PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-10 20:50:08 +02:00

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	120ae5428f	feat(server): add a one-click relink action for detached custom-image templates (#11641 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip environments can use captured custom images for agent runs > - A configuration fingerprint change can detach a valid custom-image template > - Operators need a safe way to confirm that the image still matches the boot source > - This pull request adds a guarded relink action with drift classification and audit logging > - The benefit is a deliberate relink without a new sandbox boot or provider snapshot ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting environment, server, and UI behavior. Problem or motivation A custom-image template detaches when the environment configuration fingerprint changes. The runtime then uses the base image, even when the boot source did not change. The only prior remedy required a full re-capture. Proposed solution Add an operator-triggered relink action. Classify configuration drift from a server-owned boot-relevant snapshot. Relink knob-only drift without confirmation. Require explicit confirmation for boot-source or unclassified drift. Guard the route for instance administrators and record a safe activity event. Alternatives considered Keep requiring a full re-capture. This adds a sandbox boot and provider snapshot for cases where the image remains correct. Roadmap alignment The roadmap has no matching custom-image relink item. This change addresses an environment operation gap. Additional context The relink response exposes raw drift values only in the transient 409 response to the instance administrator. The service never persists or logs fingerprints or configuration values. Reserved identity-path segments fail closed. ## What Changed - Add `relinkActiveTemplate` with drift classification and conditional fingerprint update. - Persist a server-owned boot-relevant configuration snapshot during capture. - Add the guarded relink route with strict request validation and activity logging. - Add the relink action and confirmation flow to the environment page. - Add service, route, UI, and OpenAPI coverage. ## Verification - Run the focused service suite: `pnpm vitest run server/src/services/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`. - Run the focused route suite: `pnpm vitest run server/src/routes/environment-custom-image-routes.test.ts`. - Run the focused UI suite: `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx`. - Run server and UI TypeScript checks. - Confirm the OpenAPI snapshot matches the new route. - Confirm all required GitHub checks pass on commit `e46fdcfe94a719be854adf8849d30714e5b70b93`. - Confirm Greptile reports 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks The relink action can keep an image after configuration drift. The service requires explicit confirmation for boot-source or unclassified drift. Reserved path segments produce a safe unresolved marker and never enter stored values. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex. The model used repository inspection, GitHub operations, and PR preparation with tool use and code execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window value or a separate reasoning-mode value. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-18 11:43:39 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	6b8e42168e	Add governed secret alias confirmation cards (#11486 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents need scoped secret bindings to use external services safely. > - Agents could not request an existing secret under a new config name without an internal secret identifier. > - Existing binding proposals were only visible in Settings and did not create an issue-thread approval path. > - A confirmation card could record acceptance without proving that the binding was created. > - This pull request extends the existing secret proposal system with safe source references and governed issue-thread confirmation cards. > - The benefit is a one-click flow that creates the binding or shows a clear failure without exposing secret material. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related prerequisite: #11482. Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: server REST APIs, shared interaction contracts, database proposal schema, and issue-thread UI. Problem or motivation An agent can need an existing bound secret under a second config name. The agent cannot safely discover the internal secret identifier. The existing proposal is also easy for the operator to miss because it only appears in Settings. A generic confirmation can record acceptance without executing the binding. Proposed solution Let an agent create a binding proposal from one of its existing config paths. Mint a server-owned, human-only confirmation card on the checked-out issue. Recheck the operator's target-agent permission under the proposal row lock. Execute the existing proposal transaction after card acceptance. Store an `executed` or `failed` result on the card. Render the complete lifecycle in the issue thread and attention resolver. Alternatives considered A new alias subsystem would duplicate proposal quotas, expiry, authorization, and binding synchronization. A text-only issue comment would not provide a governed action or an execution result. An agent-supplied card payload would permit metadata smuggling. This change uses the existing proposal transaction and a server-owned payload instead. Roadmap alignment This change extends the completed "Secrets Manager with per-agent access" roadmap item. It preserves scoped bindings and audited resolution. The required GitHub search found no other open duplicate issue or pull request. ## What Changed - Added safe source-config-path binding proposals and preserved user-secret ownership checks. - Added a proposal-to-interaction link and an idempotent database migration. - Minted human-only `request_confirmation` cards with server-owned `secretProposal` metadata. - Rejected agent-supplied governed metadata and agent addressees. - Rechecked `agent_config:update` authority under the proposal lock before execution. - Recorded `executed` or `failed` results and posted a failure comment when no binding was created. - Settled failed accepted proposals atomically and mirrored rejection, withdrawal, and expiry in both directions. - Emitted `secret.binding.created` for new agent binding writes. - Added a dedicated issue-thread card for pending, executed, failed, rejected, withdrawn, and expired states. - Showed only the source label, target agent, config path, skeptical justification, expiry, and safe failure code. - Replaced resolved attention-query entries immediately with the stitched server result. - Added focused server, database, UI, and state-transition tests. - Added Storybook fixtures for every review state and documented the API and agent behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/AttentionInteractionResolver.test.ts` — 58 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build-storybook` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts` — 142 passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/company-secret-proposals-migration.test.ts --silent` — 1 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` — server 4,175 passed, UI 4,109 passed; the CLI AWS-doctor case passes 8/8 with runtime-injected static AWS credential variables unset. - `pnpm build` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` ## Risks - Migration `0221` adds one nullable foreign key and one index. It uses idempotent guards. - The accept route performs a governed write after it records card acceptance. A failed write is visible and settles the proposal as rejected. - Concurrent proposal and card resolution must use proposal-before-interaction lock order. A race test covers direct approval against card rejection. - The new audit event increases activity rows for newly added agent bindings. It does not include secret values or fingerprints. - The card includes only safe proposal metadata. It does not include secret value, fingerprint, version, or internal secret identifiers. - The UI uses the stitched resolution result. Focused tests cover immediate cache replacement and every terminal state. > This work extends an existing completed roadmap capability. The GitHub duplicate search returned no other open related work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with model ID `gpt-5`. The runtime did not expose its context-window size. Reasoning, repository tools, code execution, database integration tests, UI rendering, and GitHub tools 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>	2026-08-18 09:44:24 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	b446ff59bf	refactor(acpx-engine): coordinator-owned ACP run lifecycle with a typed resource ledger (#11576 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent adapters run agent sessions through the ACPX engine > - The ACPX engine handled one run attempt as a long implicit procedure > - That shape made resource ownership, cleanup order, and failure behavior hard to verify > - This pull request gives the attempt a coordinator, a typed resource ledger, separate run sites, and explicit turn and settlement sequences > - The benefit is clear ownership, one cleanup path, safer session reuse, and testable failure behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The ACPX engine manages startup, turn execution, session reuse, and cleanup inside one large run procedure. Current behavior The run procedure owns several resources through implicit control flow. Cleanup and session reuse behavior depend on lane-specific branches and error paths. Proposed behavior The coordinator owns the run attempt. A typed ledger records six resources and their states. Host and sandbox run sites own lane-specific acquisition. Turn and settlement sequences expose typed outcomes. The engine emits allowlisted phase telemetry. Reason and benefit Explicit ownership makes cleanup and failure behavior easier to inspect. The fault matrix and characterization tests protect the external result while the refactor reduces hidden control flow. Breaking changes None to the public adapter contract. The host warm-save path now closes and relaunches the runtime because a transferred runtime could retain a run-scoped credential. A cold session-handshake failure now closes the created runtime. Additional context This pull request contains the ACPX engine lifecycle refactor, its tests, and the lifecycle document. ## What Changed - Add a run coordinator for startup, turn execution, settlement, and result reproduction. - Add a typed resource ledger with open, sealed, and consumed states. - Add host and sandbox run sites for lane-specific resource acquisition. - Replace separate runtime maps with a generic session reuse store. - Split session fingerprint identity from the outer session key. - Add typed turn and settlement sequences with one cleanup owner. - Add a closed allowlist for phase telemetry. - Add characterization tests and a 17-case fault matrix. - Add `doc/acp-run-lifecycle.md`. ## Verification - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/` passes 18 files and 286 tests at the submitted commit. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` reports 0 errors at the submitted commit. - Run the full pull request checks after GitHub starts CI. - Run Greptile review after the pull request opens. ## Risks - The refactor changes internal control flow across the ACPX engine. - Host warm-save behavior now closes and relaunches the runtime. - Settlement changes the handling of a cold session-handshake failure from a leak to a close. - The characterization baselines and fault matrix reduce the risk of an external behavior change. > Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > The adapter layer runs agent sessions through the ACPX engine > The engine needs explicit lifecycle ownership for reliable cleanup > This pull request adds coordinator-owned phases and a typed resource ledger > The result makes lifecycle behavior easier to test and review ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex. Exact model ID: GPT-5. The model used tool execution, repository inspection, and code review support. The implementation author supplied the submitted code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-17 22:02:16 -07:00
SamandSami Rusani	14fd8aee36	fix(server): flag truncated issue descriptions (#4771 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - The issue list API is one of the surfaces API consumers use to synchronize issue metadata. > - The list endpoint intentionally returns a bounded `description` preview so large descriptions do not bloat list responses. > - Before this change, that preview looked like a complete field value because the response did not say whether it had been shortened. > - That made round-trip clients vulnerable to accidentally PATCHing a preview back over the full description. > - This pull request keeps the existing preview behavior but adds an explicit `descriptionTruncated` flag. > - The benefit is backwards-compatible visibility into truncated issue descriptions, so clients can avoid data-loss workflows. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #4758. Related PR: #4792 also targets #4758, but it includes unrelated logger changes and currently has separate review/security concerns. This PR keeps the fix scoped to the issue-list description truncation API behavior. ## What Changed - Added `descriptionTruncated` to the issue list projection when `description` exceeds the existing 1200-character preview limit. - Exposed `descriptionTruncated?: boolean` on the shared `Issue` type. - Added service tests for truncated descriptions, exact-limit descriptions, null descriptions, and multibyte-safe preview truncation. ## Verification June 18, 2026 refresh after rebasing onto current `origin/master`: - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm typecheck` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` - GitHub PR checks are green on head `12e828e6`. Earlier pre-review verification also included `pnpm test`. ## Risks - Low risk. This is an additive API response field; existing clients can ignore it. - The list endpoint still returns the same bounded `description` preview. Clients that need full text should continue fetching the issue detail, but can now detect when that is necessary. - No database migration or UI behavior change. > 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, via Codex desktop on April 29, June 15, and June 18, 2026. Used tool-assisted repository inspection, code editing, local test execution, GitHub CLI workflows, and PR review follow-up. Exact context window size is not surfaced by the tool. