storybook build, and review of six 1440 x 1000 screenshots. - OAuth request sequence: protected-resource metadata `GET https://mcp.notion.com/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp`; authorization metadata `GET https://mcp.notion.com/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server`; dynamic registration `POST https://mcp.notion.com/register`; authorization `GET https://mcp.notion.com/authorize`; token exchange and refresh `POST https://mcp.notion.com/token`; MCP traffic `POST https://mcp.notion.com/mcp`. - The live metadata and registration probe confirmed that Notion accepts HTTPS and loopback HTTP redirects. It rejects a plain HTTP private hostname. - A later QA task owns the full browser consent and managed gateway tool-list dry run against a configured HTTPS deployment. ## Risks - Notion can add tools. Unrecognized names use the generic classifier, and new or changed risky tools stay quarantined after connection activation. - A deployment that uses a private non-loopback hostname must configure HTTPS before it can connect Notion. - Dynamic registration creates a provider-side client. Paperclip reuses it because registration does not provide a standard delete operation. - Refresh coordination uses a database CAS lease across service instances. An unclean crash leaves an uncertain lease and requires reconnect instead of risking refresh-token replay. - The current Apps surface overlaps with PR #10910. Merge order can require a small conflict resolution if that PR lands first. > 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 on a GPT-5 runtime. The exact deployment ID and context window are not exposed. The runtime used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and network tools. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>canary/v2026.807.0-canary.2 |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Opus 4.8
|
ea83c5c822 |
feat(task-chat): bring back copy/👍/👎 actions on the agent bubble footer (#11025)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task view shows a threaded conversation between the user and the agent, with agent replies rendered as bubbles that carry a "✓ Worked · N tools" summary line. > - The conference-room chat already offers per-message copy and thumbs-up / thumbs-down feedback, but the redesigned task thread dropped these controls from the agent bubble footer. > - Users lose a quick way to copy an agent reply or send feedback on it, and the redesign silently ignored the feedback-vote props it was already given. > - This pull request prepends a copy · thumbs-up · thumbs-down cluster to the bubble summary line and wires the existing feedback-vote props through. > - The benefit is a consistent feedback surface across both chat views, with no new API. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change; the underlying issue is described inline below following the feature template (`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml`). #### Problem or motivation The redesigned task thread renders each agent reply with a "✓ Worked · N tools · <timestamp>" summary line, but it dropped the copy and thumbs-up / thumbs-down controls that the conference-room chat still shows. Users can no longer copy an agent reply or vote feedback from the task thread. The redesign component already received `feedbackVotes` and `onVote` props but ignored them. #### Proposed solution Prepend a copy · 👍 · 👎 cluster to the summary line, leading the always-visible timestamp, reusing the shared `IssueChatFeedbackButtons` so both chat views speak the same feedback language. Anchor the cluster to the turn's summary row (a sibling of the expandable tool-history fold) so it stays on the summary line whether the tool history is collapsed or expanded. #### Alternatives considered Placing the cluster inside the expandable fold — rejected because expanding the tool history then re-centered the actions to the middle of the tall fold. #### Roadmap alignment UI polish to the task thread; no core-roadmap overlap. ## What Changed - Add `TaskChatBubbleActions`: a copy · thumbs-up · thumbs-down cluster built on the shared `IssueChatFeedbackButtons`. - Render the cluster on the agent bubble's "✓ Worked · …" summary line, leading the timestamp; runless agent replies get the same cluster with the timestamp trailing. Human and system bubbles are unchanged. - Add a `leading` slot to `TaskChatTurn` so the actions sit on the summary row, a sibling of the tool-history fold, and stay anchored when the fold expands. - Wire the redesign to the `feedbackVotes` / `onVote` props it already received. - Add a demo binding in the `TaskChatLab` dev harness. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 gates CLEAN. - `pnpm typecheck` — clean across all packages. - `cd ui && pnpm vitest run src/components/task-chat/TaskChatBubble.test.tsx src/components/task-chat/TaskChatTurn.test.tsx` — 31/31 pass. - Manual: open a task thread, confirm the copy / 👍 / 👎 cluster shows on the agent bubble summary line before the timestamp, copy works, votes toggle, and the cluster stays on the summary line when the tool history is expanded. Visual change: snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated, per the `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` entry "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". ## Risks Low risk. UI-only change scoped to the redesigned task-chat bubble footer. It reuses an existing shared feedback component and existing vote props; no API, schema, or server change. Human and system bubbles are untouched. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, tool use. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>canary/v2026.807.0-canary.1 |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
cfed36ea6b |
feat(plugin-daytona): persistent session model with plain command dispatch (#10941)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies > - One core subsystem runs agent work inside sandboxes > - The Daytona provider uses that path to run user commands > - The current one-shot model does not keep a shell alive across commands > - This pull request adds an opt-in persistent session model for Daytona > - The benefit is faster command dispatch with the same sandbox boundaries ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting. This change touches `packages/adapters`, provider tests, span names, and sandbox command behavior. ### Problem or motivation The Daytona provider needs a persistent shell for repeated command dispatch. The old advisory wrapper path does not reach that goal. It also adds cost and removes the session speed gain. ### Proposed solution Add a `useSessions` driver flag. Keep it off by default. Open one Daytona session per lease when the flag is on. Send each user command into that session. Read stdout and stderr from the session logs endpoint. Run each command in a subshell so `exit` does not stop the shell. Remove the advisory `bwrap` wrapper path and its lease metadata. Add session setup and teardown spans. Keep a hard delete on teardown. ### Alternatives considered Keep the advisory `bwrap` wrapper. That path does not give a real persistent session. It also keeps extra command overhead. Keep a one-shot fallback for user commands. That would weaken the session model and hide a missing session case. ### Roadmap alignment This work fits the `Cloud / Sandbox agents` milestone in `ROADMAP.md`. It also supports the control plane goal of safe remote sandbox execution. ### Additional context The handoff verification reported `tsc --noEmit` clean and 119 Daytona unit tests passing. The handoff also reported a clean host span allowlist test and five expected commits on the branch. The security review gate remains required before merge. ## What Changed - Added an opt-in persistent session model for the Daytona sandbox provider. - Routed user commands through `executeSessionCommand` when sessions are enabled. - Removed the advisory `bwrap` command wrapper path and the lease metadata it used. - Added session lifecycle spans and span allowlist coverage. - Documented the leak bound in `DIRECTORY-CONSTRAINT-FINDINGS.md`. ## Verification - `tsc --noEmit` clean for the Daytona plugin, per handoff verification. - Daytona unit suite passes, with 119 tests, per handoff verification. - Host span allowlist test passes, per handoff verification. ## Risks - Persistent sessions can leak if teardown fails. - Session logs must keep stdout and stderr separate. - The flag stays off by default to limit rollout risk. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5, Codex, tool use enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.807.0-canary.0 |
||
|
|
d84c5eae7a |
feat(ui): hide task priority from the UI (keep data model) (#11024)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks and issues carry a `priority` field that renders across many product surfaces: the detail header, the Triage properties panel, Kanban and thread cards, the New Task composer, list Sort/Group/Filter menus, search filters, and the dashboard chart. > - Product feedback found the priority level adds visual noise and decision cost without clear value in day-to-day task flow. > - We want to remove priority from the interface, but keep the data model, API, validation, and search DSL fully intact so the choice is reversible with no migration. > - This pull request hides every priority indicator and control behind one compile-time flag, `SHOW_TASK_PRIORITY_UI`, set to `false`. > - The benefit is a calmer, simpler UI now, with a single-boolean revive path and zero data loss. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description <!-- No public GitHub issue exists. Describing in-PR per the feature template. --> **Subsystem affected** The web UI (`ui/src`): issue detail, properties panel, Kanban/thread cards, New Task dialog, issues list Sort/Group/Filter menus, search filter bar/sheet, dashboard charts, and the design-guide showcase. **Problem or motivation** The task/issue priority level appears across many surfaces and adds visual clutter and decision overhead without pulling its weight in normal task flow. We want it gone from the interface without discarding the underlying data or breaking anything that depends on it. **Proposed solution** Add a single compile-time UI flag, `SHOW_TASK_PRIORITY_UI` (default `false`), and gate every priority indicator and control behind it. Leave the data model, API params, Zod validation (including the `"medium"` default), and the search filter DSL untouched. Reviving priority is a one-line flip of the flag back to `true`. **Alternatives considered** Deleting the priority code and schema outright. Rejected: it is irreversible, needs a data migration, and throws away a field the API and search still support. A gated flag keeps the change reversible and low risk. **Roadmap alignment** UI simplification. This is a presentation-only change; it does not alter core agent or data behavior. ## What Changed - Added `ui/src/lib/ui-flags.ts` exporting `SHOW_TASK_PRIORITY_UI: boolean = false` (typed `boolean` so gated branches are not flagged as dead code). - Gated the priority row in the Triage properties panel and the editable priority control in the issue detail header (plus its skeleton seed). - Gated the per-card priority icon in `KanbanBoard` and in `IssueThreadInteractionCard`. - Hid the priority chip and the mobile "more" menu priority section in the New Task dialog. The submit path still sends the `"medium"` default. - Removed the Priority options from the issues list Sort and Group-by menus; the comparator and grouping logic stay dormant. - Hid the Priority sections in the issue filters popover and in the search filter bar and sheet. The `priority:` search DSL and filter state stay functional at the data layer. - Suppressed active-filter priority pills for consistency. - Gated the "Tasks by Priority" dashboard chart and the design-guide priority showcase subsection. - Left activity-feed "changed priority" history text intact as a historical record. - Updated call-site tests to assert priority UI is absent while the flag is off, added focused hidden-surface tests, and added a test that proves creating a task still persists `priority: "medium"`. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all 3 gates clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run` on the touched surfaces (IssueProperties, IssueFiltersPopover, IssuesList, NewIssueDialog, IssueDetail, PriorityIcon and its interaction test) — all green under `TZ=UTC`. - Manual: with the flag off, priority does not appear in the detail header, Triage panel, New Task composer, Sort/Group/Filter menus, or the dashboard chart. Creating a task still persists `priority: "medium"`, and the `priority:` search token still filters at the data layer. ## Risks Low risk. The change is presentation-only and additive: no data model, API, validation, or search-DSL changes. The priority code paths remain compiled and tested; flipping `SHOW_TASK_PRIORITY_UI` to `true` restores the full UI. Visual snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated per the `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` entry "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, with tool use / code execution in an agentic coding harness. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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 - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>canary/v2026.806.0-canary.10 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
75acc4650f |