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A: no UI change) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A: additive API field covered by tests) - [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: Sami Rusani <sr@samirusani>	2026-08-17 14:02:01 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	c1c46f1e4e	feat: Claude login on the new-agent page before agent creation (#11347 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Claude local adapter supports subscription login through a sandbox > - The new-agent page must show login before the user creates an agent > - Test results must not expose raw sandbox diagnostics or secret values > - This pull request adds the login UI to both Test lanes and closes the diagnostic boundary > - The branch also adds durable cleanup recovery for failed sandbox teardown > - Reusable sandboxes must retain both their recorded teardown configuration and a valid lifecycle path until destruction succeeds > - The benefit is a usable login flow with fixed public checks, redacted server logs, and recoverable sandbox cleanup ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related public work: [#9488](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9488) adds first-class recognition for `CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN` in headless and remote runs. Related public issue: [#2681](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/2681) requests Claude Code subscription support. This pull request adds the login transport and new-agent UI flow that those changes do not provide. Subsystem affected: Claude local adapter, server login probes, sandbox provider setup, cleanup recovery, and the new-agent UI. Problem or motivation: The Test lanes did not show the sandbox login panel in all supported cases. Test results also exposed raw probe diagnostics, and JSON escapes could end secret redaction early. Proposed solution: Surface the login capability through the bundled provider manifest. Prepare the same probe runtime in the ACP lane. Send diagnostics only to redacted server logs. Keep Test checks on fixed public messages. Normalize login URL hints to allowlisted HTTPS Claude and Anthropic hosts. Consume JSON escapes during redaction. Preserve failed sandbox cleanup state across retries and restarts, and prevent deletion from severing the lifecycle context of a live reusable sandbox. Alternatives considered: Keep raw diagnostics in Test checks or trust login URL text from the sandbox. Both choices increase information exposure. Keep separate probe behavior in the ACP lane. That choice would leave the two Test lanes inconsistent. ## What Changed - Surface the sandbox login panel on both Test lanes. - Reconcile the bundled Daytona plugin manifest so `supportsSetupTokenLogin` reaches the UI capability gate. - Prepare the ACP Test lane with the same probe runtime as the CLI Test lane. - Add the `claude_acp_login_probe_unavailable` warning when the ACP probe cannot run. - Send raw sandbox diagnostics only to redacted server logs. - Keep Test checks on fixed public messages in the ACP, managed-config, and CLI paths. - Normalize login URL hints to allowlisted HTTPS Claude and Anthropic hosts. - Redact JSON and escaped-JSON secret values, including escaped quotes and backslashes. - Preserve orphan cleanup records across provider failures, restarts, and unavailable plugins. - Atomically block environment deletion while a live reusable sandbox lease still depends on it. - Verify pending cleanup destroys plugin sandboxes with the provider configuration recorded on the lease, even after the current environment configuration changes. ## Verification - Head under review: `506b7fa2d83c36bfa5fd722ee9d95b0c7431c241`. - Focused environment route/service/runtime coverage passes: 196 tests across 3 files. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - The full Vitest run completed with 4,754 passing and 28 failing tests. All 23 source-test failures reproduce unchanged on parent head `58cfe61a33191ce03d965d65085d26064b4888ba`; the other 5 are duplicate executions from stale `server/dist` output. The failures are unrelated macOS path/listener and scheduler-fixture failures, so there is no new bad commit for bisect to localize. - All required CI checks pass for the current head, including build, typecheck/release registry, all server and workspace shards, serialized server suites, canary, and e2e. - A fresh Greptile review for `506b7fa2d83c36bfa5fd722ee9d95b0c7431c241` reports 5/5, “safe to merge,” with no blocking failure remaining. ## Risks - A probe or redaction change could hide useful server diagnostics. - An allowlist change could reject a valid Claude login URL. - Cleanup recovery changes could affect provider teardown ordering. - An environment with a live reusable sandbox can no longer be deleted until the owning issue or execution workspace completes teardown. - The implementation keeps public Test messages fixed and sends detail to redacted server logs. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex — exact model ID: GPT-5; tool use and code execution enabled; extended reasoning enabled. The implementation author used AI-assisted development. ## 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 documented the result - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation or confirmed no separate documentation change is needed - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-17 13:42:51 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	3061ce6901	feat(sandbox): stream session output by capability, drop three operator flags (#11557 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Sandboxed agents use provider capabilities to select safe execution paths > - Session output still depends on three operator flags that duplicate capability data > - Duplicate flags can drift from the verified sandbox capability snapshot > - This pull request makes the capability snapshot the only streaming decision and removes the obsolete flags > - The benefit is default streaming with a poll fallback when a capability or stream fails ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? ACP sandbox session-output streaming and sandbox execution configuration. Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (multiple of the above): server/, packages/shared/, packages/adapter-utils/, and packages/plugins/. Current behavior Session-output streaming requires operator flags in the server and Daytona plugin configuration. Saved configurations can retain a removed key. Proposed behavior The verified capability snapshot selects streaming. The Daytona plugin uses persistent sessions by default, keeps bypass commands one-shot, and falls back from the log stream to polling. Removed configuration keys become inert. Reason and benefit One capability source prevents configuration drift. The fallback keeps output available when capability resolution or log streaming fails. Breaking changes The three operator flags no longer control session-output streaming. Existing saved keys load but have no effect. ## What Changed - Remove `useSessions` and `useLogStream` from the Daytona plugin configuration and manifest. - Remove `streamAgentSessionOutput` from server configuration, shared types, and execution-target plumbing. - Select streaming from `persistentProcessSessions` and `independentControlCommands`. - Keep poll fallback on capability resolution failure and stream failure. - Strip removed keys from strict fake-sandbox and catchall plugin configuration. - Update the sandbox capability documentation and focused tests. ## Verification - `tsc --noEmit` passed in `packages/shared`, `packages/adapter-utils`, `server`, and the Daytona plugin. - Daytona `plugin.test.ts` passed 139 tests. - Server capability, configuration, route, and runtime suites passed 160 tests. - `packages/adapter-utils` `execution-target-sandbox.test.ts` passed 44 tests. - The capability matrix covers stream, poll, and resolution-failure paths. - Removed-key tests cover strict fake-sandbox and catchall plugin schemas. ## Risks - A capability snapshot that lacks either required session capability uses polling. - A log stream failure uses polling and can increase request count. - Existing removed configuration keys no longer change behavior. - The isolated-worktree Daytona Vitest run has a pre-existing missing `packages/adapters/droid-local` reference. CI and standard checkouts use the committed configuration. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code review assistance. The exact runtime context window is managed by the Codex platform. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-17 13:25:30 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	e71ce9a9d3	feat: sandbox provider capability contract with fail-closed effective resolution (#11463 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip runs work through adapters and sandbox providers > - Providers need a clear contract so the server can use only verified capabilities > - A declared capability must not grant a method that the live worker did not verify > - This pull request adds manifest declarations and fail-closed effective capability resolution > - The benefit is safe provider reuse across execution targets and run lifecycles ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) Problem or motivation Sandbox providers expose different runtime methods. The server needs one safe capability contract that accounts for provider declarations, worker verification, and narrowing configuration. Proposed solution Add strict manifest validation for five sandbox capabilities. Resolve effective capabilities as the subset of verified, declared, and narrowed values. Store the result as a frozen execution-target snapshot. Alternatives considered Trusting the manifest alone could grant methods that the worker does not support. Trusting only a fixed built-in list would reject valid third-party providers. The intersection rule keeps the verified runtime ceiling and supports both provider types. Roadmap alignment This change supports the ACP run lifecycle track and the sandbox provider contract work in the current roadmap. Additional context The legacy `supportsReusableLeases` field remains supported. The nested capability validator rejects unknown keys. Missing or unavailable verification resolves all capabilities to `false`. ## What Changed - Add strict `sandboxCapabilities` manifest validation with legacy reusable-lease compatibility. - Carry declarations through the ready-driver projection. - Add fail-closed effective resolution from verified, declared, and narrowed capabilities. - Add narrowing for provider configuration, Kubernetes Job leases, and Daytona sessions. - Add a frozen read-only capability snapshot to execution targets. - Add focused tests and keep existing characterization baselines covered. - Add and update sandbox provider capability documentation. ## Verification - `npx vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts` - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-environment-driver-sandbox-capabilities.test.ts` - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/sandbox-capability-contract.test.ts` - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-execution-target-capabilities.test.ts` - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/startup-characterization.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/turn-characterization.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/settlement-characterization.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/composed-run-characterization.test.ts` - Package typechecks for shared, server, and adapter-utils pass. - Stage-2 security review suites pass with 28 tests. ## Risks The resolver fails closed when verification is absent or unavailable. Providers that rely on undeclared capabilities may see narrower behavior until they expose verified worker methods. The change does not alter the existing native-sync guard. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, exact runtime model ID `gpt-5`, tool use and code execution. The implementation author used this model to assist with the change. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-17 10:55:40 -07:00
Dotta	f4802b1bbc	feat(runtime-exposure): least-privilege Tailscale HTTPS broker, shared contract, and persisted exposure state (#11524 ) <!-- Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100). --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip starts and supervises managed runtime services for a project's execution workspaces, so an agent's branch can be previewed while it works > - Those services only listen on plain loopback HTTP. A person on another device, or on a phone, cannot open the preview > - A Tailscale HTTPS mapping solves this, but `tailscale serve` needs host privileges that the Paperclip server process must not hold > - This pull request adds the foundation only: a separate least-privilege host broker, the shared exposure contract, and the database columns that hold exposure state > - Nothing calls the broker yet, so there is no behavior change. The benefit is that the privileged surface is small, reviewable, and isolated before any lifecycle code depends on it ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. The change follows the feature request template. Subsystem affected Managed workspace runtime services, the shared type and validator package, and the database schema. Problem or motivation A managed runtime service binds to loopback only. There is no supported way to reach that preview from another device. Adding HTTPS directly to the server would mean the server process runs `tailscale serve`, which needs privileges far wider than the task requires. A compromised or buggy server could then map any port to the tailnet. Proposed solution Split the privileged work into a separate broker process with a narrow protocol, and define one shared contract that the server, the UI, the runtime, and the broker all read. Land this foundation first, with no caller, so the privileged code can be reviewed on its own. Alternatives considered - Call `tailscale serve` from the server process. This was rejected because it gives the server unrestricted mapping authority. - Use `sudo` for single `tailscale` commands. This was rejected because the argument list is the only guard, and it is easy to widen by accident. - Use a generic reverse proxy. This was rejected because it does not remove the need for a privileged Tailscale mapping step. Roadmap alignment This supports the existing managed workspace runtime capability. It adds no new product surface on its own. Additional context The broker is the security boundary of the feature, so it is deliberately the first slice. Three later pull requests build on it: the server exposure lifecycle, the runtime lease and recovery integration, and the leased-port mediator. ## What Changed - Add the `@paperclipai/tailscale-https-broker` workspace package. The broker listens on a unix socket, authorizes each peer with `SO_PEERCRED`, and answers a small request protocol. - Restrict what the broker will map. It accepts only same-number HTTPS-to-loopback pairs inside the Paperclip port range, refuses protected ports, and confirms that the loopback port belongs to a Paperclip-owned listener. - Parse every request with a strict JSON reader that rejects duplicate keys, prototype keys, and unknown fields. - Write an append-only audit record for each broker decision. - Add the shared exposure contract in `@paperclipai/shared`: the `RuntimeExposureConfig`, `RuntimeExposureState`, and `RuntimeExposureStatus` types, their zod validators, the app and HMR port rules, and the loopback-bind helpers. - Persist exposure state on `workspace_runtime_services` with the new `exposure` column, plus the server-private `exposure_handle` and `backend_url` columns that are never serialized to API clients. - Add the `execution_workspace_runtime_leases` table that the later lease slice uses. - Extend the runtime read-model test fixture for the three new columns. ## Verification Focused checks, all run on this branch: - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/tailscale-https-broker test` — 12 files, 82 tests pass. This covers peer credentials, port policy, protected ports, the serve config writer, the strict JSON reader, argv parsing, and the socket server. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/tailscale-https-broker typecheck` — clean. - `npx vitest run --root packages/shared src/runtime-exposure src/validators/runtime-exposure.test.ts` — 3 files, 40 tests pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — runs `check:migrations` first. Migration numbering and migration safety both pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean. - `npx vitest run --root server src/services/workspace-runtime-read-model.test.ts` — 3 tests pass. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` — 139 errors, which is exactly the count on `master` before this branch. All 139 come from the unbuilt `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` package. To confirm the exposure state is inert, start a managed runtime service as usual. The new columns stay null and the service behaves as it does today. ## Risks - Migration risk is low. Both migrations only add a table and three nullable columns. No column is backfilled and no existing column changes. The migration safety check passes. - Behavior risk is low. No code path calls the broker in this pull request, and the shared exposure fields are optional. - The broker is privileged, so it is the real risk surface. It is mitigated by peer-credential authorization, a fixed port range, a protected-port deny list, same-number pair enforcement, listener-ownership checks, strict JSON parsing, and an audit trail. Reviewers should read `packages/tailscale-https-broker/src/authorization.ts` and `src/port-policy.ts` closely. - The broker requires a `tailscale` version floor, which its README records. An older host CLI makes the broker refuse to start rather than map incorrectly. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes because a new workspace package is added. The diff is the new importer block, plus one duplicate `tinyexec` entry that pnpm removed. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context window, extended thinking, 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 - [ ] 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	2026-08-17 05:54:12 -04:00
DottaandPaperclip	10d0555189	fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. What happened? Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. Expected behavior Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. Steps to reproduce 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. Paperclip version or commit The problem exists on `master` before this change. Deployment mode Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, 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 linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-16 13:46:50 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9e9f744f58	Show blocker links in the task chat (#11456 ) <!-- 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 helps operators supervise agent work through tasks and task threads. > - The redesigned task thread shows the current work and its state. > - A blocked task did not show the dependency that prevented progress. > - Operators had to leave the thread to find the direct and final blockers. > - This pull request adds compact blocker links at the top and bottom of the task thread. > - The benefit is that operators can identify and open the relevant tasks without adding a large notice to the thread. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The redesigned task thread did not show which task directly blocked the current task or which task ultimately blocked its dependency chain. Subsystem affected `server/`, `packages/shared/`, and `ui/` task-blocker presentation. Current behavior A blocked task can open in the redesigned thread without a visible dependency link at the top or bottom of the conversation. Proposed behavior Show one compact amber row for the direct blocker. Show a second row for the selected final blocker when one exists. Render the rows at both ends of the thread. Reason and benefit Operators can see the reason for the blocked state and open the relevant task from the conversation. The compact rows preserve thread density. Breaking changes None. The new blocker-attention fields are optional. Existing clients remain compatible. ## What Changed - Added a compact task-chat component for direct and selected final blocker links. - Added the blocker rows to the top and bottom of populated and empty task threads. - Added link-ready blocker-attention details so an intermediate selected task stays on its correct direct chain. - Included blocker-link changes in the thread content key so pinned threads follow a newly added bottom row. - Added component, scrolling, server contract, and Storybook coverage for the new states. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts` (38 tests passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks - Low risk. The rows only render while the task status is `blocked` and an unresolved blocker is available. - Long titles are truncated to keep each blocker on one line. The full task label remains available in the link title. - Older server payloads keep the original leaf-selection behavior because the new sampled details are optional. > 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 run used tool-enabled reasoning and code execution. The context-window size was not exposed to the 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>	2026-08-16 13:09:17 -04:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	e52b8a343f	fix: ACP run lifecycle corrections — failure settlement, workspace sync-back, lease cleanup (#11454 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent adapters run ACP sessions and manage runtime, workspace, and lease resources. > - Several failure paths left runtime bridges, staged workspaces, or environment leases active after an error. > - These leaks reduce run reliability and can leave later runs without clean resources. > - This pull request closes the failure paths, applies one teardown policy, and adds regression tests. > - The benefit is consistent failure settlement and safer reuse of agent workspaces and leases. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? ACP runs could leave runtime bridges, staged workspaces, or environment leases active after failures. Claude and Gemini ACP runs did not restore the sandbox workspace on teardown. Lease release stopped when one lease returned an error. Expected behavior Each ACP failure must return an error result and settle its resources. Teardown must run each step, release leases independently, and restore the host workspace when the sandbox ends. Pending cleanup leases must receive bounded retry attempts. Steps to reproduce 1. Run an ACP session that fails after runtime creation or during turn preparation. 2. Run an ACP session that fails during a warm hit or staged runtime handoff. 3. Run lease cleanup with more than one lease when the first release returns an error. 4. Inspect the result phase, teardown calls, workspace state, and lease metadata. 5. Run the regression suites listed in the Verification section. ## What Changed - Settle every ACP failure after runtime creation with an error result and one sandbox.startup span closure. - Close the ACP runtime and remove warm entries after every pre-turn failure. - Run all teardown steps, record teardown errors, release staging leases in finally, and prevent duplicate teardown. - Dispose staged runtimes after seam failures and remove borrowed staged entries with identity guards. - Add fail-open workspace sync-back teardown for Claude and Gemini ACP adapters. - Isolate lease release errors and add bounded retry sweeps for stranded pending_cleanup leases. - Atomically claim pending_cleanup retries and clamp attempt readers to keep the five-attempt bound. - Default absent provider reusableLeases values to false and align the fake provider with its runtime declaration. - Add regression tests for engine, adapter, server, and shared environment behavior. ## Verification - [x] `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts` — 124 tests passed. - [x] `npx vitest run packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/acp.test.ts packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/acp.test.ts packages/adapters/gemini-local/src/server/acp.test.ts` — 61 tests passed. - [x] `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-pending-cleanup-sweep.test.ts server/src/__tests__/reusable-leases-default.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts packages/shared/src/environment-support.test.ts` — passed. - [x] All listed suites ran from the repository root. - [x] GitHub CI completed successfully for `cfc349c9f232711433897915112a1c52c0e462ca`. - [x] Greptile completed with a 5/5 confidence score and no blocking finding. ## Risks The engine changes affect failure settlement and teardown order across ACP runs. The server changes add retry state to existing lease metadata without a schema migration. The adapter changes restore workspaces after sandbox execution. Regression tests cover the changed paths. GitHub CI and Greptile passed for the current head. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. This change fixes runtime reliability and does not duplicate a roadmap feature. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex. The model used tool-based repository inspection, GitHub operations, and code review support. The runtime does not expose a context-window value. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have 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 (for example, `docs/...` or `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-15 18:52:08 -07:00
scotttongandPaperclip	eabecc6f77	feat(annotations): include issue document annotations in agent review context (#11332 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Reviewers annotate plans and issue documents with inline comments, and assigned agents act on that feedback > - The server already builds a bounded review context from open plan annotations and includes it in agent wake payloads > - Non-plan issue documents did not get the same treatment: their open annotation threads never reached the agent, and the properties pane did not surface their annotations > - This pull request extends the review-context path and the properties-pane UI to issue documents, at parity with plans > - The benefit is that agent feedback on any issue document reaches the assigned agent, not only feedback on the plan ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The review-context pipeline that delivers inline annotation feedback to assigned agents, and the properties pane that surfaces those annotations to reviewers. Subsystem affected The server review-context path (`server/src/services/plan-review-context.ts`, wake payload assembly in `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`, `server/src/routes/issues.ts`), shared wake-payload types (`packages/shared`, `packages/adapter-utils`), and the issue properties pane (`ui/src/components/issue-properties/`). Current behavior A reviewer can annotate any issue document, not only the plan. The agent wake payload includes open annotation threads for the plan document only. Feedback left on other issue documents is invisible to the assigned agent. In the properties pane, the Artifacts tab also gives no way to see or open a document's annotations. Proposed behavior Add `buildDocumentReviewContext` beside the existing plan builder. It collects open annotation threads for all non-plan issue documents, applies the same thread, comment, and character budgets across documents, and reports truncation. Include the result as a new `documentReviewContext` field in agent wake payloads and in the issue wake-context route. Keep the plan context on its legacy builder and field so plan-only wakes stay byte-for-byte compatible. Render the new context in the adapter wake-payload text, and surface annotation counts and the annotation panel for documents in the properties pane's Plans and Artifacts tabs. Reason and benefit The floating annotation popover and persistent highlight UI landed earlier; this change completes the loop so agent feedback on any issue document reaches the assigned agent, not only feedback on the plan. Breaking changes None. The wake payload gains a new optional `documentReviewContext` field; the existing plan context field and its legacy builder are unchanged, so plan-only wakes stay byte-for-byte compatible. ## What Changed - Add `buildDocumentReviewContext` in `server/src/services/plan-review-context.ts`: bounded review context (shared thread/comment/character budgets, per-document legacy limits) over all non-plan issue documents - Include `documentReviewContext` in agent wake payloads (`server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`) and in the issue wake-context response (`server/src/routes/issues.ts`) - Add shared `DocumentReviewContext` / `DocumentReviewContextDocument` types in `packages/shared` - Normalize and render the new context in adapter wake-payload text (`packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts`), with tests - Show a `DocumentAnnotationsCountChip` and the annotation panel for documents in the properties pane Plans and Artifacts tabs, with tests - Extend server document-annotations service tests to cover the new context builder ## Verification - Run `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/document-annotations-service.test.ts` from the repo root — 104 tests pass - Run `TZ=UTC npx vitest run ui/src/components/issue-properties/IssuePropertiesDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotationPopover.test.tsx` from the repo root — 75 tests pass (one pre-existing monitor-row case asserts UTC timestamps, so use `TZ=UTC` locally; CI runs in UTC) - `pnpm run typecheck` in `server/` passes - Manual: annotate a non-plan issue document, then wake the assigned agent with a comment — the wake payload lists the open document annotation threads; the Artifacts tab shows the annotation count chip and opens the panel ## Risks - The wake payload gains a new optional `documentReviewContext` field; consumers that ignore unknown fields are unaffected, and the plan context field is unchanged - The context is new input to agent wakes; shared budgets (same limits as the plan context) bound token cost across all documents - Low UI risk: the properties-pane changes reuse the existing annotation components > 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 (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5), with extended thinking and agentic tool use (Claude Code 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 (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-13 14:23:09 -07:00