feat(sandbox-providers): pre-fill environment form with default sizing and image values (#11004)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent runs execute inside sandbox environments. Sandbox provider plugins (Daytona, Modal, exe.dev, and others) declare a JSON-Schema `configSchema`. The Environment configuration form renders from that schema. > - The sizing and image fields open empty. Users must guess working values. The Modal form cannot submit at all until the user types an app name and an image by hand. > - The form renderer already pre-fills every field that declares a JSON-Schema `default`. The manifests do not use this mechanism for sizing or image fields. > - This pull request adds optional `default` values to the Daytona, Modal, and exe.dev manifest schemas. > - The benefit is a form that opens with known-good values. Users can create a working environment without provider research. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Current behavior** The Environment configuration form opens with empty sizing and image fields for the Daytona, Modal, and exe.dev sandbox providers. Users must find working values in provider documentation. Modal declares `appName` and `image` as required with no default, so the form blocks submission until the user invents both values. **Proposed behavior** The provider manifests declare JSON-Schema `default` values. The existing form renderer pre-fills them: - Daytona: CPU `4`, memory `4` GiB, disk `10` GiB, image `daytonaio/sandbox:0.8.0` - exe.dev: CPU `4`, memory `4GB`, disk `20GB` - Modal: app name `paperclip`, image `node:22` Secret-ref fields (API keys, tokens) get no defaults on purpose. The form persists a raw string in a secret-ref field as a company secret on save. A placeholder default would become a stored secret with a bogus value. Each plugin test suite now guards this invariant. **Reason and benefit** New users can create a working sandbox environment without guessing. The defaults stay optional: users can clear or change every value, and the schema marks no new field as required. The Modal image default `node:22` satisfies the sandbox runtime contract in `SANDBOX-REQUIREMENTS.md` (`node`, `sh`, and `tar` on PATH). **Subsystem affected** Sandbox provider plugins (`packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/*`): environment driver `configSchema` manifests. **Breaking changes** None. Defaults only seed the create-mode form. Saved environments keep their stored config. E2B, Novita, Cloudflare, and Kubernetes manifests do not change: E2B and Novita already default to their base templates, and the Cloudflare bridge and Kubernetes cluster fields have no sensible universal value. ## What Changed - Add `default` values for `cpu`, `memory`, `disk`, and `image` in the Daytona manifest. Trim the memory description to match. - Add `default` values for `cpu`, `memory`, and `disk` in the exe.dev manifest. - Add `default` values for `appName` and `image` in the Modal manifest. Extend the image description with the runtime-contract rationale. - Add manifest tests in all three plugins: defaults match expected values, defaults satisfy their own schema constraints, and no secret-ref field declares a default. - Bump plugin versions: daytona and modal `0.1.0` → `0.1.1`, exe-dev `0.1.1` → `0.1.2`. ## Verification - Run `pnpm test` in `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona`, `.../modal`, and `.../exe-dev`. The new `* manifest form defaults` suites pass. - Run `./node_modules/.bin/tsc --noEmit` in each of the three packages. Typecheck passes. - Manual: rebuild the plugins (`pnpm build` in each package), let the plugin dev-watcher refresh the manifest, then open Environments → New environment. The Daytona form shows CPU 4, Memory 4, Disk 10, and image `daytonaio/sandbox:0.8.0`. The Modal form shows `paperclip` and `node:22`. The API key fields stay empty. - Verified live on a local instance: the served `configSchema` in the plugin registry carries the new defaults, and existing environments are unchanged. ## Risks - Low risk. The change touches only manifest schema metadata and tests. No runtime code path changes. - New environments created with untouched forms now request 4 CPU / 4 GiB / 10 GiB from Daytona instead of provider minimums. This can raise cost per sandbox for users who previously saved empty fields. - The Daytona image default pins `daytonaio/sandbox:0.8.0`. The default needs a manual bump when Daytona ships new sandbox images. > 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 - Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model ID `claude-fable-5`), via the Claude Code CLI, with extended thinking and tool use. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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 mergecanary/v2026.806.0-canary.8 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f258b34bbd |
fix(ui): unify cloud-managed sign-out (#10994)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip can run as a self-hosted app or as a Cloud-managed tenant. > - These modes need different sign-out sequences because Cloud owns three sessions. > - Several visible controls implemented sign-out separately and could choose different paths. > - This pull request adds one Cloud-aware sign-out action and moves every visible control to it. > - The benefit is one safe sign-out path in Cloud and unchanged local sign-out in self-hosted deployments. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #2073. That older PR adds a separate company-settings sign-out surface. This change centralizes the existing account, company, and instance-settings surfaces and preserves the self-hosted behavior described there. **What happened?** Visible sign-out controls used separate implementations. A Cloud-managed control could call the app-local sign-out endpoint and open the local auth page. That path did not enter the Cloud-owned logout sequence for the tenant, Cloud, and identity sessions. **Expected behavior** Every visible sign-out control must use one action. Cloud-managed instances must navigate the top-level window to the same-origin `/cloud/logout` route without a local sign-out call first. Authenticated self-hosted instances must keep the local sign-out API and cache invalidation behavior. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a Cloud-managed tenant. 2. Use the account menu, company menu, or instance-settings sign-out control. 3. Observe that independently implemented controls can enter different sign-out paths. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem reproduces at `656ecfa585b31938e2685ffab3db22e794474803`. **Deployment mode** Cloud-managed tenant built from source. The regression tests also cover authenticated self-hosted mode. ## What Changed - Added `useSignOut` as the shared Cloud-aware sign-out action. - Navigated Cloud-managed sessions to `/cloud/logout` exactly once without calling local auth first. - Preserved local API sign-out and cache invalidation for authenticated self-hosted sessions. - Migrated the account menu, company menu, and instance general settings to the shared action. - Added focused tests for mode selection, menu closure, pending state, failure state, and settings behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/hooks/useSignOut.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceGeneralSettings.test.tsx` — 26 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` — passed. ## Risks - Low risk. The change centralizes existing behavior and adds no schema, API, telemetry, or style-token changes. - Cloud mode depends on the existing health decision. Tests pin both mode branches. - The change does not alter Fetch Metadata, CSRF, cookie, prefetch, or return-URL protections owned by the Cloud logout route. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. The agent used high-reasoning mode, shell tools, and API tools. ## 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>canary/v2026.806.0-canary.9 |
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5
|
52b8741b8e |
perf(server): cut steady-state DB hot paths in dashboard, attention, and productivity sweeps (#10992)
<!-- ASD-STE100 --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server keeps fleet health with periodic sweeps and shows a dashboard with run activity > - The Paperclip instance became slow again after the first round of recovery-sweep indexes landed > - Live profiling found four steady-state hot paths that read much more data than they use > - This pull request bounds the dashboard recursion, adds the missing taskKey index, and narrows two wide reads > - The benefit is a large drop in constant database load and a responsive server ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Describe the bug** The server becomes slow while agents work. Live query sampling shows four hot paths: 1. The dashboard run-activity recursive CTE reads every run a company ever had on each call. One call takes 2.85 seconds. The UI calls it after almost every fleet event through the dashboard and sidebar-badges routes. 2. The productivity-review sweep runs each 30 seconds. Its run-scope filter is `issueId OR taskId OR taskKey` on the run context JSONB. No index exists for `taskKey`. The planner must detoast every run snapshot for the agent. One query takes 444 ms and the sweep makes one for each of ~152 candidate issues. 3. The attention failed-run section selects the full `context_snapshot` for every run newer than the oldest exhausted run. That fetch moves 29 MB for each feed build. 4. The retention sweep pages the attention feed with a cursor. Each page makes a full feed rebuild. **Expected behavior** Periodic sweeps and dashboard queries read only the data they use, and use indexes. **Actual behavior** The database stays saturated. Users see a slow server. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/dashboard.ts`: bound both arms of the `recovered_runs` recursive CTE to the chart window. A retry is always newer than the run it retries, so the bound cannot change visible chart data. Live time went from 2,852 ms to 54 ms. - `packages/db/src/migrations/0210_heartbeat_context_taskkey_index.sql`: add the `taskKey` expression index that completes the issueId/taskId/taskKey trio. With all three, the planner uses a BitmapOr. Live time for the productivity run-scope query went from 444 ms to 1.9 ms. - `packages/db/src/schema/heartbeat_runs.ts`: mirror the new index in the Drizzle schema. - `server/src/services/productivity-review.ts`: select only the seven run fields the evidence code reads. Before, the query pulled full rows with `result_json` (up to 43 kB per row, 100 rows per issue). - `server/src/services/attention.ts`: project `issueId`/`taskId` text fields instead of the full `context_snapshot` in the failed-run newer-runs query (29 MB per feed build before). - `server/src/index.ts`: the retention sweep now builds the attention feed once per company with `all: true` instead of one full rebuild per cursor page. - `packages/db/src/heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts`: cover the new index and re-run migration 0210 statements to prove idempotency. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` (includes migration numbering and safety checks) — pass. - `npx tsc --noEmit` in `server/` — pass. - `npx vitest run packages/db/src/heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts` — pass (embedded Postgres, full migration chain, planner assertions, idempotent re-run of 0209 and 0210). - `npx vitest run` on attention, dashboard, productivity-review, decision-retention, issue-blocker-attention, and issue-review-attention test files — 72/72 pass. - Live EXPLAIN ANALYZE before/after numbers are in the What Changed list. ## Risks - Migration 0210 builds one btree index without CONCURRENTLY inside the transactional migration runner. The table is not in the large-table bucket. The 0209 twin built in seconds on a 100k-row live table. - The CTE bound excludes retry ancestors that are older than the chart window. Those rows are not visible to the chart query, so chart output does not change. - The attention projection changes JSONB scalar handling in one edge case: a non-string `issueId`/`taskId` value now casts to text instead of reading as absent. These keys are always strings in practice. - The retention sweep now holds one full feed in memory per company. The cursor loop already accumulated all pages into one array, so peak memory is unchanged. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic, Mythos-class tier, extended thinking + tool use) via Paperclip agent runtime. - [x] I searched existing PRs and issues and this change is not a duplicate. Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
656ecfa585 |
fix(server): keep Date fields intact through secret redaction; harden chat notice timestamps (#10984)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The task chat thread renders issue comments, system notices, and run
transcripts
> - The server routes comment payloads through the run-secret redaction
walker before it sends them
> - The walker rebuilds each object with `Object.entries`, and this
collapses `Date` instances to `{}`
> - The chat renderer then calls `.toISOString()` on an invalid date and
throws, and the thread falls back to the error banner
> - This pull request keeps `Date` instances intact in redacted
responses and makes the renderer safe against bad timestamps
> - The benefit is that task threads with system notices render
correctly again
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
Task threads that contain a system notice showed the banner "Chat
renderer hit an internal state error." in place of the conversation.
This occurred on many tasks.
**Expected behavior**
The thread renders all comments and system notices with correct
timestamps.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a task that has at least one system notice comment (for example
a "Workspace ready" notice).
2. `GET /api/issues/{id}/comments` returns `createdAt: {}` for every
comment because the secret-redaction walker collapses `Date` objects.
3. The system-notice row calls `new Date({}).toISOString()`. This throws
`RangeError: Invalid time value` and trips the thread error boundary.
**Version / deployment**
Regression from #9934 (`e43f187ca`). It applies to all deployments that
include that commit.
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/run-secret-redaction.ts`:
`redactRegisteredSecretValues` now returns `Date` instances as-is. Dates
hold no redactable text, and the `Object.entries` rebuild turned them
into `{}`.
- `ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.tsx`: the system-notice row formats
its timestamp with a new `toValidIsoString` helper. A value that does
not parse as a date now degrades to "no timestamp" instead of a render
crash.
- Regression tests at three layers:
- Walker unit tests: `Date` values survive with and without registered
secret values.
- Route test: `GET /issues/:id/comments` serializes `createdAt` /
`updatedAt` as ISO strings.
- Render test: a system notice with a malformed `createdAt` renders
without the error boundary.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run --root server
src/__tests__/run-secret-redaction.test.ts` — 5 passed.
- `npx vitest run --root server
src/__tests__/issue-comment-redaction.test.ts` — 4 passed (embedded
Postgres route test).
- `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx
src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts` — 121 passed.
- Each new test was run against the unfixed code and failed there, which
confirms it guards the regression.
- A local sweep rendered 47 real issue threads through
`IssueChatThread`: 7 tripped the boundary before the fix, 0 after.
## Risks
- Low risk. The server change only preserves `Date` objects that the
walker destroyed before. String redaction behavior does not change, and
the registry-key stripping does not change.
- The UI change only affects the timestamp of system-notice rows and
omits it when the value is invalid.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic. Agentic coding session
with tool use (file edits, shell, Vitest). No extended-context or
special reasoning mode.
## 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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
|
e591e75b8c |
perf(db): index context_snapshot/payload issueId lookups used by recovery sweeps (#10969)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The server runs a recovery sweep every 30 seconds. The sweep makes
sure assigned issues do not stall.
> - The sweep reads the latest heartbeat run for each candidate issue.
It filters `heartbeat_runs` on `context_snapshot ->> 'issueId'`. No
index covers this expression.
> - Each lookup scans ~26k rows and detoasts each row's JSONB context
(~645 ms per query, measured with EXPLAIN ANALYZE). With ~460 candidate
issues, one sweep schedules ~500 seconds of database work every 30
seconds.
> - The database saturates. Users see the whole server as slow.
> - This pull request adds expression indexes so these lookups become
index scans.
> - The benefit is that the recovery sweep drops from ~500 seconds of
database work per tick to milliseconds, and the server becomes
responsive again.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The server became slow for all users. `pg_stat_activity` sampling showed
the same two recovery-sweep queries active continuously (15/15 samples).
Each `getLatestIssueRun` call filtered `heartbeat_runs` on the unindexed
expression `context_snapshot ->> 'issueId'`, scanned ~26k rows, and
detoasted a 2.1 GB TOAST region. `heartbeat_runs` accumulated 10.8
billion sequential tuples read. `hasActiveExecutionPath` also scanned
`agent_wakeup_requests` (1.8M rows) on the unindexed expression `payload
->> 'issueId'`.
**Expected behavior**
Per-issue run lookups in the recovery sweep complete in milliseconds.
The sweep finishes well inside its 30-second interval. Background
maintenance does not degrade interactive latency.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a board with several hundred issues in `todo` / `in_progress` /
`in_review` and a large `heartbeat_runs` table with big
`context_snapshot` payloads.
2. Let the heartbeat scheduler run its 30-second recovery sweep.
3. Observe `pg_stat_activity`: the per-issue `heartbeat_runs` lookups
run continuously; `EXPLAIN ANALYZE` shows a filter on `context_snapshot
->> 'issueId'` removing tens of thousands of rows per call.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master (
|
||
|
scotttongandClaude Opus 4.8
|
2ea22d6cea |
fix(ui): white text on light-mode user chat bubbles (#10952)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task detail view shows the conversation as chat bubbles. The requester's own messages sit in a solid accent-colored bubble. > - The bubble container sets `text-white`, but the message body renders through `MarkdownBody`. Tailwind prose tokens (`--tw-prose-body`) win over the inherited container color. > - `prose-invert` only lightens the prose text in dark mode. In light mode the prose body stayed its default dark color, so the text read as near-black on the blue bubble and was hard to read. > - This pull request maps the human bubble's prose tokens to the inherited text color in both themes. > - The benefit is that the requester's chat text is readable white-on-blue in light mode, and dark mode stays exactly as it was. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description <!-- No public GitHub issue exists; described in-PR per the bug report template. --> **What happened?** In light mode, the text inside the user's own chat bubbles in the task detail view rendered as dark (near-black) on the solid blue accent background. This made the requester's messages hard to read. **Expected behavior** The text inside the user's accent-colored chat bubbles should be white in light mode, matching the bubble's `text-white` intent. Dark mode already rendered correctly and should not change. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a chat-style task detail view in light mode. 2. Post a message as the requester (human) so it renders in the solid blue accent bubble. 3. Observe the body text renders dark on blue instead of white. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduces on `master` (branched from `814cb3367`). **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific (core UI bug). ## What Changed - Add the existing `paperclip-markdown-on-accent` class to the human-branch `MarkdownBody` in `TaskChatBubble.tsx`. This class (already used by `IssueChatThread` for the same accent bubble) maps prose body/heading tokens to `currentColor`, so the text follows the bubble's `text-white` in both themes. - Apply the same class to the human-branch `MarkdownBody` in `TaskChatDescriptionBubble.tsx` (the description-as-first-bubble surface) for consistency. - Add unit tests covering that the human accent bubble carries the on-accent class and the agent/neutral bubbles do not. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 CLEAN. - `pnpm --filter ./ui vitest run src/components/task-chat/TaskChatBubble.test.tsx` → 9/9 passing. - Manual: in light mode, the requester's chat bubble text renders white on blue; agent/neutral bubbles unchanged; dark mode unchanged. This is a visual change. Snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated, per `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` → "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". ## Risks Low risk. The change is scoped to the human-branch `MarkdownBody` className on two chat-bubble components and only remaps prose color tokens to the inherited text color. Agent and neutral bubbles are untouched, and dark mode behavior is unchanged. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, ~200K context window, extended thinking mode, with tool use / code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>canary/v2026.806.0-canary.7 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
814cb33676 |
feat(server): allow agents to resolve review confirmations (#10939)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue reviews use thread confirmations to record explicit verdicts > - The server allowed users to resolve review confirmations but rejected all agent actors > - This one-way rule prevented an eligible agent reviewer from completing a review > - The existing review policy already defines which actor can submit a verdict > - This pull request applies that policy to agent confirmation verdicts on writable issues > - The benefit is a consistent review gate for users and agents with preserved audit attribution ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Builds on: #10931 (merged into master before this PR) - Refs #8617 ## What Changed - Allow eligible agents to accept or reject pending review confirmations on issues they can write. - Allow a creator agent to withdraw its own pending review confirmation when the review policy permits it. - Reuse the review verdict policy check for users and agents. - Require an explicit, same-run review-confirmation binding so unrelated board-only confirmations stay protected. - Preserve board-only tool action confirmations and existing user attribution. - Add route and service tests for agent accept, reject, withdrawal, human-only denial, and user attribution. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts` (256 passed after rebasing onto master and the atomic binding fix) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - The change expands who can resolve pending review confirmations. The existing issue write checks and review policy limit this access. - Tool action confirmations remain board-only. - The pull request depends on the review policy helper from #10931, which is now merged into master. > 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`. The roadmap marks Agent Reviews and Approvals as shipped. This pull request fixes a narrow server behavior gap in that shipped capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-5.6-sol`, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose the context window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.806.0-canary.6 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f554d67377 |
fix(server): add explicit review verdict policies (#10931)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issues use `in_review` to request a final decision from an authorized writer > - The server rejected an assignee agent that tried to close its own review, even when the issue had no independent-review rule > - This rejection stopped the default agent workflow and did not represent the configured execution-stage rules > - Paperclip needs an open default and explicit issue-level constraints for teams that require an independent or human verdict > - This pull request removes the unconditional rejection and adds `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only` review policies > - The benefit is a working default path with opt-in, authenticated verdict controls ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10635, #4429, and #10671. The related public work covers execution-stage independence, self-approval fallback behavior, and durable review paths. This change is distinct. It controls who can resolve an issue review verdict. It keeps configured execution stages active. ## What Changed - Added a nullable `review_policy` issue column. Null has the same meaning as `anyone`. The migration does not backfill existing issues. - Added shared create, update, response, and compact issue contracts for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Removed the unconditional agent self-approval rejection for `in_review` issues. - Added one reusable verdict-actor check for terminal status changes and pending interaction accept or reject actions. - Used the authenticated principal type for `human_only`. Agent keys and run tokens remain agent principals. - Used the latest transition into `in_review` to identify the requester for `not_creator`. - Added actionable 403 responses that name the policy, the allowed actor, and the next step. - Kept the configured execution-stage transition and signoff behavior. - Added focused contract, helper, status-route, interaction-route, and execution-stage regression tests. - Updated the implementation specification for the new issue field. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 42 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed across server, CLI, plugin SDK/examples, plugin wiki, and UI. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - SecurityEngineer review approved the authenticated-principal checks and accepted policy-relaxation tradeoff with no required changes. - Greptile reviewed the latest head at 5/5 with zero inline comments or follow-ups. - The latest-head GitHub rollup passed build, typecheck, server/workspace tests, serialized suites, canary, e2e, and external security checks. ## Risks - The migration adds one nullable text column. It has no default and no backfill. - `not_creator` reads the latest recorded transition into `in_review`. It denies the verdict when it cannot identify the requester. - Agents can change or relax `reviewPolicy` when they have issue write access. This is intentional for this issue-level control. - Null and `anyone` do not add a database query to the verdict path. - Configured execution-stage checks still run after the issue-level policy check. > This work aligns with the completed "Agent Reviews and Approvals" and "Enforced Outcomes" roadmap items. It does not add a new roadmap capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed to the agent. The run used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub CLI access. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.806.0-canary.5 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5b62a3883f |
feat(settings): add experimental Simplified English Interactions flag (#10934)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents ask humans for decisions through interaction blocks: plan confirmations, structured questions, suggested tasks, and checkbox prompts > - Each agent writes these decision prompts in its own style, so operators can get long or unclear text at the exact moment they must decide > - There is no instance-level control that makes agents use a controlled language for these decision points only > - This pull request adds an experimental setting that tells agents to write all user-interaction content in ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English, with the context the user needs and the effect of each choice > - The benefit is faster, clearer human decisions, with agent thinking and normal responses unchanged ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10410 (optional `/simplified-english` skill in the skills catalog; this PR adds the instance-level toggle for interactions). **Problem or motivation** Agent-posted user interactions (plan confirmations, structured questions, suggested-task proposals, checkbox prompts) are written in each agent's default style. Operators who want fast, unambiguous decisions have no way to ask agents to use a controlled language for exactly those decision points. **Proposed solution** Add an experimental instance setting, `enableSimplifiedEnglishInteractions` ("Simplified English Interactions"). When it is on, the server sets `simplifiedEnglishInteractions: true` in the heartbeat wake payload. The shared wake-prompt renderer, used by every adapter, then emits a directive: write all user-interaction content in ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English, state what information the user needs to decide, and state what happens for each choice. The directive applies to interaction content only. Thinking, comments, documents, and other responses keep their usual style. **Alternatives considered** Per-agent instructions work today, but someone must maintain them on every agent. An instance-level toggle applies uniformly and turns off in one place. Server-side rewriting of interaction payloads was rejected: post-hoc translation is lossy and cannot add the decision context that only the agent has. **Roadmap alignment** Extends the experimental settings surface with another opt-in agent-behavior refinement, consistent with existing prompt-side flags. ## What Changed - Added `enableSimplifiedEnglishInteractions` to the experimental instance-settings zod schema, mirror type, and feature catalog (default off, tier preference) in `packages/shared`. - Server `instance-settings.ts` normalizes the flag on both read branches; `heartbeat.ts` reads it once and passes `simplifiedEnglishInteractions` into `buildPaperclipWakePayload`. - Shared adapter renderer (`packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts`): added the field to `PaperclipWakePayload`, normalization, and an `- interaction language (experimental): ...` directive emitted in both fresh and resume prompt lanes, so one injection point covers all adapters. - UI: new experimental settings card "Simplified English Interactions" in `ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.tsx`, in alphabetical card order; fixtures updated. - Tests: renderer coverage for flag on/off in both lanes, plus schema/catalog/UI fixture updates. ## Verification - From the repo root: `node_modules/.bin/vitest run packages/adapter-utils` (88/88), `packages/shared` validators (25/25), server instance-settings + heartbeat suites (47/47 and 70/70 consumer tests), `ui` settings tests (32/32). - Typecheck is clean in all four touched packages. - Manual check: turn the flag on in Settings → Experimental, wake an agent, and confirm the wake prompt contains the interaction-language directive; turn it off and confirm the directive is absent. ## Risks - Low risk: the flag defaults to off, and the only behavior change is one extra directive line in the wake prompt when an operator turns it on. - The directive is advisory to the agent; models can still deviate from STE. No data or API shape changes; no migration. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model ID `claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use via Claude Agent SDK. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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>canary/v2026.806.0-canary.4 |
||
|
|
e43f187cad |
feat(secrets): add human-approved secret proposals (#9934)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Agents can encounter credentials during work. > - Directly creating live secrets or bindings would bypass human governance. > - Proposal records must remain inert and separate from live secret resolution until an authorized human approves them. > - Approval must reuse the existing secret-create and protected agent-config write paths. > - This pull request adds the propose, review, approve, and reject lifecycle. > - The benefit is that agents can safely hand credentials into Paperclip without exposing plaintext or gaining authority to activate them. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Follow-on to #9921, which established run-bound agent secret access. **Problem / motivation:** Agents can receive credentials during work. There is no governed way for them to propose a credential or binding without exposing plaintext in work artifacts or immediately creating live access. **Proposed solution:** Store agent-authored proposals outside live secret tables. Encrypt each proposed value and register exact-value redaction when Paperclip receives it. Require an authorized human to approve or reject each proposal. Approval executes through the normal write paths as the human approver. Binding proposals can target only the proposer or its downward reporting chain under the restrictive V1 policy. **Alternatives considered:** We rejected live secrets with a `proposed` status. That design would put untrusted rows in resolver, list, and sync paths. It would also allow uniqueness squatting. We rejected direct agent binding writes because a binding is an agent-config write and must keep the existing human permission gate. **Roadmap alignment:** This change extends the run-bound agent secret-access foundation in #9921 with a governed proposal workflow. ## Security Verdict Q0 SecEng verdict: **PASS-with-required-changes**. The review accepted the separate proposal-table design and required the implementation to: - fail closed unless both encryption and exact-value run redaction registration succeed; - scrub ciphertext idempotently on reject, withdraw, and expiry, with audit-visible state; - treat agent justification as hostile input and foreground action, target, provenance, and approver permissions; - snapshot and re-check the target agent plus reports-to chain at approval to prevent org-chart laundering; - make cascade approval atomic and fail closed if either secret creation or binding authorization fails; - deny low-trust, `skill_test`, `task_bridge`, and non-run-bound sources consistently; and - execute approval through the normal human secret/config write paths, including protected-change gates. Those requirements are implemented and covered by focused service, route, and UI tests. Residual V1 risk remains the accepted 14-day encrypted retention window. Proposal-time redaction also cannot clean a value that leaked before the propose call. ## What Changed - Added `company_secret_proposals`, migration `0207`, shared proposal contracts, and a state-machine service for create, approve, reject, withdraw, cascade, expiry, and ciphertext scrubbing. - Added run-bound agent proposal routes and board review routes. The routes derive provenance from authentication and enforce source restrictions, company isolation, chain-of-command checks, approval-as-approver, wake-on-resolution, and dual audit trails. - Added durable per-run exact-value redaction registration so proposal values remain redacted on later read surfaces. - Added the Secrets **Proposals** tab and agent configuration **Proposed access** rows. The UI shows fingerprint and length only. It also frames agent justification as untrusted input, runs permission preflight, supports approve and reject actions, and confirms cascades. - Updated OpenAPI, agent skill guidance, API reference documentation, and focused server and UI regression coverage. - Rebased the branch onto current `master` and renumbered the proposal migration after `0206`. ## QA Acceptance Results Q5 QA verdict: **PASS — 9/9 acceptance criteria met**, with one Minor non-blocking follow-up. - **AC1:** proposed values never echo, never appear in live lists/resolvers, and expose only fingerprint + length to board reviewers. - **AC2:** restrictive `self_and_reports` matrix passes: self/downward allowed; upward/lateral denied. - **AC3:** secret approval uses the normal create path, honors rename overrides, records proposer/approver provenance, and scrubs ciphertext. - **AC4:** approved bindings materialize and resolve through the target agent's runtime list/fetch routes. - **AC5:** pending-secret bindings require cascade; cascade succeeds atomically and permission failures leave nothing applied. - **AC6:** reject, withdraw, dependent rejection, and expiry paths scrub ciphertext and preserve reasons/audit state. - **AC7:** token/source and approver denial matrix passes through live checks plus focused route tests. - **AC8:** proposal lifecycle events and reused `secret.created`/config-write events form the required dual audit trail; origin-issue notification and wake are queued. - **AC9:** both review surfaces render and execute correctly; UI approval materializes the binding. QA also confirmed zero plaintext occurrences for all exercised proposal values in server logs. The single finding is that the company-level `bindingTargetPolicy` toggle is not wired yet. V1 is hardcoded to the restrictive `self_and_reports` policy. The matrix is correct and the follow-up is tracked separately, so QA classified it as non-blocking. ## Verification - Focused server proposal and redaction suite: 83 tests pass. - Focused proposal review UI suite: 54 tests pass. - Embedded-Postgres migration reapply test: 1 test passes with the documented 30-second timeout. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passes, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes with all gates clean. - Q5 exercised the complete propose, review, approve, bind, and runtime-resolve flow over real HTTP, JWT, and database paths. It verified 9/9 acceptance criteria. ## Risks - Proposal ciphertext is retained encrypted for up to 14 days while pending. Terminal-state and expiry scrub paths reduce but do not remove server-compromise risk during that window. - The V1 target policy is restrictive but not yet company-configurable. A separate follow-up owns that change. - A new migration can require another renumber if another migration lands before maintainers merge this pull request. > 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. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed. The agent used reasoning, repository editing, terminal execution, Paperclip API, and GitHub CLI capabilities. Q3 UI work also records Claude Opus 4.8 assistance in its commit trailers. ## 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 or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Opus 4.8
|
f950952de7 |
fix: reliably show plans in the Plan pane and restore sticky plan confirmation CTAs (#10930)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Chat-style tasks show an agent's plan in a dedicated "Plan" pane, and a plan confirmation lets the user accept or request changes to that plan > - When an agent asked for confirmation but never actually published the plan document (it only wrote the plan in a comment or a question), the Plan pane rendered empty, and the confirmation call-to-action that used to sit pinned at the bottom of the pane had disappeared > - A user asked to confirm a plan they cannot see, with no visible CTA, is stuck — the feature silently fails > - This pull request closes the gap on both sides: it prevents plan confirmations that don't point at a real, latest plan revision, it teaches agents to publish the plan document before confirming, and it restores the sticky confirmation action bar and an explanatory empty state so the pane never goes silently blank > - The benefit is that when a plan is expected, it reliably shows up in the right pane with reachable accept/revise actions ## Linked Issues or Issue Description <!-- No public GitHub issue exists; describing in-PR per the bug template. --> **Bug report** - **What happened:** A task in planning mode could present a plan confirmation while the Plan pane stayed empty (no plan document rendered), and the plan-card confirmation CTAs that were previously pinned to the bottom of the Plan pane no longer appeared. - **Expected behavior:** When a plan is expected, the plan document appears in the Plan pane; when a plan is genuinely missing, the pane explains why rather than showing nothing; and the accept/request-changes CTAs stay visible and reachable while the plan scrolls. - **Steps to reproduce:** Put a task in planning mode with the chat-style task view enabled, have an agent create a plan confirmation without first publishing the `plan` document, and open the Plan tab — the pane is blank and the confirmation actions are missing. - **Deployment mode:** Local dev and self-hosted; UI + server. Related PR (not a duplicate): #9609 "Pin pending confirmations by composer" pins confirmations in a different surface (the composer); this PR restores the Plans-pane action bar and the server/agent guarantees behind it. ## What Changed - **Server:** Reject a `request_confirmation` whose target is a plan document unless a plan document exists and the target points at its *latest* revision, so a confirmation can never reference a plan the pane cannot render (`readPlanTarget` is now exported for reuse). - **Agent instructions:** The CEO and default agent instruction bundles now spell out a plan-publish contract — publish the `plan` document, re-`GET` it and capture `latestRevisionId`, then create the confirmation targeting that revision; never present a plan only in a thread comment or via `ask_user_questions`. - **UI — sticky CTAs:** Restore the plan confirmation action bar pinned to the bottom of the Plans tab so accept/revise stay reachable while the plan scrolls. - **UI — diagnostics:** Keep the Plan tab visible whenever an issue is in planning mode (even before a plan document exists) and show an empty state explaining why the pane is empty instead of rendering nothing. - **UI — annotations:** Add a `panelPlacement="inline"` mode so the plan-document annotation panel renders in document flow instead of as a floating side panel when hosted in the narrow task properties pane. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 CLEAN - `pnpm typecheck` → clean (all packages) - UI: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/issue-properties/IssuePlanConfirmationActionBar.test.tsx src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx` → 69 passed - Server: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts` → 60 passed - Manual: with a planning-mode task, the Plan tab stays visible, shows the plan document (or a diagnostic empty state), and the confirmation CTAs stay pinned at the bottom. Visual note: snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated — per `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". The `storybook-visual` label is intentionally not added. ## Risks Low-to-moderate. The server change adds a validation gate on plan-document confirmations: an interaction that targets a stale or nonexistent plan revision is now rejected with a 422 instead of being created. This is the intended guarantee, but any caller that relied on creating such confirmations will now need to publish the plan document first (which the updated agent instructions cover). UI changes are additive to the Plans tab and gated by the existing chat-style-task experimental flag. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, with tool use (file editing, shell, 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Opus 4.8