Tonio Paperclip Claude Opus 5	f0e6c0f549	feat(server): receive and apply the Paperclip Cloud onboarding seed (#11098 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud provisions a dedicated tenant stack for each customer. During signup it asks for a mission, a name and role for the first agent, and a first task. > - Cloud pushes those answers into the new stack at activation, as `POST /api/companies/:companyId/onboarding-seed`. > - No route served that path. The tenant answered 404, so Cloud recorded the push as unacknowledged and retried on every portfolio fetch. > - The failure was soft. The answers stayed durable in Cloud and the stack still activated. But the stack opened on the empty first-run wizard, and it asked the customer again for what they had already given. > - This pull request adds the receiving endpoint. It validates the seed, applies it, and acknowledges it. > - The benefit is that a seeded stack opens with the mission, the agent and the first task already in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue covers this. The problem is described in-PR, following the feature template. Subsystem affected server/ — Express REST API and orchestration services. Also `packages/db` (one new table) and `packages/shared` (one new validator). Problem or motivation Paperclip Cloud collects onboarding answers at signup and pushes them to the tenant stack at activation. The tenant had no route for that request. It answered 404. Cloud treats a non-2xx as "not yet applied", so it kept the answers and retried, but the stack itself stayed unseeded. A customer who had already named their mission, their first agent and their first task arrived at an empty first-run wizard that asked for all three again. Proposed solution Serve `POST /api/companies/:companyId/onboarding-seed`. Validate the body, apply it to the company, then acknowledge it. The seed is customer free text, so it is bounded and validated in `packages/shared` and read from the JSON body only. It is never read from an `x-paperclip-cloud-` header. That header set is the trusted identity envelope: every member is derived server-side from the host plus verified domain records, and that is exactly what makes it trustworthy. Mixing user content into it would remove the property. A test plants a mission on a cloud header and asserts that the body value wins. Application reuses the shapes the first-run wizard already produces, so a seeded stack and a manually onboarded one look the same afterwards: - The mission becomes the company-level goal. A multi-line mission splits into a title and a description, as the wizard does. - The agent becomes the company's first hire. Its free-text role ("Chief of Staff") lands on `title`. The structural `role` stays `ceo`, which is what the org chart and the default-instructions lookup read. - The first task becomes an issue in the Onboarding project, assigned to that agent. Cloud retries until it gets a 2xx, and it reads any 2xx as "the tenant holds this content". So the endpoint is idempotent per `revision`. A new `company_onboarding_seeds` table records the applied revision together with the goal, the agent and the issue it produced. A replay of a revision that already matches is a successful no-op. A later revision — the customer edited their answers — updates those three rows in place instead of creating a second agent and a second task. The record is written last, after every other write has landed, so a partial application cannot present itself as acknowledged. Everything is applied before the 200 is sent. This is an ordering guarantee, not eventual consistency. The tests read the database immediately after the response, with no waiting and no polling, so a lazy receiver fails them on a fast machine as well as a slow one. That matters because the redirect into the tenant dashboard is gated on this acknowledgement. Alternatives considered* Store the seed and let the tenant UI apply it on first load. Rejected: the dashboard redirect is gated on the acknowledgement, so a background apply would let the dashboard open before the agent and the task exist. The whole point is that it must not. Reuse `POST /companies/:companyId/agents` and `POST /companies/:companyId/issues` over HTTP from Cloud. Rejected: it needs three round trips with no shared idempotency key, and it moves the "did all of it land?" decision to the caller. Roadmap alignment This completes an existing Cloud-to-tenant contract. It does not add a new user-facing surface. ## What Changed - Add `POST /api/companies/:companyId/onboarding-seed` in `server/src/routes/onboarding-seed.ts`. It authenticates exactly as `POST /api/companies/:companyId/logo` does, through `assertCompanyAccess`. - Add `server/src/services/onboarding-seed.ts`. It applies the mission, the agent and the first task, and records the applied revision last. - Add the `company_onboarding_seeds` table: schema, migration `0216`, and journal entry. It holds the applied revision and the ids of the goal, agent and issue the seed produced. - Add `applyOnboardingSeedSchema` in `packages/shared`. It bounds mission to 2000, agent name to 80, agent role to 120, task title to 200, and task details to 2000 — the same limits Cloud enforces before it sends. - Mount the router in `server/src/app.ts` and register the path in the OpenAPI document. - Add `server/src/__tests__/onboarding-seed-route.test.ts` with 13 tests. - The seeded agent is created on `claude_local`. This mirrors the teams-catalog default for agents created server-side, where no human runs an environment test first. `PAPERCLIP_ONBOARDING_SEED_ADAPTER_TYPE` overrides it. ## Verification ```sh pnpm typecheck # whole workspace, passes npx vitest run \ server/src/__tests__/onboarding-seed-route.test.ts \ server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts # 15 passed ``` The suite runs against embedded Postgres with migrations applied, so migration `0216` is exercised by every test. The route tests cover: - the happy path — mission, agent and task all applied, read immediately after the 200 - replay of the same revision — no second agent, no second task, no second goal, no second project - a later revision — the goal, agent and task are updated in place - a multi-line mission splitting into a goal title and description - a revision-only seed - the activity log entry written once, and not again on a replay - a caller without access to the company — 403, and nothing written - a body with no revision — 400 - each field bound past its limit — 400 - a mission planted on an `x-paperclip-cloud-` header — ignored, body wins - an existing Onboarding project — reused, not duplicated Not verified here: the full Cloud-to-tenant walk against a live stack. That needs a deployed Cloud and a provisioned tenant together, which is separate staging work. ## Risks Migration `0216` creates one new table. It adds no column to an existing table, rewrites nothing, and backfills nothing, so it is safe to apply online. The migration safety check passes. The endpoint writes to a company. Access is enforced by `assertCompanyAccess`, the same gate the company logo write uses, and a test covers the denial. Behavioral note for stacks that already hold data. If a company already has a non-built-in `ceo` agent, a first seed updates that agent's name and title rather than creating a second lead. Likewise a seed adopts an existing company-level goal rather than adding a parallel one. This is deliberate: the seed is the customer's own stated answer from signup, and two competing missions or two leads would be worse than one updated in place. In the intended case — a stack that Cloud has just activated — none of these exist yet. The seeded agent is created on `claude_local` with an empty adapter config. It is idle and needs the usual credential setup before it runs. Seeding it does not start it. ## Update — rebased onto master + review hardening Master moved on after this PR was cut, so it was rebased onto `master`* and the seed migration was renumbered from `0212` to `0216` (the merged #11101 took `0212_onboarding_first_task_unique`); the drizzle journal was re-stitched and `check:migrations` passes. Two things landed on top of the original receiver: - Mission-only walk contract (PAP-67 r17.4). The tenant now owns the first agent and the first task via #11101's server-owned onboarding path, which stamps `ONBOARDING_FIRST_TASK_ORIGIN_KIND` and races safely on the partial unique index `issues_onboarding_first_task_uq`. A comment in the apply path documents why this receiver leaves the first task to that path on the cloud walk, and a paperclip-cloud `node:test` (`src/onboarding/walk-seed.test.ts`) asserts the walk's seed carries no `agent`/`firstTask`. The receiver retains the agent/first-task code for its documented body contract, kept inert on the cloud path by the mission-only seed. - Three Greptile P1 fixes (`95622fa37`): concurrent application is now serialized under a per-company `pg_advisory_xact_lock` (no duplicate goal/agent/project/task on overlapping pushes); a revised first task carries its resolved `assigneeAgentId`/`goalId`; and the `company.onboarding_seed_applied` audit write is best-effort so a logging failure can't leave the entry permanently absent. Two new regression tests cover the first two. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context window, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. Used for the original codebase investigation, the implementation, and the tests. The rebase, migration renumber, mission-only contract, and the three P1 fixes were done with Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, 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 - [ ] 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>	2026-08-12 22:54:07 -07:00
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 4.8	04bf7a6ab5	feat(observability): instrument stage.sync host steps and home the agent process span (#11301 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - It runs each agent in a remote sandbox and emits OpenTelemetry spans for the sandbox bring-up and the run. > - A real trace showed two gaps. `stage.sync` had about 3 seconds of unattributed host work before its `pack` span. The persistent agent process showed a `sandbox.exec` span that outlived its parent by about 50 seconds. > - The gaps hide real cost and make the trace read as a sequencing bug, so an operator cannot see where startup time goes. > - This pull request wraps the two pre-`pack` host steps in their own spans. It also homes the long-lived process in a run-scoped `sandbox.agentProcess` span. > - The benefit is that startup time is fully attributed and the process reads as a resource that overlaps the turn, not a child that outlives its parent. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. This is an enhancement to existing telemetry. It is described inline below, following `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml`. Prior related work: the merged PR #10999 added the run-time wrapper spans and the telemetry data-contract section this PR extends. What existing behavior does this improve? The sandbox bring-up and run OpenTelemetry trace. It closes two attribution gaps in that trace. Subsystem affected Observability for sandbox execution. The code lives in `packages/adapter-utils`. The span contract lives in `packages/shared/src/telemetry`. Current behavior `stage.sync` opens a `pack` span, but the git enumeration and the baseline content-hash walk that run before `pack` have no span, so about 3 seconds read as a gap. On the streamed process-session path the agent process launches fire-and-forget inside the ~2.3 second `bridge.process-session` bring-up step, so its `sandbox.exec` span parents to that step and then runs about 50 seconds. The child dangles past its parent and overlaps `agent.turn`. Proposed behavior Wrap the two pre-`pack` host operations in `snapshot.git` and `snapshot.baseline` spans under `stage.sync`. Wrap the streamed launch in a run-scoped `sandbox.agentProcess` span that parents to the live run root (`task.run` at launch). Reason and benefit Startup time is fully attributed. The long-lived process reads as a resource that overlaps the sibling `agent.turn`, not a mis-parented child. Breaking changes None. The spans are opt-in and export only when an OTLP endpoint is configured. The span seam is a no-op when no runner is injected. No first-party telemetry event changes. ## What Changed - `sandbox-managed-runtime.ts`: add `snapshot.git` and `snapshot.baseline` spans around the git enumeration and the baseline content-hash walk, nested under `stage.sync`, through a shared `runStepSpan` helper that `pack` now also uses. - `execution-target.ts`: wrap the fire-and-forget streamed launch in a run-rooted `sandbox.agentProcess` span, so it parents to the live run root and holds the inner `sandbox.exec`. The `.then`/`.catch` chain became try/catch inside the span callback, with identical frame-ingestion behavior. - `packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md`: update the span table and the parenting prose. Add `snapshot.git`, `snapshot.baseline`, `pack`, and `sandbox.agentProcess`, and document the intended `sandbox.agentProcess` / `agent.turn` overlap. - Tests: update the executor span-tree test (`childNames` and parent assertions), update the `sandbox-managed-runtime` span-set and nesting tests, and add two `execution-target-sandbox` tests (the launch opens `sandbox.agentProcess`; it parents to the run root, not the bring-up step). ## Verification - Run `npx vitest run` on the three affected test files. Result: 174 tests pass. This includes the updated executor span-tree test and the new `sandbox.agentProcess` open and parenting tests. - Run `tsc --noEmit` in `packages/adapter-utils`. Result: no errors in the changed source or test files. - The full 37-test streamed process-session suite passes unchanged. This confirms the try/catch restructure preserves frame delivery and exit/error behavior. - Pre-existing and unrelated to this PR (present on `master`): `tsc` errors in `execute.ts` / `execute.test.ts` / `remote-spawn-smoke.test.ts` (`onAgentStderr` / `spawnCwd`), and a `check:forbidden-tokens` failure from internal `PAP-###` ids in `ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx`. This PR does not touch those files, and its own diff is token-clean. ## Risks Low. The change adds instrumentation on the opt-in span path and does not change control flow on the default path. The one production restructure is the streamed launch, which stays fire-and-forget, so bring-up does not block on it. Only the streamed path gains `sandbox.agentProcess`; the legacy poll path launches the process detached and has no host-side long-lived span to home. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), about 200K-token context, agentic tool use through Claude Code. The trace was reviewed through the Honeycomb MCP. The code was written and tested with the model. ## 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>	2026-08-12 16:06:05 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	e5a7fd7038	Add sandbox device-login for the Codex adapter (#11237 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Agent adapters connect Paperclip to tools such as the Codex command line tool. > - A sandboxed Codex agent may start without a credential. > - The operator needs a safe sign-in flow that does not expose credentials to the shared package or the sandbox. > - This pull request adds a company-scoped device-login flow with a temporary Daytona sandbox. > - The flow promotes the credential only after readiness checks pass and removes the temporary sandbox after use. > - The result lets an operator sign in to a sandboxed Codex agent from the agent form. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) Problem or motivation A Codex adapter that runs in a sandbox cannot authenticate when the company has no pre-provisioned Codex credential. Proposed solution Add a company-scoped device-login session. Start a temporary sandbox, run `codex login --device-auth`, stream the code and URL, verify readiness, promote the credential, and delete the sandbox. Alternatives considered Pre-provisioning a credential does not support first-time sandbox login. Keeping the credential in the login sandbox does not provide a durable company credential. Roadmap alignment This supports the roadmap item for cloud and sandbox agents. Additional context The flow uses a five-minute cleanup reaper, compare-and-set status changes, and a PostgreSQL advisory lock to protect promotion and cleanup. ## What Changed - Add the adapter login-session contract, database table, and migration. - Add company-scoped server routes and a service for sandbox device login. - Add credential promotion, readiness checks, and cleanup after login. - Add restart-safe cleanup for abandoned login sandboxes. - Add sandbox login controls to the agent creation and edit forms. - Keep device-login and vendor identifiers out of public shared and adapter UI symbols. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local exec vitest run` passed with 310 tests at the submitted commit. - The server login route, service, and reaper tests passed with 45 tests at the submitted commit. - The agent form render tests passed with 26 tests at the submitted commit. - The public-symbol leak check passed at the submitted commit. - A live Daytona sign-in flow still requires confirmation by a user with a live sandbox. ## Risks The migration adds a new company-scoped table. A promotion or cleanup race could remove a credential or leave a sandbox active, so the service uses claims, compare-and-set transitions, and an advisory lock. The live Daytona flow needs operator confirmation because local tests do not provide a real browser sign-in. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code execution, extended reasoning. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-12 08:58:25 -07:00
Devin Foley	23a1b025c2	feat(server): chunked resumable company import transfers (#11223 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Company import moves large packages into an instance, and since the upload cap rose to 1 GB, the transport is the weak point: one HTTP request, buffered fully in memory, with no resume > - A dropped connection at 90% of an 800 MB upload starts the whole transfer over, and a server restart loses all progress > - This pull request adds the server side of chunked resumable import transfers: a durable run ledger and routes that accept the same import zip as verified ~32 MB parts spooled to disk > - An interrupted transfer resumes from the parts already uploaded — across dropped connections, page refreshes, and server restarts — and peak upload memory drops from the whole package to one part > - The benefit is that large imports become reliable on real-world connections instead of all-or-nothing ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Large company imports travel as a single HTTP upload. On a slow or flaky connection, any interruption discards all progress and the upload restarts from zero. The server buffers the entire compressed package in memory during upload. A server restart mid-upload loses the transfer entirely. With the upload cap now at 1 GB, these failure modes govern exactly the imports the cap was raised for. Expected behavior A large import upload survives interruptions: already-transferred data is kept and verified, only the missing remainder is re-sent, and the server's memory use during upload is bounded by a part, not the package. Steps to reproduce 1. Import a multi-hundred-MB company package over a connection that drops mid-upload. 2. The upload fails; retrying starts from byte zero. 3. Repeat on an unstable connection and the import may never complete. ## What Changed - New `company_transfer_runs` table (drizzle schema + migration) and `companyTransferRunService`: one row per transfer with a content-derived idempotency key, per-part completion recorded atomically and idempotently, resume scoped to actor and direction, completed runs short-circuiting retries of identical content. - New transfer routes beside the existing import routes, same authorization: declare a sliced zip (`POST /import/transfers` — validates cap, 64 MB part ceiling, contiguity, size sums, sha256 format), upload parts (`PUT .../parts/:n` — raw body, hash-and-size verified before an atomic write to a disk spool under the instance root; re-uploads are no-op successes), poll resume state (`GET .../:id` — missing parts recomputed from disk), and apply (`POST .../:id/apply` — requires all parts, re-verifies the assembled zip against the whole-file hash fail-closed, then feeds the existing import pipeline through factored helpers rather than duplicated logic). - Hourly sweep fails and cleans spools idle for 24 h; a swept transfer honestly reports all parts missing on resume. - Strict UUID gating on run ids before any filesystem path construction. - The existing single-shot upload path is untouched; clients arrive in the follow-up PR. ## Verification - Transfer route suite (embedded Postgres): create/upload/status/apply round-trip with a real imported company, out-of-order parts, wrong-hash part rejected and unrecorded, re-upload no-op, apply-with-missing-parts rejection, resume after failure with prior progress intact, assembled-hash mismatch failing closed with spool deletion, actor scoping 404s, async-job apply, sweep followed by honest resume. - Ledger suite (embedded Postgres): part idempotency, actor/direction scoping, completed-run short-circuit, cancelled runs staying cancelled. - Existing portability route suite unchanged and green; server + db typechecks clean. Exact counts in the PR checks. ## Risks - New routes are additive; the existing import path is untouched. The transfer routes carry the same board authorization as the import routes they sit beside. - Disk spool: bounded by the existing upload cap per transfer, cleaned on success, failure, hash mismatch, and by the 24 h sweep. Spool paths are strict-UUID-gated. - The apply step still materializes the assembled zip in memory once (same profile as today's single-shot import at apply time); upload-time memory drops to one part. - Known limitation, deliberate: transfers are keyed on content alone, so identical package content cannot be imported twice without re-exporting (surfaced explicitly to the caller). Acceptable for v1; noted for review. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) via Claude Code CLI, with extended thinking and tool use (multi-agent implementation with independent verification). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-08-11 15:25:07 -07:00
Devin Foley	0044fa8904	Let tenants edit env vars on managed sandbox environments; add managed-sandbox-only mode (#11200 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Environments give each agent run an execution target: the local host, SSH, or a sandbox provider > - A managed deployment can provision one platform-managed sandbox environment through the `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG` `environments` section > - That row is fully locked today. A tenant cannot add environment variables for their agents. There is also no way to hide local execution — run selection falls back to the local row > - A platform that manages the sandbox for its tenants needs both: the tenant adds env vars (and nothing else), and local execution is neither visible nor reachable > - This pull request opens exactly one tenant edit (env vars) on the managed sandbox row, and adds an `enableManagedSandboxOnly` mode that hides local and makes run selection fail closed > - The benefit is a complete managed-sandbox experience with no change for self-hosted instances ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Environments (managed sandbox provisioning, environment routes, run environment selection) and the environments UI. Problem or motivation Platform-provisioned sandbox environments (`metadata.managedByPaperclip`) reject every write on cloud-managed instances. Agents often need environment variables inside their sandbox. The tenant has no way to set them on the managed row. Separately, an operator cannot remove local execution: the environment list always shows the local row, and run selection falls back to it when no default is set. Proposed solution Allow an envVars-only PATCH on the managed sandbox row, and echo those env vars back for editing. Add a managed-tier feature (`enableManagedSandboxOnly`) that hides the local environment from all read surfaces and redirects local-landing run selection to the managed sandbox environment, failing closed when it is unavailable. Alternatives considered UI-only hiding of the local row. This was rejected: it does not stop a run from resolving to local, so it is presentation without enforcement. Full unlock of the managed row was also rejected: name, driver, and config stay platform-owned so boot reconciliation cannot fight tenant edits. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/environments.ts`: the platform-provisioned write floor admits an envVars-only PATCH on the generalized managed sandbox row (sandbox driver, `managedByPaperclip`, not legacy kubernetes-marker rows). Name, driver, config, status, metadata, and DELETE stay rejected. The read floor stops blanking env vars on that row; credential-shaped config keys stay redacted for every actor. Legacy kubernetes-marker rows keep the full floor. - Same file: under `enableManagedSandboxOnly`, the environments list and the by-id read omit the local row for every actor, including instance admins. - `server/src/services/execution-workspace-policy.ts`: `resolveExecutionWorkspaceEnvironmentId` gains the managed-sandbox-only inputs. A selection that lands on the local environment is redirected to the managed sandbox environment. With no active managed row it throws `ManagedSandboxUnavailableError` — never local. Non-local selections (ssh, user-created sandboxes) are untouched. - `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`: the run path reads the flag, looks up the managed row (`findManagedSandboxEnvironment`, new read-only finder in `environments.ts`), and passes both to the resolver. Mirrors the forced-kubernetes precedent, which keeps precedence when both regimes are on. - `server/src/services/managed-environments.ts`: after a successful reconcile, the instance default environment moves to the managed sandbox row when the current default is unset, local, or dangling. A tenant-chosen custom environment is never overridden. - `packages/shared`: new `enableManagedSandboxOnly` key (schema default false, catalog tier `managed`, cloudDefault false, selfHostedDefault false) and the matching interface field. - UI: managed rows show a "Managed by Paperclip" lock badge; editing one opens a dedicated env-vars-only editor that sends the one PATCH shape the server admits (the old full form failed with a 403 on save). New `ui/src/lib/managed-sandbox-environment.ts` mirrors the local filter for cached lists (applied in the project picker; the agent picker already excluded local). The experimental settings page gains the toggle at its alphabetical card position. `environmentsApi.update` now declares the `envVars` field it already sent. - Tests: environment route floor coverage (envVars-only accepted, mixed bodies rejected, legacy rows still blanked and locked, local hidden and 404 under the flag, self-hosted unchanged), an embedded-postgres service test pinning that boot reconciliation never touches tenant env vars, resolver redirect/fail-closed cases, managed-environments default-stamping cases, and UI lib/settings tests. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts src/services/managed-environments.test.ts` — all pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run` — 425 pass (catalog/schema default parity is pinned by an existing test). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec tsc --noEmit` and the affected UI suites (CompanyEnvironments, InstanceExperimentalSettings incl. card-order test, new lib test) — all pass. - Full workspace `pnpm test`: 3,414 passed. 17 files report failures on this machine; the identical 17 fail on a clean `origin/master` worktree in the same environment (git-worktree/skills/embedded-postgres environment dependencies and plugin-SDK zero-test collections). One additional file (`issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts`) failed one timing-sensitive test in one of two full-suite runs and passes 7/7 in isolation on this branch — a flake in a domain this diff does not touch. The branch introduces no new failures. - Self-hosted zero-delta: every new behavior is gated on the cloud-managed instance check or the new flag, which defaults to false in schema and catalog; pinned by the "does not floor platform-marked rows on self-hosted instances" and flag-off tests. ## Risks - Behavior is opt-in twice over: the write-floor exception applies only to rows the managed-config provisioner stamps, and the hiding/forcing applies only when `enableManagedSandboxOnly` is on (default false everywhere). Self-hosted instances see no change. - The env-vars echo is scoped to the generalized managed sandbox row; legacy kubernetes-marker rows keep the blanket floor because pre-generalization builds may have written platform values there. - Fail-closed run selection means a managed instance with the flag on and an archived managed row (provider plugin down) refuses runs with a precise error instead of running locally. That is the intended posture. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), 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 merge	2026-08-11 11:40:57 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	7ea2068ef8	fix(files): only highlight accessible workspace file links (#11090 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task comments can contain references to files in project and execution workspaces. > - Paperclip detected path-shaped inline code and showed it as an actionable file chip. > - The UI did not first confirm that the current board session could open the file. > - Missing, denied, ambiguous, remote, and unsupported files therefore looked actionable and failed after a click. > - This pull request adds an issue-scoped availability check and promotes only confirmed files to chips. > - The benefit is that the task thread shows a file action only when that action can succeed. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Task comments promoted path-shaped inline code to file chips before Paperclip checked the file. A chip could point to a missing, denied, ambiguous, remote, or non-previewable file. The action then failed after the user selected it. Expected behavior Paperclip must show a file chip only after the server confirms that the current board session can open the exact file reference. All other path-shaped text must stay ordinary inline code. Steps to reproduce 1. Add a task comment that contains inline code with a missing or inaccessible workspace path. 2. Open the task thread as a board user. 3. Observe that the path looks like an actionable file chip. 4. Select the chip and observe that the file cannot open. Paperclip version or commit `19be4cf927` and earlier. Deployment mode Local dev and self-hosted server. Access context Board user. ## What Changed - Added shared request, response, and validation contracts for batched workspace-file availability checks. - Added an issue-scoped server endpoint that resolves file references with company, issue, workspace, and preview-access checks. - Added bounded batch concurrency and tests for missing, denied, ambiguous, remote, unsupported, and available files. - Added an issue-scoped UI availability registry that deduplicates, batches, caches, and invalidates file checks. - Changed task-comment markdown rendering so only confirmed files get chip styling and file-viewer behavior. - Bound each chip to the exact workspace target that passed the availability check. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/workspace-file-resource.test.ts server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.availability.test.tsx ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts ui/src/lib/workspace-file-availability.test.ts` — 93 passed, 35 skipped. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — clean. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — all server and UI groups passed. One unchanged CLI test saw the run-injected static AWS credentials and expected only its local `AWS_PROFILE`. The same test passed, 8 of 8, after removing only `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID` and `AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY` from its process environment. ## Risks - File chips now appear after an asynchronous availability check, so path-shaped text can briefly render as inline code. - Availability results use the existing 30-second file-resource cache window. File-resource invalidation forces a new check. - The endpoint limits each request to 100 references and the client chunks larger sets. > 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 service did not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. The agent used high-reasoning mode, repository tools, command 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 - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-11 12:11:45 -04:00
scotttong	815e49bb7c	feat: make chat-style tasks the default experience (#11101 )	2026-08-11 09:06:21 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	b58ce27a02	fix: isolate execution workspace summaries (#10790 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip gives operators a summary for each workspace. > - An execution workspace detail page used the parent project-workspace summary slot. > - Two execution workspaces under one project workspace could therefore show the same summary. > - This pull request gives each execution workspace its own summary scope. > - It also limits the summary snapshot and generated issue to that execution workspace. > - The benefit is that a new or parallel execution workspace cannot inherit unrelated status. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? An execution workspace detail page read and refreshed the summary slot for its parent project workspace. Parallel execution workspaces could show the same status and include issues from each other. Expected behavior Each execution workspace must have one isolated summary slot. Its generated snapshot must include only issues assigned to that execution workspace. Steps to reproduce 1. Create two execution workspaces under one project workspace. 2. Add different issues to each execution workspace. 3. Generate the summary in the first execution workspace. 4. Open the second execution workspace. 5. Observe that the old implementation could reuse the first summary. Paperclip version or commit The problem exists on `master` before this pull request. Deployment mode The issue affects both local trusted and authenticated deployments. ## What Changed - Added `execution_workspace` to the shared summary-slot scope contract. - Validated execution-workspace ownership and stored generated summary issues on the correct execution workspace. - Limited execution-workspace snapshots to issues with the matching execution workspace ID. - Updated the execution workspace page to use its own summary slot. - Updated Summarizer instructions, routine options, catalog metadata, documentation, and regression tests. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/summary-slot.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts ui/src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx` — 30 focused tests passed; the embedded-Postgres server tests were run outside the process-restricted sandbox. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog validate` — passed with 17 catalog skills. - [Latest-head GitHub Actions](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/31491475405) — all 22 jobs passed on `beea14cbaf`, including typecheck, build, server/workspace tests, serialized suites, e2e, canary, and aggregate verification. One unrelated adapter cleanup test initially hit an `ENOTEMPTY` temp-directory race; its single permitted rerun passed. - Greptile — 5/5 confidence on `beea14cbaf`, 12 files reviewed, zero comments added, and zero unresolved threads. ## Risks - Low risk. The new scope is additive. - Existing project and project-workspace summary slots keep their current keys and behavior. - A summary generated for an execution workspace now excludes sibling workspace issues by design. > 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 deployment does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window value. It used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub tooling. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-11 08:56:32 -04:00
Devin Foley	35aaaa0bd0	feat(server): preserve task timestamps and hierarchy through company import/export (#11193 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Company export/import moves a whole company — agents, tasks, comments — between instances as a portable bundle > - The bundle never carried task timestamps or parent links: the export writes neither, the importer lets database defaults stamp "now", and sub-tasks arrive flattened > - Boards sort by recency, so every imported task showing "created just now" collapses the task list into import order, and the task hierarchy the user built is gone > - This pull request adds created/updated/started/completed/cancelled timestamps and a parent link to the bundle (schema v7), preserves them end to end on import, and keeps comment imports from clobbering a preserved updated time > - The benefit is that an imported company reads like the company the user left: same recency order, same task tree ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? After a company import, every task showed as created at import time. Recency sorting collapsed to import order, and parent/child task nesting disappeared. The user called out losing "the meaningful task hierarchy and recency sorting". Cause: the export bundle has no fields for task timestamps or parent links, the importer lets `defaultNow()` win on insert, and the comment importer bumps every touched task's `updatedAt` to now. Expected behavior An imported company preserves each task's creation/update/start/completion times and its position in the task tree, so sorting and nesting on the destination match the source. Steps to reproduce 1. On a source instance, create tasks over several days, including sub-tasks nested under parents. 2. Export the company and import it into another instance. 3. Every task shows the import moment as its creation/update time and all tasks are top-level. ## What Changed - Export writes `createdAt`/`updatedAt`/`startedAt`/`completedAt`/`cancelledAt` (ISO, only when set) and `parent: <taskSlug>` into each task's bundle extension; a parent outside the export selection drops the edge with an aggregate warning, mirroring the existing blocker-edge warning (`server/src/services/company-portability.ts`). - Bundle schema version 6 → 7. All new fields are optional: v5/v6 bundles import unchanged with a version-aware downlevel warning; bundles newer than the board still fail closed. - Manifest parsing validates the new timestamps like comment timestamps (invalid → warn and ignore, never a hard failure); shared types and the zod validator carry the new optional fields. - Import resolves parent slugs to pre-generated destination ids, drops self-references and cycles from tampered bundles with warnings, and orders rows parents-first because the self-referencing FK is checked per insert chunk. - `importIssues` writes the preserved timestamps (falling back to insert time when absent; `startedAt` stays null unless bundle-carried, per #11191's semantics) and `parentId`. - `addImportedComments` no longer blanket-bumps `updatedAt = now()`; it takes `GREATEST(updated_at, newest imported comment createdAt)`, so a preserved update time never regresses while unpreserved rows keep the old behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability-import-batching.test.ts server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts` — 102 passed, 1 pre-existing opt-in benchmark skip. Includes: full round-trip with exact timestamp equality and a 3-deep parent chain against embedded Postgres; v6 back-compat (defaults + warning); forward-compat rejection (v8); cycle/self-reference/invalid-timestamp tampered-bundle handling; comment-bump preserve-awareness in both directions. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — clean. ## Risks - Rollout ordering: a board on the previous build (max schema v6) refuses bundles exported by this build (stamped v7) — the existing newer-than-supported rejection, working as designed. Cross-instance moves need the importing board upgraded first. Called out here so operators aren't surprised during the transition window. - Parent edges from tampered bundles are dropped with warnings rather than failing the import; blocker relations already behave this way. - Timestamps are data-only; no destination schema migration. Stacked on #11191 (its commit is included here) — merge #11191 first; this PR then shows only the v7 changes. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) via Claude Code CLI, with extended thinking and tool use (multi-agent implementation with independent verification). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-08-10 17:01:33 -07:00
Devin Foley	5ca752dc81	fix(server): raise company import zip upload limit to 1 GB and make it operator-configurable (#11184 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Company import/export lets an operator move a full company package between instances, with the Import page uploading the package as one compressed `.zip` > - The server caps that upload at 128 MB, and real company packages with attachments now exceed it — imports fail at the preview step > - The failure message tells the user to use the CLI folder import, but that path posts inline JSON capped at 64 MB, so the advice is a dead end for exactly these packages > - This pull request raises the zip upload cap to a 1 GB default, makes it operator-configurable through an environment variable, scales the decompression-bomb guards from the cap in effect, and replaces the misleading hint > - The benefit is that large real-world company packages import successfully, and operators with unusual needs can tune the cap without a code change ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A company import fails at the preview step with `Preview failed: Import package exceeds 134217728 bytes`. The package is a valid Paperclip export. Its compressed size is larger than the 128 MB server cap (one reported package is 257 MB). The error panel suggests the CLI folder import, but that path sends the package as one inline JSON body capped at 64 MB, so it also fails. Expected behavior A valid company package of realistic size imports successfully through the Import page. If a package is too large, the error must state the limit clearly and suggest a step that can work. Steps to reproduce 1. Export a company with enough attachments to make the compressed package larger than 128 MB. 2. Open the Import page and upload the `.zip`. 3. Click "Preview import". 4. The preview fails with `Import package exceeds 134217728 bytes`. Deployment mode Reported from a managed deployment; the limit applies to all deployment modes. ## What Changed - Raise `PORTABLE_ZIP_UPLOAD_LIMIT_BYTES` from 128 MB to a 1 GB default (`server/src/http/body-limits.ts`). - Add the `PAPERCLIP_IMPORT_ZIP_MAX_BYTES` environment override. Invalid or non-positive values fall back to the default. - Scale the zip decompression-bomb guard from the configured cap at the import route: the aggregate inflated ceiling is 4x the cap. The per-entry ceiling stays at 512 MB because V8's string length limit applies to an entry regardless (`server/src/routes/companies.ts`, `packages/shared/src/portability-zip.ts`). - Report the 422 limit error in MB instead of raw bytes. - Replace the "use the CLI folder import for very large packages" hint on preview failure with advice that works: re-export the package without large attachments (`ui/src/pages/CompanyImport.tsx`). - Update the stale comment in `ui/src/lib/import-preflight.ts` that made the same CLI claim. - Add tests for the new default, the env override, and the invalid-override fallback. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/body-limits.test.ts packages/shared/src/portability-zip.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability-import-batching.test.ts` — all pass. - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanyImport.test.tsx` — passes, including the updated failure-panel copy assertion. - `pnpm typecheck` — clean across the workspace. - Manual: upload a `.zip` larger than the configured cap; the preview fails with `Import package exceeds the 1024 MB upload limit` and the new hint. A package between 128 MB and 1 GB now previews and imports. ## Risks - Peak per-import memory rises with the cap: the upload is buffered in memory and unzipped in one pass. A 1 GB compressed package can use several GB transiently. Imports are instance-admin actions, so the exposure is a deliberate operator action, not anonymous traffic. Operators on small hosts can lower the cap with `PAPERCLIP_IMPORT_ZIP_MAX_BYTES`. - The aggregate bomb guard moves from a fixed 512 MB to 4x the configured cap. It still bounds expansion far below what a decompression bomb needs. - No migration and no API shape change. The 422 message text changes; no code matches on the old text. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) via Claude Code CLI, with extended thinking and tool use (file edits, local test runs, live-instance inspection). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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	2026-08-10 12:47:03 -07:00