|
dc71fef6bf |
feat(ui): show task identifier in task-detail breadcrumb header (#10933)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task detail page shows a breadcrumb header with the task status glyph and the task title. > - The breadcrumb did not show the task identifier, so a reader could not name the task without opening extra context. > - Agents and people refer to tasks by identifier, so the identifier belongs next to the title. > - This pull request renders the task identifier in the breadcrumb header, between the status glyph and the title. > - The benefit is faster reference: a reader sees the task key and the title together at the top of the page. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The task detail breadcrumb header. It shows the status glyph and the task title, but not the task identifier. **Subsystem affected** Web UI — the breadcrumb bar on the task detail page (`ui/src/components/BreadcrumbBar.tsx`, `ui/src/context/BreadcrumbContext.tsx`, `ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.tsx`). **Current behavior** The breadcrumb header renders the status glyph and then the task title. The task identifier does not appear in the header. **Proposed behavior** The breadcrumb header renders the task identifier between the status glyph and the title. The identifier uses gray monospace styling from design tokens (`font-mono text-muted-foreground`). **Reason and benefit** A reader can name and reference the task from the header without opening more context. The identifier and the title appear together. **Breaking changes** None. The identifier field is optional. Crumbs without an identifier render as before. ## What Changed - Add an optional `identifier` field to the `Breadcrumb` type and include it in the `breadcrumbsEqual` comparison so an identifier change triggers a fresh render. - Add a `CrumbIdentifier` helper in `BreadcrumbBar` that renders the identifier in gray monospace (`font-mono text-muted-foreground`), placed after the leading status glyph in each crumb variant. - Wire the issue identifier onto the task crumb in `IssueDetail`. - Add unit tests that cover the identifier field in `breadcrumbsEqual` (fresh render on change, no-op on identical value). ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 gates CLEAN (color literals, arbitrary bracket values, raw font-size). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/context/BreadcrumbContext.test.tsx` → 4/4 tests pass. - `pnpm typecheck` → the four changed files typecheck clean. - Manual: open a task detail page. The breadcrumb header shows the status glyph, then the task identifier in gray monospace, then the title. Visual change. Snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated, per `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` → "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". ## Risks Low risk. The change is additive and the identifier field is optional. It touches only the breadcrumb header rendering and the equality check. No data model or API change. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, tool use enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>canary/v2026.806.0-canary.3 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ac3b2e1d7a |
fix(ui): use cloud logout for managed sign-out (#10937)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip supports self-hosted and Cloud-managed authenticated deployments > - A Cloud-managed tenant uses the Cloud harness to own the full browser session > - The account menu treated every authenticated deployment as Cloud and called the local sign-out API first > - This pull request uses the existing Cloud health metadata as the mode gate > - Cloud-managed sign-out now starts the harness logout round trip with a top-level navigation > - Self-hosted authenticated sign-out keeps the existing local API flow > - The benefit is a complete Cloud logout without changing self-hosted behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related prior work: Refs #10802. **What happened?** The account menu called the app-local sign-out endpoint before it moved an authenticated browser to the Cloud logout route. It also used authenticated deployment mode as the Cloud test. This test included self-hosted authenticated instances. **Expected behavior** A Cloud-managed tenant must navigate the top-level browser directly to `/cloud/logout`. A self-hosted authenticated instance must keep the app-local sign-out flow. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a Cloud-managed tenant. 2. Open the account menu. 3. Select **Sign out**. 4. Observe that the browser returns through the tenant auth route instead of completing the Cloud logout round trip. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `master` after `76f442040c`. **Deployment mode** Paperclip Cloud-managed authenticated deployment. ## What Changed - Read the existing Cloud instance metadata in the account menu. - Navigate directly to `/cloud/logout` for Cloud-managed instances without calling the local sign-out API. - Keep the local sign-out API and cache refresh for self-hosted authenticated instances. - Add regression coverage for both sides of the mode gate. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks - Low risk. The change is limited to the account-menu action. - The Cloud branch depends on the existing `health.cloud` metadata that already gates other Cloud UI behavior. - The self-hosted regression test verifies that authenticated mode alone does not select the Cloud route. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5. The runtime provided agentic reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and test execution. The exact internal model ID and context window are not exposed to the agent. ## 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>canary/v2026.806.0-canary.2 |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
f5e9ca3e89 |
fix(adapters): keep user-scoped env bindings on the agent Test action (#10926)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The agent Test action builds adapter config from the form.
> - The build-config parser kept plain and secret_ref bindings.
> - It dropped user_secret_ref bindings on the create path.
> - This PR shares one parser that keeps every binding shape.
> - The test path now sends the same env binding set that a real run
sees.
> - The benefit is one fix across every adapter build-config path.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The agent Test action dropped a user-scoped env binding in create mode.
The same agent config worked in a real run. Related public PRs: #10115,
#9321, #9921, #8825.
**Expected behavior**
The Test action should keep user-scoped env bindings and resolve them
like a real run.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Set a user-scoped env binding on an agent config form.
2. Run Test in create mode.
3. The probe runs without the variable.
**Paperclip version or commit**
canary/v2026.806.0-canary.1
|
||
|
scotttongandClaude Opus 4.8
|
b1b7a9dff6 |
feat(settings): alphabetize experimental cards and drop the Experimental chip (#10924)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Instance Settings area exposes an Experimental page that lists opt-in feature toggles as cards. > - New experimental features were appended to the list over time, so the cards sat in insertion order with no predictable arrangement. > - An unordered list is hard to scan when you are looking for one specific feature. > - Each card also carried a small "Experimental" secondary badge, which is redundant on a page that is itself titled Experimental. > - This pull request sorts every card alphabetically by its title and removes that redundant badge. > - The benefit is a list that is faster to scan and headings that are less cluttered. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change, so the enhancement is described inline following `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml`: **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Instance Settings → Experimental page, which lists opt-in feature toggles as a stack of cards. **Subsystem affected** UI — the Instance Experimental settings page (`ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.tsx`). **Current behavior** Cards render in insertion order (the order features happened to be added), so finding a specific feature means scanning the whole list. Several headings also carry a redundant "Experimental" secondary badge. **Proposed behavior** Cards render top-to-bottom in A→Z order by title, and no card shows an "Experimental" secondary badge. Toggle logic, footnotes, conditional visibility, and the "Managed by Paperclip Cloud" badge are unchanged. **Reason and benefit** Alphabetical order makes the list predictable and quick to scan for a specific feature. The "Experimental" badge repeats information already conveyed by the page title, so removing it declutters the headings. **Breaking changes** None. This touches card render order and the removal of a decorative badge only — no state, persistence, toggle, or visibility logic changes. ## What Changed - Sorted every card on the Instance Experimental settings page alphabetically by its heading title. - Removed the redundant "Experimental" secondary badge from the card headings (previously on Apps, Cases, and Chat-Style Tasks). - Added tests asserting the cards render in case-insensitive alphabetical order and that no card renders an "Experimental" secondary badge. - No behavior change: toggle handlers, footnotes, managed-key handling, and conditional cards (Conference Room Chat, worktree-scoped run) are untouched and now sort into their alphabetical slots. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → all 3 gates CLEAN. - `npx vitest run ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` → 32/32 tests pass (the suite renders the real component and now covers ordering + badge removal). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` (`tsc -b`) → clean. - Manual: open Instance Settings → Experimental. The cards read A→Z and no card shows an "Experimental" chip. ## Risks Low risk. The change is limited to one page component: card render order and the removal of a decorative badge, plus new tests. No state, persistence, toggle, or visibility logic is modified. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, tool use enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>canary/v2026.806.0-canary.0 |
||
|
|
00a24d7e8f |
ci: split general-server tests into five shards with refreshed durations (#10925)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The PR workflow runs the server vitest suite across sharded runners because the suite is pinned to one worker. > - In successful PR run 30930345729 (2026-08-04), shard `server (3/4)` took 311 seconds of wall time and was the slowest check in the run. > - The suite has grown to about 946 seconds of serial vitest time, but the duration manifest was last sampled on 2026-08-01 at about 882 seconds. > - This pull request refreshes the per-suite duration manifest from that run's logs and splits the lane into five shards. > - The benefit is a shorter PR critical path: each shard carries about 196 seconds of suite time, level with the other lanes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10663 (previous split of this lane into four shards). Related: #10923 splits the separate serialized-suites lane into five shards. Both PRs touch `.github/workflows/pr.yml` in different matrix blocks; whichever merges second needs a trivial rebase. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The `general-server` vitest lane runs in four shards with a duration manifest sampled on 2026-08-01. **Current behavior** In PR run 30930345729, shard 3/4 ran for 311 seconds (273 seconds in the test step) and was the longest check in the run. The suite now totals about 946 seconds of serial vitest time. **Proposed behavior** Run the same suite set in five shards, balanced with a per-suite duration manifest refreshed from that run's shard logs (279 suites measured by diffing consecutive completion timestamps). **Reason and benefit** The refreshed LPT partition balances at about 196 seconds of suite time per shard (about 240 seconds per job), level with the other PR lanes. No test coverage is lost. **Breaking changes** None. The change only alters the CI partition size and the duration manifest. ## What Changed - Bump the `general-server` shard matrix in `.github/workflows/pr.yml` from four to five shards. - Refresh `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` from the 2026-08-04 run's shard logs. - Update `SHARD_COUNT` in `scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` to five. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` — 9/9 pass, including the complete non-overlapping partition proof and the duration-balance check. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` — 2/2 pass. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` — 7/7 pass. - A 5-way dry-run partition covers all suites exactly once with equal projected weights. ## Risks - Low risk. The change only alters CI partition size and duration weights; the suite set is unchanged. - One more runner is used per PR run for this lane. - Stale duration weights degrade gracefully: suites missing from the manifest get the median weight. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), Claude Code CLI, model ID `claude-fable-5`, extended thinking with tool use enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (workflow comments explain the new shard math) - [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: Claude <claude@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.805.0-canary.19 |
||
|
Devin FoleyandDevin Foley
|
b6e58019f2 |
ci: split serialized tests into five shards (#10923)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses CI to keep control-plane changes safe and mergeable. > - The PR workflow splits serialized server tests across isolated runners. > - A recent successful run spent 305 seconds in serialized shard 2/4. > - That job was the slowest check in the run. > - The four shards reported about 739 seconds of Vitest suite time. > - This pull request adds a fifth serialized shard and keeps release verification aligned. > - The benefit is a shorter PR critical path with no loss of test coverage. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The PR and release verification workflows run serialized server tests in four shards. **Current behavior** Successful PR run 30876682788 spent 305 seconds in `Verify serialized server suites (2/4)`. The test step used 256 seconds and made this job the slowest check. **Proposed behavior** Run the same serialized suite set in five complete and non-overlapping shards. **Reason and benefit** The measured suites reported about 739 seconds of total Vitest time. Five runners reduce the expected average suite time from about 185 seconds to about 148 seconds before setup overhead. **Breaking changes** None. The change only alters CI partition size. ## What Changed - Split serialized server tests into five shards in the PR workflow. - Apply the same five-shard layout to release verification. - Add a partition test that proves complete and non-overlapping serialized coverage. - Update release workflow coverage tests for five shards. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Low risk. CI uses one additional runner for the serialized lane. - Round-robin partition weights can still vary as suite timings change. > This change does not overlap with planned core work in `ROADMAP.md`. Related PR #10663 optimized the separate general-server lane. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, agentic coding with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] 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: Devin Foley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
72b509c895 |
Recognize delivered workspaces and reap terminal worktrees (#10908)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip separates workspace provisioning lifecycle from whether the work was actually delivered. > - Git ancestry alone cannot recognize squash merges or deliveries into a branch other than the workspace base. > - A merged pull request linked from a terminal issue is stronger delivery evidence for those cases. > - The read contract should expose that evidence without changing persisted workspace schema. > - Cleanup must remain conservative: terminal descendants, delivered work, and no active run checkout are all required. > - Reusing the existing cleanup primitives keeps service shutdown, lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival behavior consistent. > - Focused regression coverage locks in both the honest read signal and the fail-closed reaper guards. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Execution workspace close-readiness payloads and terminal workspace cleanup. **Current behavior** Delivered squash-merged or cross-branch workspaces can remain `active` and report a permanent “not merged” warning because git ancestry does not contain their original commits. **Proposed behavior** Read payloads distinguish PR-confirmed delivery, ancestry delivery, unmerged work, and unknown state. Fully terminal delivered workspace trees are archived only when no active run holds the checkout. **Reason and benefit** Operators and automation receive an honest delivery signal, while shipped worktrees stop looking active forever and genuinely unmerged work retains its warning. **Breaking changes** The workspace payload gains a derived field. Existing fields and persistence remain unchanged; no database migration is required. **What happened?** A delivered workspace can remain `active` and warn that it is not merged forever after its issue ships through a squash or cross-branch pull request. **Expected behavior** Pull-request delivery should be represented honestly, and a fully terminal delivered workspace should become cleanup-eligible when no run holds its checkout. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an issue workspace with commits ahead of its configured base. 2. Deliver those commits with a squash merge or into a different target branch. 3. Mark the source issue and descendants done, then read workspace close readiness. Before this change, the workspace remains active with a “not merged” warning indefinitely. ## What Changed - Added the derived `deliveryState` workspace contract: `merged_via_pr`, `merged_by_ancestry`, `unmerged`, or `unknown`. - Extracted a shared GitHub pull-request merge classifier and reused it for merge confirmations and workspace delivery checks. - Suppressed false ancestry warnings when a terminal issue has ground-truth merged-PR evidence. - Added an idempotent terminality reaper with descendant-terminal, active-run, and delivered-work guards. - Restricted PR delivery evidence to the source issue, then required live merged state plus matching GitHub repository, head branch, and current workspace HEAD; persisted status, stale PRs, lexical mentions, inbound references, and descendant PRs cannot authorize cleanup. - Preserved workspaces with modified or untracked files even when their committed HEAD was delivered. - Bounded both long-lived pull-request state caches to 1,000 entries with oldest-entry eviction. - Routed eligible workspaces through existing runtime shutdown, lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival machinery with exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks plus non-forced removal. - Added regression coverage for delivery derivation, warning behavior, reaper guards, scheduler wiring, and squash/cross-branch delivery. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 63 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts --reporter=verbose` after review hardening — 43 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts --reporter=dot` on the final local head — 73 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 15 passed - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` — server 3,662 passed (4 skipped), UI 3,599 passed, CLI 327 passed, shared 415 passed, and skills catalog 20 passed; the aggregate DB stage ran both source and built copies of one unrelated embedded-Postgres migration test and both reached its 5-second timeout - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/status-card-migrations.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — isolated aggregate-timeout verification passed in 3.99 seconds - `NODE_ENV=production pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks The reaper intentionally fails closed when issue terminality, pull-request state, git ancestry, or checkout ownership cannot be proven. GitHub lookups can delay classification and cleanup but cannot cause an unproven workspace to be archived. Automated terminal archival holds exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks across validation and removal, skips configured destructive hooks, and uses non-forced removal so dirty writes fail closed. Reopening a source issue does not restore an archived workspace; it emits an audit event so a human or agent can re-provision explicitly. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. Reasoning, tool use, repository editing, test execution, and GitHub CLI access were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.805.0-canary.17 |
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5
|
c2b41bb7cd |
fix(issues): quiet missing-disposition warnings while a live continuation is running (#10899)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - When an agent run ends without recording a disposition, Paperclip
raises a "missing disposition" handoff so the work does not silently
stall
> - The server already tracks whether such an issue has a live
continuation (a running or queued run, or a queued wake) in
`successfulRunHandoff.hasLiveContinuation`
> - But no UI surface read that flag, so an issue that an agent was
actively working on still showed the "This task still needs a next step"
banner, a loud thread warning, and "Needs next step" badges
> - This pull request makes every missing-disposition complaint respect
liveness: warn only when no live agent is on the issue and it is really
stuck
> - The benefit is that users see the warning only when action is
needed, and the noise disappears while an agent is already handling the
issue
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. Description follows the
bug-report template:
**What happened?**
An issue that a live agent run was actively working on showed the
"missing disposition" warning banner, a loud thread notice, and "Needs
next step" badges at the same time. The API payload for that issue
showed `successfulRunHandoff.required: true` together with
`hasLiveContinuation: true` and a `liveRunId`, but the UI ignored the
liveness fields.
**Expected behavior**
The missing-disposition warning appears only when the issue has no live
run or queued wake. A live agent records a disposition when its run
ends. Paperclip complains only if the run ends and no disposition
exists.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Let a run finish on an in-progress issue without a disposition.
Paperclip raises the handoff and queues a corrective wake.
2. Open the issue page while the corrective run (or any new run) is
live.
3. See the banner, the badges, and the loud thread notice — all visible
while the agent works.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Current `master` (reproduced at commit
canary/v2026.805.0-canary.16
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5
|
427509e6e0 |
fix(ui): show the synced company logo on the Cloud org switcher trigger (#10917)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - On Paperclip Cloud a tenant instance holds exactly one company, and the cloud control plane pushes the stack's uploaded workspace icon into that company's branding. > - The cloud-mode organization switcher trigger always rendered the deterministic monogram, so an uploaded organization logo never appeared in the app chrome. > - This pull request renders the trigger through the tenant company's logo and brand color, with the monogram as the fallback. > - The benefit is that the logo a customer uploads for their organization actually shows up inside their Paperclip app. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing public issue found (searched open/closed PRs and issues for "organization logo", "switcher logo", "company logo cloud" — closest related PR is #10850, which introduced the cloud-mode switcher). Describing in-PR: **Subsystem affected** Board UI: the sidebar organization switcher in Paperclip Cloud mode (`SidebarCompanyMenu`). **Problem or motivation** A Cloud customer uploads an organization logo when creating their workspace; the control plane syncs it into the tenant company's branding (`company.logoUrl`). But the cloud branch of the switcher trigger rendered `StackIcon` — monogram-only by design for stack rows — for the trigger too, ignoring `selectedCompany.logoUrl`. Result: the uploaded logo never appears in the app chrome; users see a letter tile instead. **Proposed solution** Add a `CurrentStackIcon` for the trigger that passes the selected company's `logoUrl`/`brandColor` into `CompanyPatternIcon`, seeded by the stack display name. Falls back to the exact previous monogram when no logo is set. Stack rows are unchanged: the portfolio payload deliberately carries no hot-linkable icon URL for other stacks. **Alternatives considered** Fetching per-stack icons for the rows was rejected: the cloud portfolio payload carries no icon URLs (embedding signed, expiring control-plane URLs would be wrong), and the defect is the current organization's chrome, which the already-synced company logo covers. ## What Changed - `ui/src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.tsx`: cloud-mode trigger renders the tenant company logo (fallback: monogram); stack rows untouched; self-hosted path untouched. - `ui/src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.test.tsx`: new regression test that the trigger carries the company logo while stack rows keep monograms; the `CompanyPatternIcon` mock now exposes `logoUrl`. ## Verification - `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.test.tsx`: 12/12 pass (11 existing + 1 new). - `pnpm --dir ui exec tsc --noEmit`: clean. ## Risks - Cloud-only rendering branch; self-hosted trigger rendering is untouched. - If the branding sync has not run yet, the trigger shows the same monogram as before — no regression, and it upgrades in place once `logoUrl` arrives. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic. The run used extended reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and GitHub integration. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>canary/v2026.805.0-canary.15 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5888cbf72a |
fix(issues): restore checkout after accepted confirmations (#10909)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue thread confirmations can pause an issue until a board user makes a decision > - Atomic checkout is the only supported transition into `in_progress` > - An accepted confirmation left a creator-owned issue in `in_review` while it started a continuation worker > - The worker could run without the normal checkout state transition > - This pull request returns that narrow review state to `todo` before it queues the continuation wake > - The benefit is that the worker can check out the issue and move it to `in_progress` through the normal atomic path ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue exists. The following pull requests are related but do not fix this case: - Refs #10376. It handles refusal paths for user-owned issues. - Refs #8516. It handles rejected confirmations for user-owned issues. - Refs #10274. It gives ownerless waking interactions an agent owner. **What happened?** An agent created a confirmation on an issue that was assigned to that same agent and had status `in_review`. A board user accepted the confirmation. Paperclip started a continuation worker, but the issue stayed `in_review`. The normal checkout fields stayed empty. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must return the issue to an actionable state before it wakes the continuation worker. The worker must then use atomic checkout to move the issue to `in_progress`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign an issue to an agent and set the issue status to `in_review`. 2. Let that agent create a `request_confirmation` with `wake_assignee_on_accept`. 3. Accept the confirmation as a board user. 4. Observe that the continuation worker starts while the issue remains `in_review`. **Paperclip version or commit** The bug reproduced on master before this pull request. This branch is based on `ffd62a4cbb`. **Deployment mode** Local development. The server logic is deployment-independent. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Codex exposed the bug, but the issue-thread continuation logic is adapter-independent. **Database mode** The regression test uses embedded PostgreSQL. The logic is database-mode independent. **Access context** An agent creates the confirmation. A board user accepts it. ## What Changed - Allow an accepted agent-authored confirmation to return an agent-owned issue only when the issue is `in_review` and the owner is the creating agent. - Keep active `in_progress` work unchanged so an accepted confirmation cannot reset a running worker to `todo`. - Add embedded-PostgreSQL regression coverage for user-owned review, creator-owned review, and creator-owned active work. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts` — 48 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all workspace projects. - `pnpm build` — passed for all workspace projects. - `pnpm test:run` — 3,411 passed. Three timing-sensitive assertions failed in the unchanged `heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` suite. - Isolated rerun of `heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` — 15 passed. ## Risks Low risk. The behavior change is limited to accepted confirmations on non-terminal `in_review` issues that the creating agent already owns. It does not change active work, blocked work, terminal issues, other agent owners, schemas, or public API contracts. > This is a focused bug fix. It does not add roadmap scope. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code editing, Git, 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>canary/v2026.805.0-canary.14 |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
8ac2526811 |
chore(plugin-daytona): pin @daytonaio/sdk to 0.203.0 (#10907)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Daytona sandbox provider lives in `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona` > - That plugin depends on `@daytonaio/sdk` for session control and command execution > - The stable SDK version moved forward, but the plugin still used an older pin > - This pull request pins the SDK to the current stable release and keeps the package build and tests green > - The benefit is the plugin uses the current client surface with a very small change set ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Daytona plugin keeps an older `@daytonaio/sdk` pin than the current stable release. **Current behavior** The plugin depends on `^0.171.0`. **Proposed behavior** The plugin pins `@daytonaio/sdk` to `0.203.0`. **Reason and benefit** The plugin uses the current stable client. The build and the existing tests still pass with the real 0.203.0 types. The change keeps the tracked diff small. **Breaking changes** None. The package manifest changes only the SDK pin. The workspace package is excluded from the root lockfile. **Additional context** Refs #7333, which updated the same package to `0.183.0`. ## What Changed - Updated `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/package.json` to pin `@daytonaio/sdk` at `0.203.0`. - Kept the change limited to the plugin package manifest. ## Verification - `pnpm run build` in the plugin directory passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --config packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/vitest.config.ts` passed. - `git status` showed only the one-line manifest change before the PR open step. - `git fetch origin chore/daytona-sdk-0-203-0` returned `d2592644e80dfac2cfae6d9ccc2188267fe75758`. - `git diff --stat origin/master...HEAD` showed only the one manifest file change. ## Risks - Low risk. The change only updates a package pin. - The plugin build and tests already passed against the new SDK surface. - A future SDK release could need a follow-up pin update. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool-use enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability details - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] 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>canary/v2026.805.0-canary.13 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
ffd62a4cbb |
fix(adapter-utils): carry the workspace origin remote into transported git workspaces (#10873)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - When an agent runs on a different host (sandbox or SSH), the adapter transport copies the local git execution workspace to that host and syncs changes back after the run > - The transport materializes the remote copy with `git init` plus a depth-1 or bundle fetch, so the copy has no `origin` remote and its head reads as a parentless snapshot commit > - An agent asked to publish its branch (push it, open a pull request) sees "no remote, root snapshot" and must hand the publish step back to a human operator, even when the branch base is a commit the upstream remote already holds > - This pull request carries the workspace's `origin` URL (credential-scrubbed) onto the transported copy as metadata > - The benefit is that branches produced in transported workspaces stay publishable by any actor with credentials, while the transport itself still never fetches or pushes ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. Description follows the enhancement template: **What existing behavior does this improve?** The workspace transport in `@paperclipai/adapter-utils` already copies a git workspace to the execution host and back. This change improves the fidelity of that copy: the transported repo keeps the workspace's `origin` remote instead of losing it. **Subsystem affected** Adapter utilities — the sandbox transport (`withShallowGitWorkspaceClone` in `packages/adapter-utils/src/git-workspace-sync.ts`) and the SSH transport (`importGitWorkspaceToSsh` in `packages/adapter-utils/src/ssh.ts`). **Current behavior** The transported copy is built with `git init` plus a depth-1 (sandbox) or bundle (SSH) fetch. It has no remotes. `git remote -v` is empty and the head commit reads as a root snapshot with no visible ancestry. Agents and operators inside the execution host cannot fetch real ancestry or push a branch, even when the branch base is a commit the upstream remote already holds. **Proposed behavior** The transport reads the source workspace's `origin` URL, scrubs credentials from it, and configures it on the transported copy. The sandbox path adds the remote to the fresh clone. The SSH path sets or adds the remote in the remote setup script, which also covers reused workspace directories. A workspace with no `origin` transports exactly as before. **Reason and benefit** A branch committed in a transported workspace becomes publishable in place: the shallow boundary commit already exists on the remote, so a push pack closes without full local ancestry (a new test locks in this property). Fetching real ancestry also becomes possible for whoever holds credentials. Without this, agents must describe their change in a handoff document and a human must reconstruct the branch by hand. **Breaking changes** None. The URL copy is best-effort and metadata-only. The transport never fetches from or pushes to the remote. The no-remote-git contract holds: sync-back through the local cwd stays the only cross-run persistence path, and `packages/adapters/AUTHORING.md` gains a paragraph that makes the carried-remote nuance explicit. ## What Changed - `packages/adapter-utils/src/git-workspace-sync.ts`: new `sanitizeGitRemoteUrl` (strips http(s) userinfo, where tokens can be embedded; scp-like/ssh forms and filesystem paths pass through) and `readSanitizedOriginRemoteUrl`; `withShallowGitWorkspaceClone` configures the scrubbed `origin` on the fresh clone, best-effort. - `packages/adapter-utils/src/ssh.ts`: `importGitWorkspaceToSsh` sets or adds the scrubbed `origin` in the remote setup script, non-fatal under `set -e`. - `packages/adapter-utils/src/git-workspace-sync.test.ts`: four new integration cases (remote copied, credentials scrubbed, no-origin unchanged, push from the shallow clone to an origin that holds the base commit) plus `sanitizeGitRemoteUrl` unit tests. - `packages/adapters/AUTHORING.md`: documents that a transported copy may carry a credential-scrubbed `origin` as metadata, and why this does not weaken the no-remote-git contract. ## Verification - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/git-workspace-sync.test.ts` — 12/12 pass (4 new integration cases + sanitizer unit tests). - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-managed-runtime.test.ts` — 24/24 pass. - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/ssh-fixture.test.ts` — 16/16 pass, including the `no-remote-git contract` case (a workspace without `origin` still round-trips with no remote introduced at any point). - `node scripts/check-no-git-push.mjs` — passes; this change adds no push or fetch to adapter/runtime code. - `pnpm typecheck` in `packages/adapter-utils` — clean. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is additive metadata on the transported copy only; failure to record the remote never fails the transport. - Credential exposure is the real hazard and is handled: http(s) userinfo is stripped before the URL leaves the host. Non-http forms (scp-like, `ssh://`) carry no secret in the URL and pass through. - A reused SSH workspace whose project `origin` changed now gets the current URL via `set-url` instead of keeping a stale one. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic — extended thinking, agentic tool use via Claude Code CLI. ## 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 mergecanary/v2026.805.0-canary.12 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1fa36be353 |
fix(ui): use HTTP-safe clipboard copy everywhere (#10875)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators often open self-hosted Paperclip over plain HTTP on a LAN or private network. > - Browser Clipboard API writes are not reliable in that insecure context. > - Paperclip already has one shared helper with a legacy copy fallback, but many current copy actions bypass it. > - This pull request routes every core UI copy action and the first-party workspace-diff plugin through the shared helper. > - The benefit is consistent copy behavior on HTTPS, localhost, and plain-HTTP private deployments. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #3529. This change supersedes the stale prior attempt in #3531. Current master has more copy surfaces and a first-party plugin UI bridge that the prior branch does not cover. ## What Changed - Replaced direct Clipboard API writes and duplicate fallback implementations across the current core UI with `copyTextToClipboard`. - Added an HTTP-safe clipboard function to the plugin UI SDK and wired the host bridge to the same implementation. - Migrated the first-party workspace-diff plugin to the plugin SDK clipboard function. - Added unit coverage for native rejection fallback and plugin host delegation. - Added a source-level regression test that rejects new direct clipboard writes outside the shared implementation. - Documented the plugin UI clipboard function. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ...` for 14 affected suites: 164 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run tests/ui-clipboard.test.ts` in `packages/plugins/sdk`: 1 test passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm -r typecheck`: passed for 31 workspace projects. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm test:run`: passed. - `NODE_ENV=production pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed with all gates clean. ## Risks Low risk. Secure contexts still use the modern Clipboard API. Plain HTTP and rejected modern writes use the existing `execCommand("copy")` fallback. That API is deprecated, but it is the compatibility path required for insecure contexts. The change has no schema, API, or visual design effect. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5.6-sol`. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. Reasoning, tool use, repository editing, test execution, and GitHub CLI access were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (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