scotttongandPaperclip	cc35c3c395	feat: structure and humanize recovery notices (#11075 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip posts system comments when automatic run recovery cannot continue > - These comments currently mix the main event with recovery identifiers and routing details > - The task chat shell also renders these comments as large raw text blocks > - Operators need a short explanation first and inspectable evidence on demand > - This pull request emits structured recovery notices and renders them as compact humanized rows > - The benefit is a quieter task thread that keeps the full recovery evidence available ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related prior extraction source: #11070. This pull request replaces only its structured recovery notice slice with a focused branch based on current master. What existing behavior does this improve? Paperclip recovery escalations and the experimental task chat system-comment renderer. Current behavior Recovery escalation comments put action identifiers, owner details, run details, and failure codes into the visible markdown body. The task chat shell renders the complete system comment as a large text block. Proposed behavior The server emits a short system notice with typed metadata sections. The task chat shell classifies known recovery families and renders one compact row. An operator can expand the row to inspect the full body and metadata. Reason and benefit The main thread stays readable during repeated recovery activity. Typed links and evidence remain available without exposing raw failure text in the default view. Breaking changes The visible recovery comment body is shorter. Recovery action deduplication now reads the structured metadata and still recognizes legacy body markers. No API schema or database migration changes. ## What Changed - Emit stranded recovery escalations with `system_notice` presentation and typed recovery, owner, run, and failure-code metadata. - Share bounded metadata row builders across recovery notice producers and preserve legacy deduplication compatibility. - Humanize known recovery notice families and render compact expandable task-chat rows. - Route system-authored comments ahead of derived agent authorship so recovery notices do not appear as agent bubbles. - Add focused server and UI regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run src/validators/issue.test.ts` — 32 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/services/recovery/stranded-notice.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts` — 57 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts src/services/recovery/stranded-notice.test.ts` — 39 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t 'escalates an exhausted failed successful-run handoff without using generic continuation recovery first\|escalates an exhausted successful handoff run that still leaves no disposition'` — 2 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t 'blocks assigned todo work after the one automatic dispatch recovery was already used'` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/system-notice-humanizer.test.ts src/components/task-chat/TaskChatSystemNotice.test.tsx src/components/task-chat/task-chat-adapter.test.ts` — 15 tests passed. - Storybook visual baselines were not updated because this chat-shell path has no affected snapshot baseline. Focused rendering tests and token gates cover this change. ## Risks - Consumers that parse recovery action identifiers from comment markdown must move to structured metadata. Server deduplication remains backward compatible with legacy comments. - The humanizer uses stable recovery-family phrases. Unknown notices use a generic truncated first-sentence fallback. - The UI changes only the experimental task chat presentation. The stored comment body and expanded metadata remain available. > 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, reasoning mode, repository tools, shell execution, and GitHub integration. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-07 18:41:52 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	6b7e0814a0	feat(acp): stream Daytona sandbox agent output and remove the host output poll (#11049 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app that manages AI agents for work > - Sandbox providers let agents run in remote and isolated environments > - Daytona session commands need a path that sends agent output to the host without host polling > - Host polling adds delay and repeats provider output work > - This pull request adds typed execute.log notifications and a log sink for incremental output > - This pull request adds an optional ACP session stream with final-result replay protection > - The benefit is lower output delay while the default flags keep current behavior unchanged ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting. The change spans the plugin SDK, Daytona provider, adapter utilities, and server execution services. Problem or motivation The Daytona ACP bridge polls a host output file while an agent command runs. This adds delay and can repeat work. The host also needs a safe route for provider output chunks. Proposed solution Add a typed `execute.log` notification with host-issued invocation correlation. Add an ordered log sink to the environment execute path. Add an optional ACP session-log path that parses newline-delimited JSON frames and removes the host output poll for that path. Alternatives considered Keep the output-file poll as the only path. This keeps the current behavior but does not provide timely output. The new path stays behind flags, so the existing path remains the default fallback. Roadmap alignment This change supports the shipped Cloud / Sandbox agents milestone in `ROADMAP.md`, including Daytona support. ## What Changed - Add the typed `execute.log` worker-to-host notification and company-scoped host route. - Add ordered `stdout` and `stderr` chunk delivery before the final execute result. - Add the Daytona session log sink and the optional ACP streamed session path. - Add monotonic frame handling so live and final output reach the host once. - Keep `useLogStream` and `streamAgentSessionOutput` off by default. - Add unit and integration coverage for the notification, execution target, runtime, and Daytona paths. ## Verification - Run adapter-utils tests: 445 tests pass locally. - Run server environment tests: 73 tests pass locally. - Run Daytona plugin tests: 131 tests pass locally. - Run TypeScript checks for shared, adapter-utils, and server. - Review the pull request checks after GitHub completes them. - All required GitHub checks pass on the current head. ## Risks The new paths change output delivery only when a feature flag enables them. The final execute result remains available for parsing and fallback. The main risk is a provider stream or frame-order error; the final-result parser limits that risk. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code execution. The runtime did not supply a context-window value. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have 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 No operator documentation change applies because both new flags remain disabled by default. - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-07 14:29:58 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	0a511ed1b0	feat(apps): support multiple provider connections (#11060 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Apps subsystem connects company tools through governed provider connections. > - A company can need more than one account for the same provider. > - The current database constraint and Apps flow assume one named connection per company. > - New quarantined actions also need an explicit review decision before activation. > - This pull request supports multiple provider connections and complete action review decisions. > - The benefit is safer access control and a clear multi-account Apps workflow. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #11040 Subsystem affected Cross-cutting. This change affects the Apps UI, the tool access API, the shared request contract, and the database schema. Problem or motivation The connection name constraint prevents a company from keeping more than one connection for a provider. The Apps UI also reuses an existing OAuth connection when a user asks to connect another account. Action review can enable selected entries without recording a decision for every quarantined action. Proposed solution Remove the company and connection name uniqueness constraint. Let users open, count, edit, and create multiple provider connections. Require the finish request to cover every quarantined action exactly once before the server activates reviewed entries. Alternatives considered The UI could generate unique internal names and keep the database constraint. This would preserve a one-connection assumption in the data model and would make display names part of identity. The server could also infer review decisions from enabled actions. This would not distinguish a reviewed disabled action from an action that the user did not review. Roadmap alignment This change extends the completed MCP Tool Gateway and Apps milestone. It also supports the Connected Apps roadmap item. It follows the navigation and connection management work in #11040. ## What Changed - Remove the company-scoped connection name uniqueness index with an ordered and idempotent migration. - Add a reviewed action list to the finish-app contract and reject incomplete or duplicate review decisions. - Activate reviewed entries and keep unreviewed quarantined entries blocked. - Enable a completed connection and preserve the company and connection scope in all updates. - Show provider connection counts and open the provider setup page from Browse. - Let users edit existing connections or connect another account without reusing an active OAuth connection. - Update focused server and UI coverage for multiple connections and action review. ## Verification - Ran the focused Apps UI suite. All 116 tests passed in 11 files. - Ran the focused server and CLI suite. All 276 tests passed in 3 files. - Ran `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`. The migration safety check passed. - Ran `pnpm -r typecheck`. All projects passed. - Ran `pnpm build`. All projects built successfully. - Ran `pnpm test:run`. It passed 3,735 tests and skipped 4 tests. One worktree-safety assertion failed because the execution workspace reloads its worktree marker. The same test passed with an isolated non-worktree marker. - Ran `pnpm check:token-gates`. It reports 12 existing violations in the unchanged `PaperclipOrbit3D.tsx` file from the target branch. - Started the six affected Playwright specifications. Chromium could not start because the host does not provide `libatk-1.0.so.0`. The GitHub e2e jobs will verify these specifications. - GitHub Actions passed every final-head CI gate, including all three e2e shards and the aggregate `e2e` and `verify` jobs. - Greptile reviewed final commit `9af9200426` at 5/5 with zero review threads. ## Risks - Removing the name uniqueness index permits duplicate display names. Stable connection IDs and UIDs remain unique within a company. - The finish-app endpoint accepts the new review field as optional for backward compatibility. When clients send it, the server requires a complete decision for all quarantined actions. - Multiple OAuth connections depend on the explicit new-connection route flag. Focused tests cover active and draft connection reuse. - The migration is ordered after migration 0210. Its `DROP INDEX IF EXISTS` statement is safe to repeat. > 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 the `gpt-5.6-sol` model assisted this change. The agent used repository tools, code execution, test execution, and agentic reasoning. The Codex runtime manages the context window. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-07 16:28:04 -05:00
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>	2026-08-07 00:54:43 -05:00
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>	2026-08-07 00:42:08 -05:00
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>	2026-08-07 00:41:19 -05:00
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>	2026-08-06 22:31:15 -07:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Fable 5	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>	2026-08-06 22:18:08 -05:00
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>	2026-08-05 23:40:05 -05:00
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>	2026-08-05 23:12:41 -05:00
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>	2026-08-05 21:50:41 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Fable 5	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>	2026-08-05 21:49:40 -05:00
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>	2026-08-05 16:34:04 -05:00
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>	2026-08-05 10:09:17 -05:00
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>	2026-08-05 09:55:01 -05:00