|
14d755824c |
Remove decision and review summaries from issue headers (#10891)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Operators use issue pages to read task state and control task work > - The issue header showed separate summaries for open decisions and review paths > - These summaries repeated state that belongs in the Decisions view > - The extra sections added noise before the issue description and thread > - This pull request removes both header summaries and keeps decision actions in the Decisions view > - The benefit is a simpler issue header with one place for decision work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The issue detail header shows separate pending-decision and review-path sections. **Subsystem affected** `ui/` — React and Vite board UI. **Current behavior** An issue header can show a decision strip and a larger review panel before the issue content. **Proposed behavior** The issue header does not show either decision section. Operators continue to manage decisions and stalled reviews in the Decisions view. **Reason and benefit** This removes duplicate decision state from the issue header and reduces visual noise. **Breaking changes** The issue page no longer provides these summaries or shortcuts. Decision data, review state, and the Decisions view do not change. ## What Changed - Removed the pending-decision strip and review-path panel from the issue detail header. - Deleted the two unused header components and the panel-specific test. - Kept stalled-review actions and their Storybook examples in the Decisions queue. - Added an issue-detail regression test that covers both removed sections. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` (46 tests passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build-storybook` - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Low risk. This change removes two issue-header surfaces. It does not change decision APIs or data. - Users must open the Decisions view to find pending decisions and stalled-review actions. > This change does not duplicate planned core work in `ROADMAP.md`. GitHub searches found no related open issue or pull request. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context window are not exposed. Tool use and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.805.0-canary.11 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6ffe9df842 |
fix(auth): clarify protected-agent assignment blocks (#10893)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task assignment policies control which agents can receive work. > - Protected-agent policy flags currently stop assignment. > - The existing error says that the assignment requires approval. > - Paperclip has no approval workflow for this policy. > - This pull request models the policy as a hard block and gives the operator an action that exists. > - The benefit is accurate API guidance without weakening the existing fail-closed behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #6386 **What happened?** A protected-agent assignment denial said that approval was required. No approval record or approval action existed for this policy, so the message sent agents and operators to a dead end. **Expected behavior** The authorization result must state that protected-agent policy blocks assignment. It must tell a company administrator to remove the block before retrying. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Set `authorizationPolicy.protectedAgent.requiresApproval` to `true` on a target agent. 2. Give another agent the `tasks:assign` permission. 3. Preview or attempt assignment to the protected agent. 4. Observe that the old response promises an approval step that does not exist. **Paperclip version or commit** `c54936e2e9` on `master`. **Deployment mode** Built from source. The behavior is in the core authorization service and is not deployment-specific. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. ## What Changed - Added canonical `protectedAgent.blockAssignment` and `protectedAgent.blockReason` policy fields. - Kept the legacy approval-named flags as fail-closed compatibility aliases. - Changed denial copy to name the hard block and the administrator action. - Added authorization and plugin-host regression coverage for canonical and legacy policy data. - Updated the V1 implementation contract with the protected-assignment rule. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts` — 2 files passed, 61 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` — passed. The repository-wide local wrappers exceeded the execution host resource limit before they printed a final summary. The PR check loop will use GitHub CI as the complete test and build authority. ## Risks - Low: assignment remains fail-closed. The change corrects the policy name and denial guidance. - Low: legacy fields remain supported, so existing plugin-owned policy data does not change behavior. - Low: the new policy schemas allow unknown keys for forward compatibility, as the existing authorization policy schema already does. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5`, tool-enabled coding agent with reasoning, shell, Git, and GitHub CLI access. The runtime does not expose the context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ef33c1d9ed |
fix(decisions): retire completed-target decisions and link targets from the card (#10892)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The decisions desk shows pending decisions that need an operator response > - A strict decision cannot apply its effects after its target task changes > - A decision still remained pending when every target task finished after proposal > - The card also linked only the origin task, even when the decision acted on another task > - This pull request expires those moot decisions and links their target tasks > - The benefit is an accurate queue and a clear path to the work that each decision affects ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related PR: #10801 removes the issue-page decision strip, which makes clear queue provenance more important. **What happened?** A strict decision stayed pending until its time-to-live limit after every target task reached `done`. The decision card linked only the origin task. The origin task is where the agent proposed the decision, and it can differ from the task that the decision affects. An operator could therefore open a finished task with no visible decision and no explanation of the real target. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must expire a strict decision when all of its targets finish after the decision is proposed. The card must show and link every target task that differs from the origin task. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a strict decision that targets an active task from a different origin task. 2. Move the target task to `done` without resolving the decision. 3. Run the decision expiry sweep. 4. Observe that the old code keeps the decision open until its time-to-live limit. 5. Observe that the old card links only the origin task. **Paperclip version or commit** The bug reproduces on upstream `master` before this pull request. **Deployment mode** Local dev and self-hosted server modes are affected because the behavior is in the shared decision service and board UI. ## What Changed - Expire an open strict decision with reason `target_completed` when every strict target reached `done` after proposal. - Keep decisions that intentionally target an already-finished task. - Keep lenient-only decisions open. - Keep continuation delivery consistent with other expiry reasons. - Add target-task links to the decision card provenance line. - Use one shared target-ID helper across signing, execution, expiry, card provenance, and resolver preloading. - Add service and UI regression tests for primary, secondary, and target-completed cases. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/DecisionCard.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts` — 51 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. ## Risks - Low migration risk. This change does not alter the database schema. - The expiry sweep performs the existing strict-target query and adds a snapshot comparison before expiry. - A decision remains open if any strict target is active or if a target was already `done` at proposal time. > The roadmap lists work queues as planned. This pull request fixes the existing decisions desk. It does not add a new queue subsystem. ## Model Used - Implementation: Anthropic Claude through Claude Code. The runtime did not expose the exact model snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. - PR preparation: OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a dated model snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
c54936e2e9 |
fix(openclaw-gateway): use per-agent claimedApiKeyPath in wake text (#4668)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The `openclaw-gateway` adapter wakes a remote agent over a WebSocket gateway. It sends a wake prompt. That prompt tells the agent which environment variables to set and which file holds its Paperclip API key. > - Each agent stores its claimed key in its own JSON file. The adapter already exposes a `claimedApiKeyPath` config field for this. The field is documented in `src/index.ts`. It also has an input in the agent settings UI. > - `buildWakeText` ignored that field. It hardcoded the shared default path into the wake prompt text. > - Every agent therefore read the same key file at wake time. Agents authenticated as the wrong identity. The first API call failed. > - This pull request passes `ctx.config.claimedApiKeyPath` into `buildWakeText`. It uses the existing `resolveClaimedApiKeyPath` helper. That helper falls back to the documented default. > - The benefit is that each agent reads its own claimed-key file. Each agent authenticates as itself. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #10071 Fixes #4976 Fixes #3098 Fixes #8076 These four open issues report the same defect. Earlier duplicates are already closed: Refs #2561, Refs #2592, Refs #930. Related pull requests that address the same root problem (duplicate search): - #3396 — same core change, no tests - #3370 — heavier approach, injects `PAPERCLIP_CLAIMED_API_KEY_PATH` into the wake env and adds server onboarding defaults - #5970 — renames the config field to `paperclipApiKeyPath` - #8072 — same core change, bundled with an unrelated protocol-version change - #784 — adds shell quoting and preflight instructions - #3296 — bundled with an unrelated Claude hello-probe fix ## What Changed - `packages/adapters/openclaw-gateway/src/server/execute.ts` - `buildWakeText` now accepts `claimedApiKeyPath` as a parameter. It no longer hardcodes the path. - The `execute` call site passes `resolveClaimedApiKeyPath(ctx.config.claimedApiKeyPath)`. That helper returns the documented default `~/.openclaw/workspace/paperclip-claimed-api-key.json` when the agent sets no override. - `resolveClaimedApiKeyPath` is now exported so tests can call it. - `packages/adapters/openclaw-gateway/src/server/execute.test.ts` — adds `resolveClaimedApiKeyPath` cases: a configured value, an empty string, a whitespace-only string, `undefined`, `null`, and non-string input. - `packages/adapters/openclaw-gateway/vitest.config.ts` (new) — package-level vitest config. It matches the config used by sibling adapters such as `opencode-local`. - `vitest.config.ts` (root) — adds the adapter to the workspace project list. - `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs` — adds `@paperclipai/adapter-openclaw-gateway` to `nonServerProjects`. **Maintainer-added during rebase.** The CI test lanes do not run a bare `vitest`. They call `run-vitest-stable.mjs`, which invokes vitest with an explicit `--project` allowlist. Without this entry the CI lanes skip this package, and the root project-list entry alone has no effect on CI. ## Verification Run the package suite directly: ``` pnpm install --frozen-lockfile pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-openclaw-gateway ``` The suite covers `resolveSessionKey`, `buildAgentParams`, and the new `resolveClaimedApiKeyPath` cases. The first two already existed in this file but never executed in CI before this change. Typecheck the package: ``` pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-openclaw-gateway typecheck ``` Behavioural check, which no automated test covers: 1. Set `claimedApiKeyPath` to a per-agent value such as `~/.openclaw/workspace/paperclip-keys/<agent>.json` in the agent's gateway adapter settings. 2. Trigger a wake for that agent. 3. Confirm the rendered wake text names that file. It must not name the shared default. Maintainer note: this branch was rebased onto current `master` by a maintainer. The original branch was two months stale. Only two conflicts occurred, both additive: the import line and the tail of `execute.test.ts`, and the project list in the root `vitest.config.ts`. The `execute.ts` change applied without conflict. CI and Greptile re-run against the rebased head. ## Risks - Low for existing deployments. `resolveClaimedApiKeyPath` preserves the default path exactly. Any agent that never set `claimedApiKeyPath` receives the same wake text as before. - The behaviour changes only for agents that already set a per-agent path. Those agents previously received the wrong instruction. They now receive the correct one. - No database, schema, or API surface changes. - CI now runs this package's test file for the first time. That file includes the pre-existing `resolveSessionKey` and `buildAgentParams` tests, which were never executed before. - Five other adapters (`cursor-cloud`, `cursor-local`, `gemini-local`, `grok-local`, `pi-local`) sit in the root project list but remain absent from the CI allowlist. This pull request does not change them. That gap is tracked separately. ## Model Used - Contributor's change: Anthropic Claude, model ID `claude-opus-4-7`, approximately 200K context, extended thinking. Used for triage, patch authoring, and the original description. - Rebase, the `run-vitest-stable.mjs` entry, and this description: Anthropic Claude, model ID `claude-opus-5`, tool use enabled. Run by a Paperclip maintainer. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details — the branch name carries an internal ticket id. A fork branch cannot be renamed without opening a new pull request, so this is left as-is. The internal reference has been removed from the description. - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — the contributor verified the pre-rebase branch. The rebased head is verified by CI on this pull request. - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — `claimedApiKeyPath` is already documented in `src/index.ts` and exposed in the agent settings UI, so no documentation change is needed - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green — pending the post-rebase run - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups — pending re-review of the rebased head - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Pieter (CTO) <pieter@openclaw.local> Co-authored-by: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com>canary/v2026.805.0-canary.8 |
||
|
|
8142e54150 |
feat(activity): merge the audit page into one rich Activity page (#10838)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The board has two different pages for change history: a basic Activity list and a rich Audit feed > - The two pages show the same kind of information, so an operator must guess which page to open > - The basic list also caps at 200 rows and has no filters, so it hides older changes > - This pull request merges both pages into one Activity page that is built on the rich audit feed > - The page adds a scope toggle for all actors or agent actions only, and it hides privileged controls from members who do not have the audit permission > - The benefit is one obvious place to answer "who changed what", for every member, with filters and full history ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related pull requests in this stack (open both before this one): - Refs #10830 — adds the company prefix to the board audit route. - Refs #10831 — adds the two-tier all-actors scope to the audit endpoint. This pull request calls that scope. This branch is stacked on those two pull requests. The diff therefore shows their commits until they merge. After they merge, this pull request contains only the last two commits: the page merge and the actor-label fix. **Problem or motivation** The board has two overlapping history pages. `/:company/activity` renders a plain list that is capped at 200 rows and has no filters. The audit page renders a filtered, paginated feed of agent actions, but it is a separate sidebar item and it was reachable only by members with the audit permission. A member who wants to know who changed an issue must know which of the two pages answers the question. **Proposed solution** Keep one sidebar item, "Activity", and build it on the rich feed. Add a scope toggle: "All activity" reads every actor kind, and "Agent actions" keeps the earlier audit behavior. Put the scope in the `mode` query parameter so a person can link to it. Show the responsible-user filter and the CSV export only to callers that the server answers at the privileged tier. Redirect the earlier audit paths to the merged page with the agent scope preset, so old links continue to work. Delete the plain list page. **Alternatives considered** Keeping both pages and adding filters to the plain list. That duplicates the feed logic and keeps the "which page?" problem. Deleting the audit page instead was also rejected, because the audit feed has the pagination, filters, and export that the plain list does not. **Roadmap alignment** The roadmap marks the activity log and action attribution as shipped. This change improves that shipped capability. It does not add a new subsystem. ## What Changed - Added a scope toggle to `AuditFeed`. "All activity" requests `actorScope=all`, and "Agent actions" keeps the earlier agent-only request. Cursor pagination works in both scopes. - Stored the scope in the `mode` query parameter, so a person can bookmark or share a scope. - Made the page chrome permission-aware. The toggle, the responsible-user filter, and the CSV export appear only when the server answers at the privileged tier. A basic member sees the shared feed and no upsell wall. - Replaced the sidebar "Audit" item. The sidebar now has one "Activity" item. - Redirected `/:company/audit` and the unprefixed `/audit` to `/:company/activity?mode=agents`. - Deleted the earlier `ui/src/pages/Activity.tsx` list page and the `CompanyAudit` page wrapper. Added `CompanyActivity` as the single route target. - Fixed the actor label for stripped rows. The basic tier removes the agent id but keeps the actor kind, so every agent row rendered as "System". Rows now fall back to the actor kind: "Agent", "User", "Plugin", or "System". - Widened the responsible-user filter control, which truncated its own label. - Resolved agent names on the basic tier. The basic tier removes the privileged `agentId` but keeps the acting principal `actorId`, and the company agent directory this page already reads is authorization-filtered. The feed therefore resolves an agent actor from `agentId` first and from an agent-typed `actorId` second. Hiding the name only in the UI gave no confidentiality benefit, because any reader could join the retained id against the readable directory. Agents that the directory filters out still fall back to the generic kind label. No server payload or permission was widened. - Fixed a stuck state in the access-downgrade recovery. A downgrade between cursor requests leaves full-tier and basic-tier pages in one cache, which starts a single recovery refetch. If that refetch did not clear the mix, the cached pages kept the condition true, the "Refreshing audit access…" banner rendered permanently, and it hid the error state together with its "Try again" button. The banner is now tied to an outstanding attempt. The refetch effect also depended on the whole query object, which changes identity every render, so it repeated the request on each render; the attempt is now tracked in state and runs once per downgrade. - Kept the agent detail "Audit" tab unchanged. That tab passes a locked agent id, which keeps the earlier privileged scope and hides the toggle. The `GET /companies/:id/activity` endpoint stays. The dashboard still reads it. This pull request does not change that endpoint. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/audit/AuditFeed.test.tsx ui/src/App.activity-routing.test.tsx ui/src/lib/company-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-action-audit-routes.test.ts` — all tests pass. - New `ui/src/App.activity-routing.test.tsx` drives the real route table. It asserts that the company activity path resolves, and that both the company audit path and the unprefixed audit path reach the activity path with the agent scope preset. - New `AuditFeed` tests cover the scope toggle, the basic tier without privileged chrome, the locked-agent case, the actor-kind fallback label, basic-tier name resolution, and both downgrade-recovery paths (the refetch errors, and the refetch returns a still-mixed pair). - Mutation-checked the three new guards: disabling each one fails the test that covers it, so none of them pass vacuously. - `pnpm -r typecheck` is clean. Both design token gates are clean. - Rendered every state in a browser at 1440x900 and at 390x844: both scopes, the basic member view, the loading state, the error state, the filtered-empty state, and the true-empty state. A designer reviewed the renders and approved them. ## Risks - The default company page now reads the all-actors scope, which returns more rows than the earlier agent-only query. Cursor pagination and the existing page limit bound each request. - The page is now visible to every company member. The server decides what each member sees. The UI only hides controls that the caller cannot use. Refs #10831 for the server rules and tests. - The basic tier now shows agent names that the previous revision withheld. The name was already recoverable from the retained `actorId` through the readable agent directory, so this closes an inconsistency rather than widening access. A security reviewer chose this outcome over stripping `actorId`. - Old audit links now redirect. The redirect keeps the agent scope, so a person who bookmarked the audit page sees the same rows. - Low migration risk. There is no database change. > The roadmap marks activity log and action attribution as shipped. This change improves that existing capability. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`, 1M context) with extended thinking and tool use, run through Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>canary/v2026.805.0-canary.7 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
68ddd6a7a0 |
feat(activity): add two-tier all-actors audit feed (#10831)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Operators need one activity feed for human, agent, plugin, and system changes > - The existing audit endpoint returns only rows that have agent attribution > - The full audit view also requires a dedicated permission > - This pull request adds an explicit all-actors scope with basic and privileged access tiers > - The benefit is that company members can inspect the shared activity history while sensitive attribution and export controls stay protected ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The company audit activity endpoint and the board audit route. **Subsystem affected** Server REST API and board UI routing/API contracts. **Current behavior** The agent-action audit endpoint excludes activity without an agent ID. It also rejects company members who do not have the full audit permission. **Proposed behavior** Callers can opt into `actorScope=all`. A company member receives all actor kinds with sensitive attribution fields removed. A permitted board user receives complete rows and can use attribution filters. The default scope and CSV permission remain unchanged. **Reason and benefit** The board needs one chronological activity source for user, agent, plugin, and system actions. A two-tier response keeps the feed useful without widening access to detailed attribution or export capabilities. **Breaking changes** None. The endpoint keeps the existing agent-only scope and permission behavior by default. ## What Changed - Added `actorScope=all` to the unified audit query and included activity from every actor type. - Added a company-readable basic tier that removes run, responsible-user, agent, and details attribution. - Kept attribution filters and CSV export behind `audit:view_agent_actions`. - Added route and integration coverage for basic readers, permitted readers, pagination, filter denial, and all actor kinds. - Added the missing unprefixed `/audit` redirect and company route classification. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-action-audit-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/company-routes.test.ts --reporter=verbose` (35 tests passed) - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - The all-actors query can return more rows than the legacy agent-only query. Cursor pagination and existing limits bound each request. - The basic tier intentionally exposes action and actor-kind context. It removes detailed run, agent, responsible-user, and details attribution. - The legacy endpoint behavior remains the default, which reduces compatibility risk. > The roadmap marks activity log and action attribution as shipped. This change improves that existing capability and does not introduce a separate workflow system. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5.6-sol`, 114K context, agentic reasoning 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>canary/v2026.805.0-canary.6 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f0ed524ffa |
fix(ui): prefix audit board route (#10830)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI keeps company work under a company-prefixed route. > - The Audit sidebar link used a bare `/audit` path. > - The route helper treated `audit` as a company prefix because the board-route list did not include it. > - The router also had no redirect for a bare `/audit` deep link. > - This pull request registers Audit in both places and adds regression coverage. > - The benefit is that the Audit sidebar link and old bare deep links open the active company's audit feed. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related PR: #9744 **What happened?** The Audit sidebar link opened `/audit`. The router interpreted `AUDIT` as a company prefix and showed the invalid-company page. **Expected behavior** The Audit sidebar link must open `/<company-prefix>/audit`. A bare `/audit` deep link must redirect to the active company. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a company board. 2. Select Audit in the sidebar. 3. Observe that the app opens `/audit` and shows an invalid-company error. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master after #9744. **Deployment mode** Board UI in local or self-hosted deployments. ## What Changed - Added `audit` to the board-route root list. - Added the unprefixed `/audit` redirect route. - Added regression tests for Audit prefixing, prefix extraction, and relative-path conversion. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/company-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - Manual check: select Audit in the sidebar and confirm the URL is `/<company-prefix>/audit` and the audit feed renders. ## Risks - Low risk. This change only reserves one existing board route and adds one redirect. - A company cannot use `AUDIT` as an issue prefix after this change. That prefix already conflicts with the existing Audit board page. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5
|
e8ae5286eb |
feat(issues): explain cross-task agent writes with attribution, audit receipts, and actionable denials (#10843)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents write to tasks they do not own. They comment, they change
fields, and the control plane now permits this by default for
standard-trust agents on any task they can read
> - This makes a task thread ambiguous. A reader sees a comment from an
agent that is not the assignee, but no surface says whose authority that
write rode
> - The same gap applies to field edits. The activity stream named the
verb, but it did not show the before value, the after value, or the
reason the write was permitted
> - The remaining refusals are also opaque. An agent that hits a wall
receives a 403 with no boundary name, no actor who can act, and no
sanctioned path. One real incident spent a full detour to find the
workaround
> - This pull request adds the three surfaces that make open cross-task
writes legible: an attribution chip, a field-level audit receipt, and an
actionable denial contract shared by the API and the UI
> - The benefit is that a reader can answer "who did this, on whose
authority, and was it allowed?" on the task itself, and a blocked writer
is told what to do next
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists for this work, so the enhancement is described
here.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Cross-task agent writes are permitted, but they are not explained. A
task thread can hold comments from agents that are not the assignee, and
the activity stream can hold field changes made by those agents. Neither
surface names the responsible user behind the write. When a write is
refused, the error text does not name the boundary or the way forward.
**Subsystem affected**
Issue detail UI (comment thread and activity stream), the issue write
authorization responses in the server, and the shared copy contract that
both consume.
**Current behavior**
- An agent comment on a task the agent does not own looks the same as an
assignee comment.
- An `issue.updated` activity row states the verb only. It does not show
the field-level before and after values, the responsible user, or the
authorization reason.
- A refused write returns a short message such as an ownership error.
The message does not state which rule fired, who is able to perform the
action, or which alternative path is sanctioned.
**Proposed behavior**
- An agent comment on a task the agent does not own carries a chip that
reads "for {user}". The chip names the responsible user. Its tooltip
states that the author is not the assignee and cannot exceed that user's
permissions.
- Each `issue.updated` row shows a receipt: the changed fields with
before and after values, the responsible user, and the authorization
reason. This applies to board edits as well as agent edits.
- Each refusal states three things: the boundary that fired, who is able
to act, and the sanctioned path. The API error body and the in-app
notice use the same words, because both read one shared contract.
Related pull requests, found by searching this repository:
- Refs #10837 — merged. It added the default-open cross-task write rule,
the comment attribution data, and the per-run containment cap that this
pull request makes visible.
- Refs #10114 — open. It proposes a narrower authorization change in the
same area.
- Refs #7998 — open. It proposes append-only cross-assignee comments as
an alternative to opening writes.
## What Changed
- Adds `packages/shared/src/issue-write-denial.ts`. This is one copy
contract for eight ways an issue write can be refused: not visible,
responsible-user ceiling, responsible user unavailable, excluded actor
class, assignee run lock, per-run cross-task cap, missing run context,
and rejected attribution. Each entry names the boundary, who can act,
and the sanctioned path.
- Maps server authorization decisions onto that contract in
`server/src/routes/issues.ts` and
`server/src/services/cross-issue-influence-limit.ts`. The flattened
`error` string carries all three obligations, and `details.code` lets
the UI render the same words. The two cap codes keep the names they
already ship under.
- Adds `CommentAttributionChip`. It renders "for {user}" beside the
author name on agent comments where the author is not the assignee. It
renders nothing when no responsible user is recorded, so older rows stay
clean. It is wired into both `IssueChatThread` and the flagged
`TaskChatThread` redesign.
- Adds `IssueFieldChangeReceipt`. It renders the change receipt under
`issue.updated` rows in the activity stream. Ids resolve to agent and
user names where the directory is loaded. Server-truncated text is
labelled as a preview, so the receipt never implies that it shows a
whole value.
- Adds `IssueWriteDenialNotice`. It renders the shared copy in the app,
keyed off the denial events the server logs on a task.
- Adds a public `/ux-lab/cross-issue-collaboration` page. It renders all
three surfaces and their edge cases for review without a seeded thread.
This follows the existing `ux-lab` pages.
## Verification
Automated, all green:
```
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run src/issue-write-denial.test.ts # 17 tests
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueWriteDenialNotice.test.tsx \
src/components/IssueFieldChangeReceipt.test.tsx src/components/CommentAttributionChip.test.tsx \
src/lib/issue-change-receipt.test.ts src/lib/comment-attribution.test.ts # 46 tests
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cross-issue-influence-limit.test.ts \
src/__tests__/issue-comment-attribution-audit-routes.test.ts \
src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts \
src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts # 98 tests
```
`tsc --noEmit` passes for the shared, ui, and server packages.
Manual, in a browser:
1. Start the UI only: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vite`.
2. Open `/ux-lab/cross-issue-collaboration`. No session is needed,
because `ux-lab` routes are public.
3. All three surfaces were captured at 1440x900 in light mode and dark
mode, and at 390x844. The page reported no errors.
4. The chip tooltip was opened by a hover and by a keyboard focus.
Rendering the page found defects that the tests had missed. Three copy
and contrast defects were fixed, and two of them are now pinned by a
test. A design review then found three layout defects, which are also
fixed: the denial notice orphaned its label when a value wrapped, the
receipt icon wrapped onto its own line at narrow widths, and the chip
tooltip was reachable by hover only.
## Risks
Low risk, and additive.
- Every new surface renders nothing when its data is absent. Comments
without a recorded responsible user show no chip, and activity events
without a receipt show no receipt, so existing rows do not change.
- No migration is included. The data these surfaces read already ships.
- The wire values of the two per-run cap denial codes are unchanged.
Only the human-readable text changes, plus six codes that had no
`details.code` before.
- The denial copy is read by agents as well as people. If wording must
change later, one shared module is the only place to change it.
- Roadmap check: this extends the completed "Activity log & action
attribution" area rather than duplicating planned core work.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-5[1m]`, 1M context
window, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. It ran as
an agent in Claude Code and drove a real browser to capture the review
screenshots.
## 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: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5858ccb981 |
feat: make in-app features cloud-aware (#10850)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators use the same board application in self-hosted and Paperclip Cloud deployments. > - A Cloud tenant contains one company, so an in-app company switch does not change the active Cloud stack. > - Cloud operators need the sidebar and company surfaces to use the signed-in user's stack portfolio. > - The server must derive Cloud identity and links from trusted instance context instead of client input. > - This pull request adds canonical Cloud context, a trusted stack portfolio proxy, and Cloud-aware navigation. > - The benefit is consistent stack switching on Cloud while self-hosted company behavior stays unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server REST routes and the React board UI. **Problem or motivation** A Cloud-managed instance contains one company. The existing company switcher could only switch records inside that tenant. It could not move the operator to another Cloud stack. The existing header also gave long organization names too little width. **Proposed solution** Expose a canonical public Cloud context in health data. Add a trusted server proxy for the current user's stack portfolio. Use that data in the board UI to switch stacks with top-level navigation. Keep the existing company behavior on self-hosted instances. Move search into the navigation and keep long organization names inside the sidebar panel. **Alternatives considered** An in-app `/stacks` route was rejected because Cloud tenant hosts reserve that path and stack selection must wake or authenticate another tenant. Client-supplied user identity was rejected because the server can derive the trusted Cloud actor. **Roadmap alignment** This change advances the Cloud deployments milestone. It keeps the product local-first and Cloud-ready without changing the self-hosted mental model. ## What Changed - Added canonical Cloud instance context and public health metadata. - Added a Cloud-only stack portfolio proxy with trusted actor forwarding and per-user caching. - Prevented normal company creation on Cloud-managed instances. - Switched the sidebar and Companies page from company actions to stack actions on Cloud. - Added full-page stack navigation and Cloud create-stack links. - Moved search into the sidebar navigation so the organization name keeps more width. - Added truncation and hover recovery for long organization and stack names. - Added server and UI regression coverage for Cloud and self-hosted behavior. - Updated the implementation specification for the Cloud contracts. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` passed. All three token gates are clean. - `pnpm --dir server exec vitest run src/__tests__/health.test.ts src/__tests__/cloud-instance.test.ts src/__tests__/cloud-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/company-cloud-floor.test.ts src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts` passed: 5 files and 66 tests. - `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.test.tsx` passed: 1 file and 11 tests. - Pre-PR QA report `7da87ca7` passed all 8 acceptance criteria with real HTTP route factories and real Chromium screenshots in Cloud and self-hosted modes. - Security reviews passed for the canonical Cloud context and stack portfolio proxy. ## Risks - Cloud stack switching depends on the configured Cloud application and tenant portfolio URLs. - The new health `cloud` block is public by design, but it contains only canonical public instance metadata. - The stack proxy fails closed on self-hosted instances and derives the user identity from the trusted actor. - Self-hosted navigation and company creation retain their existing paths and behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-5`. The run used reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and GitHub integration. The deployment did not expose its context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Santhi Prakash
|
1e44e50360 |
docs: remove leaked fork-specific section from AGENTS.md (#9935)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - `AGENTS.md` is the contributor guide read by every human and AI agent before making changes > - Section "## 11. Fork-Specific: HenkDz/paperclip" describes a downstream fork's own dev setup (custom ports, NTFS quirks, fork-only QoL patches) but was accidentally left in the upstream `paperclipai/paperclip` copy of AGENTS.md > - This causes two concrete problems: (1) it duplicates the "## 11." heading number with the preceding "Definition of Done" section, and (2) it tells contributors/agents working on the real upstream repo to follow fork-only instructions (e.g. "Fork runs on port 3101+ (auto-detects if 3100 is taken by upstream instance)") that don't apply here and could cause confusion during setup > - This PR removes the leaked fork-specific section entirely, which also resolves the duplicate numbering as a side effect > - The benefit is a cleaner, correct AGENTS.md with no duplicate section numbers and no instructions that reference a different repository ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #4188 — that issue's "Proposed behavior" section explicitly calls out this same duplicate-`§11` numbering bug in AGENTS.md ("Definition of Done and Fork-Specific HenkDz section both numbered §11") as one incidental item inside a much larger proposal (issue templates, triage labels, PR-link enforcement workflows). That issue is still open. Related PRs (checked before opening this one): - #4189 — closed, not merged. Would have addressed the broader issue-templates work. - #4260 — closed, not merged. Would have expanded CONTRIBUTING.md and issue templates. - #7522 — merged (2026-06-05). Added the search-first / linked-issue / gates guidance to CONTRIBUTING.md, but did not touch AGENTS.md and did not remove the leaked section. None of these removed the leaked "## 11. Fork-Specific: HenkDz/paperclip" section — it is still present verbatim on `master` as of this PR. This PR intentionally scopes down to just the AGENTS.md fix so it can land as a small, independent, easy-to-review change rather than waiting on the larger issue-template proposal. ## What Changed - Removed the entire "## 11. Fork-Specific: HenkDz/paperclip" section from `AGENTS.md` (Branch Strategy, Hermes (built-in), Local Dev, Fork QoL Patches, Plugin System subsections) — this content describes a personal fork's dev environment, not the upstream repo, and does not belong in the file every contributor and agent reads first. - No other files touched. ## Verification - `grep -n "^## " AGENTS.md` now shows a single "## 11. Definition of Done" with no duplicate section number. - `grep -rn "HenkDz\|Fork-Specific" --include="*.md" .` (outside `releases/*.md` changelog credits, which are unrelated and untouched) returns nothing — confirms no other file references the removed section. - Checked `ROADMAP.md` — no planned work overlaps this change (the only AGENTS.md-related roadmap item, "Easy AGENTS.md configurations", is marked done and is a general feature, unrelated to this cleanup). - Searched open/closed PRs touching AGENTS.md and open issues mentioning "HenkDz"/"Fork-Specific" — no duplicate or in-flight PR does this specific removal (see Linked Issues section above). - No code, schema, or behavior changes — this is a docs-only removal, so no typecheck/test/build impact. ## Risks Low risk. Docs-only change, single file, pure deletion of inapplicable content. No behavior, schema, or API impact. ## Model Used Claude Sonnet 5 (claude-sonnet-5), via Claude Code CLI. Standard reasoning, no extended thinking mode. Used for repo exploration (fork, clone, issue/PR search, verifying the section was still present and unresolved on current `master`) and to author this fix and PR description. All commits authored by the human contributor (Santhi Prakash); no AI co-authorship attribution on commits. ## 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 (`docs/remove-leaked-fork-section-agents-md`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — N/A, docs-only change (see Verification) - [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable — N/A, docs-only - [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 — confirm after opening the PR - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups — confirm after opening the PR - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting mergecanary/v2026.805.0-canary.5 |
||
|
Santhi Prakash
|
1f7b71067f |
docs: expand AGENTS.md repo map (cli, skills-catalog, teams-catalog, skills/) (#9960)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - `AGENTS.md` is the contributor guide every human and AI agent reads first, and its "Repo Map" (§3) is meant to be the authoritative one-line-per-package index of the codebase > - `pnpm-workspace.yaml` lists `cli` as a first-class workspace package, a direct sibling of `server` and `ui` (`packages: [..., server, ui, cli]`) > - The Repo Map documents `server/`, `ui/`, and every `packages/*` workspace package (db, shared, adapters, adapter-utils, plugins) but never mentions `cli/`, even though it's published as the `paperclipai` npm package (`cli/package.json` → `"name": "paperclipai"`, bin `paperclipai`) and is exercised directly from other parts of this same file's setup flow (e.g. `pnpm paperclipai auth bootstrap-ceo` in `doc/DEVELOPING.md`) > - This is exactly the class of drift a prior commit (canary/v2026.805.0-canary.4 |
||
|
Noah Rasheta
|
3f86508514 |
docs: replace broken README Discord badge (#1727)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - New users meet the project first through the repository README > - The README header shows a row of shields.io badges > - The Discord badge points at the placeholder guild id `000000000` > - shields.io cannot resolve that id, so it returns an error image > - A broken badge in the first screen makes the project look unmaintained > - This pull request replaces the badge with a static badge that always renders > - The benefit is a clean README header and a reliable Discord link ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing issue covers this. The problem is described below. **Issue type** Incorrect information **Where is the issue?** `README.md`, the badge row below the project banner. **What's wrong?** The Discord badge uses `https://img.shields.io/discord/000000000?label=discord`. The guild id `000000000` is a placeholder. shields.io cannot resolve it. The README header shows an error badge instead of a Discord badge. **Suggested fix** Use the static badge `https://img.shields.io/badge/discord-join-7289da`. Keep the existing invite link. ## What Changed - Replace the broken `shields.io/discord/000000000` badge with the static `shields.io/badge/discord-join-7289da` badge in `README.md`. - Keep the `https://discord.gg/m4HZY7xNG3` invite target unchanged. This branch is rebased onto current `master`. The original version of this pull request also corrected a "solo-entreprenuer" typo. `master` corrected that typo in the meantime, so the rebase drops that change. ## Verification - Open the rendered README on this branch. The badge shows "discord | join". - Compare with `master`. The same position shows a shields.io error badge. - Open the two badge URLs directly to see the difference: - broken: https://img.shields.io/discord/000000000?label=discord - fixed: https://img.shields.io/badge/discord-join-7289da - Click the badge. It opens https://discord.gg/m4HZY7xNG3. ## Risks Low risk. The change touches one line of `README.md`. It changes no code, build step, or test. The new badge does not show the live member count. The Discord server has its widget disabled, so a dynamic badge cannot show a count today. If the widget is enabled later, a dynamic badge with the real guild id can replace this one. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic, model id `claude-opus-5`), extended thinking with repository tool use. The maintainer used the model to rebase this branch onto current `master` and to write this description. The original one-line change is the contributor's own work. ## 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 (no other open pull request changes this badge) - [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 - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (not applicable — README-only change) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (not applicable — README-only change) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (this change is the documentation change) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending re-run after the rebase) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending re-review after the rebase) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting mergecanary/v2026.805.0-canary.3 |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
d114c4925e |
feat(observability): give sandbox sync spans true wall-clock width (#10864)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip keeps company work visible and governed. > - Sandbox agents run serial sync work across worker and host boundaries. > - The current span path hid real wall-clock time for that sync work. > - The host needs safe timestamps if it wants true span width. > - This pull request carries worker timestamps, validates them, and records the real duration. > - The benefit is clearer operator visibility for sandbox sync work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. This touches `packages/plugins`, `server`, and the Daytona plugin test surface. **Problem or motivation** Sandbox sync spans opened and closed in one host call. The native width stayed near zero, so the real time spent in serial round trips was hard to see. **Proposed solution** Carry worker start and end times across the span record protocol. Validate the pair at the host boundary. Record the host span with the true duration when the pair is safe. **Alternatives considered** Keep the numeric duration only. That keeps the data, but it does not widen the span and it does not show the real wall-clock time. **Roadmap alignment** This fits the `Cloud / Sandbox agents` and `Artifacts & Work Products` areas in `ROADMAP.md`. I found no other roadmap item that covers this span-width gap. **Additional context** The host allowlist stays narrow. Unknown names still map to `sandbox.provider.other`. Invalid timestamp pairs still fall back to the synchronous path. Related public PRs: none found. ## What Changed - Added optional `startTimeMs` and `endTimeMs` fields to the `span.record` protocol. - Captured start and end times in the worker tracer and sent them to the host. - Validated host timestamps with finite, ordered, bounded checks before span reconstruction. - Extended the host allowlist to the sandbox sync command names. - Wrapped each inbound sync round trip in its own named span. - Added tests for the worker path, host boundary, host recorder, and Daytona sync flow. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugins-sdk test` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/daytona-plugin test` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server tsc --noEmit` still shows pre-existing `drizzle-orm` duplicate-declaration errors in this sandbox. The changed files do not touch those lines. - GitHub checks are green. - Greptile review is 5/5. - No open review threads remain. ## Risks - A bad timestamp pair can fall back to the synchronous path. - The host clock gate can reject spans if the pair is stale, reversed, or too large. - The new worker fields change the wire protocol, but the public plugin tracer contract stays the same. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5, tool-enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability details - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.805.0-canary.2 |