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>	2026-08-04 23:02:51 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	678728f650	feat: maintained in_review review-path contract + stalled-review actions (#10675 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents move issues to `in_review` and rely on a "review path" (an interaction, an approval, a monitor, or a named reviewer) to tell them who decides next. > - That review path can silently disappear. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction, a monitor is exhausted, or a run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with nobody reviewing it and no visible action. > - Such issues become invisible zombies. Nobody knows a decision is owed, so the work stalls forever. > - This pull request makes the review path a maintained invariant, exposes a `reviewAttention` surface, and gives every stalled review three inline actions in the UI. > - The benefit is that an `in_review` issue always shows who reviews it, or shows an amber "nobody is reviewing this" notice with one-click Approve, Request changes, and Send back to work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request describes the problem inline. The tracking issue is internal. Subsystem affected The review and attention loop that agents and humans share: the `in_review` status, the `reviewAttention` surface, the /decisions attention feed, and the issue-page review panel. Problem or motivation Agent-owned issues in `in_review` can lose their last review path. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction. A monitor is exhausted. A run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with no reviewer and no visible action. It becomes an invisible zombie and the work never progresses. Proposed solution Maintain the review path as a server invariant. Expose a `reviewAttention` field that says what is under review, who decides, and since when. Render a persistent review panel on the issue page and inline actions on the /decisions feed. Keep human PATCHes into `in_review` ungated, but record the requesting user so the panel never renders empty. Alternatives considered A pure background auto-recovery sweep. This stays opt-in and is not enough on its own, because it is invisible to the human. A bare status banner. This is rejected, because it gives no action to resolve the stall. Roadmap alignment This improves the core review and attention loop that both agents and humans use every day. ## What Changed - Server — maintained review-path invariant: when an issue enters or sits in `in_review`, the server derives and persists a review path (interaction, approval, monitor, or the requesting user) and recovers a stale path with one bounded wake instead of leaving the issue pathless. - Server — `reviewAttention` surface: a new field describes what is under review (bound target with links), who decides, since when, and whether the review is stalled. Stalled agent-assigned reviews are now included in the attention feed. - Server — inline stalled-review decisions: secured routes let a permitted responder Approve (→ `done`), Request changes (→ `todo` + wake carrying the note), or Send back to work (→ `todo` + wake) directly from the attention feed. - Server — resume-intent wake: an `in_review -> todo` transition now wakes the assigned agent so a resumed review is not dropped. - Server — user-entry symmetry: user PATCHes into `in_review` stay ungated (no 422 for humans) and record the requesting user, who becomes the named responder when no other path exists. - UI — review panel: a persistent `IssueReviewPanel` renders above the thread whenever status is `in_review`. The covered state shows the bound target, responder, and outcomes and hoists the pending interaction/approval card. The stalled state shows the amber notice plus the three actions. - UI — decisions card actions: the same three actions render inline on the /decisions `AttentionQueueRow`. - UI — responsive fix: the stalled action row stacks to full-width buttons at phone width and returns to a horizontal row at `sm` and up. New 390px stories capture the phone layout. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueReviewPanel.test.tsx src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx src/lib/attention.test.ts src/api/issues.test.ts` — 91 tests pass. - Server suites added and updated: `issue-review-attention`, `issue-stalled-review-decision-routes`, `review-path-recovery`, `recovery-observability`, and related route/liveness tests (run by CI). - A designer reviewed the UI at 390px and desktop in light and dark themes on both the issue-page panel and the /decisions card. The stalled action row stacks cleanly at phone width with no overlap and keeps the horizontal row on desktop. ## Risks - Migration: adds migration `0200` (next after master `0199`, no renumber). It extends the agent-wakeup-requests schema and is additive. - Behavioral shift: `in_review -> todo` now dispatches a wake. This is intended (resume intent) and covered by tests. - Authz: the inline decision routes are permission-gated. Only a permitted responder sees and can trigger the actions. - Overall risk is moderate and contained to the review and attention loop. ## Model Used - Claude, Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-04 13:54:40 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f91a6e27c0	feat(issues): contain cross-issue agent side effects (#10837 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane that coordinates autonomous agent work. > - Agents need to collaborate on issues beyond their current assignment. > - Cross-issue comments and updates are useful, but an unbounded run can create cascading side effects. > - The control plane must preserve company-wide collaboration while containing each run's influence. > - Comment attribution must also show the responsible user and the acting agent in audits. > - This pull request adds run-bound cross-issue containment, attribution, and agent-class wake rules. > - The benefit is safer collaboration without restoring issue-assignee ownership restrictions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? Agent-authenticated issue comments, updates, reopen behavior, and assignee wake routing. Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: server routes and services, shared contracts, database schema and migration, and implementation documentation. Current behavior An authenticated agent can collaborate across company issues, but one heartbeat run has no per-run side-effect boundary. Comment records also do not persist the responsible user separately from the acting agent. Proposed behavior Require a valid heartbeat run for agent cross-issue comments and updates. Audit each attempt and cap a run at 20 cross-issue effects. Keep the cap in log-only mode until it automatically changes to enforcement at 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. Preserve same-issue writes. Use agent-class wakes for agent comments. Keep same-run completion comments from reopening completed work. Record the responsible user on agent-authored comments and activity. Reason and benefit Agents can collaborate on other issues without an assignment gate, while each run has an atomic and inspectable side-effect limit. Operators can identify both the acting agent and the responsible user. Breaking changes After 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC, the twenty-first cross-issue comment or update from one heartbeat run returns a containment error. Agent cross-issue writes without valid run context are rejected. The migration is additive and backfills existing agent-authored comment attribution where the source data is available. ## What Changed - Added an atomic per-run counter for cross-issue agent comments and updates. - Added audit events for allowed and rejected cross-issue effects. - Added the automatic log-only to enforcement flip at 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. - Added responsible-user attribution to agent-authored comments, activity records, shared types, and validators. - Added an additive migration and migration coverage for existing comments. - Updated reopen, resume, and wake behavior so agent comments create agent-class wakes and same-run completion comments remain inert. - Updated the implementation specification and regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/cross-issue-influence-limit.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-attribution-audit-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts packages/db/src/issue-comment-on-behalf-migration.test.ts` — 97 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration safety checks. - `pnpm test:run` — server batch: 3,364 passed and 2 skipped; UI batch: 3,504 passed. One unrelated CLI doctor test warned because this agent runtime injects static AWS credentials. - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` — 8 tests passed and confirmed the CLI failure was ambient-environment sensitive. - `pnpm build` — passed. ## Risks - The fixed enforcement timestamp changes production behavior automatically on 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. Audit logs before that time provide rollout visibility. - The per-run counter serializes on the heartbeat-run row. This prevents concurrent attempts from racing past the cap but adds a small lock scope for cross-issue writes. - Existing comments can only be backfilled when their acting run or agent attribution is recoverable. > 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 in the Codex agent runtime. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. Reasoning, shell tools, code editing, and test 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>	2026-08-04 13:17:49 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Fable 5	ded813ad6f	feat(interactions): add governed agent addressees (#10252 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane that lets humans govern companies of AI agents. > - Issue-thread interactions are the structured handoff point for confirmations, questions, suggested tasks, and other governed decisions. > - Those interactions previously assumed that only board users could resolve them, preventing one agent from explicitly addressing another agent for a response. > - Agent resolution needs company-level governance, auditable resolver identity, safe terminal-state handling, and attention routing so authorization is enforced server-side rather than inferred from UI behavior. > - This pull request adds governed agent resolution, withdrawal and terminal expiry semantics, explicit agent addressees, lifecycle reconciliation, and attention-feed filtering. > - The benefit is that agents can participate in structured decisions without weakening board control, company isolation, wake behavior, or audit invariants. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Issue-thread interactions across database, shared contracts, server authorization/services, adapter callbacks, agent skill guidance, API docs, and UI governance surfaces. ### Problem or motivation Structured interactions were board-only, had no explicit agent addressee, and lacked durable withdrawal/terminal-expiry semantics. That made peer-agent decisions impossible to authorize and audit safely. ### Proposed solution Persist requested/effective resolver policy and addressee identity, enforce company governance and eligible agent resolution, reconcile addressee lifecycle changes, expose withdrawal and terminal expiry, and route attention to the intended active agent with board fallback. ### Alternatives considered Implicitly authorizing the issue assignee or mentioned agents was rejected as ambiguous and difficult to audit. Using comments alone was rejected because it loses structured outcomes and continuation behavior. ### Roadmap alignment Supports the ROADMAP direction for lightweight leadership-agent communication that still resolves into governed decisions and work objects. ### Additional context Public GitHub issue/PR search found no duplicate implementation; open PR search for interaction resolver governance and agent addressees only returned this PR. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped interaction resolver governance contracts and persistence. - Add requested/effective resolver policy, resolver identity, withdrawal, and terminal-expiry behavior. - Add explicit `addresseeAgentId` validation, authorization, persistence, lifecycle reconciliation, API documentation, and skill guidance. - Route pending addressed interactions to the intended invokable agent and fall back to board attention when that agent becomes ineligible or is deleted. - Preserve sandbox callback identity fields required by governed resolution paths. - Add migrations `0193` and `0194` plus route, service, attention, adapter, CLI, and UI coverage. - Add governance state and company settings UI, including responsive mobile behavior and distinct withdrawn/expired audit presentation. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm test:run` — feature/server and UI workspace suites passed; one unrelated CLI AWS doctor test observed injected static AWS credentials and warned instead of passing. - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts --project paperclipai` — 8 tests passed, confirming the failure was environment-sensitive. - `pnpm build` — passed. - Latest rebased head `e24cece6be9f1877bdbac7691bcb44fd583c0161` completed all GitHub CI jobs successfully. ## Risks - Migrations add interaction and company-governance fields; numbering is conflict-free on current `master`, additive statements are idempotent, and migration safety checks pass. - Agent authorization behavior expands beyond board-only resolution, but defaults remain board-only and coverage exercises company boundaries, resolver eligibility, lifecycle invalidation, wake behavior, withdrawal, expiry, and attention fallback. - Attention routing depends on current agent invokability; reconciliation and read-time filtering prevent stale addressees from retaining visibility or resolution authority. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.6-sol` with reasoning, terminal tool use, code execution, Git/GitHub integration, and Paperclip control-plane tools. Context-window metadata was not reported by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-04 12:51:06 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	8e7f1c03eb	feat(decisions): improve desk triage and queue parity (#10785 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The decisions desk and queue help operators find work that needs a human decision. > - The current views use different grouping, sorting, and labels. > - Repeated confirmation requests can also leave stale pending actions in the queue. > - Blocked-work attention can point at an intermediate issue instead of the terminal blocker. > - This pull request aligns the server contract and both user interfaces. > - The benefit is a smaller, clearer queue that ranks the decisions with the largest impact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related PR: #10774 What existing behavior does this improve? The decisions desk and queue currently use different triage rules. They can show stale repeated confirmations and can rank blocked work by an intermediate issue. Subsystem affected This change affects attention aggregation, issue thread interactions, shared attention contracts, and the decisions user interface. Current behavior The desk uses a can-wait group that has no clear arrival meaning. The queue has fewer controls than the desk. Repeated pending confirmations remain actionable. Blocked-work rows do not always identify the terminal actionable blocker. Proposed behavior Group desk items by arrival date, and reserve Decide now for explicit due dates. Use one toolbar and shelf model on both pages. Supersede older repeated pending confirmations. Aggregate blocked work under the terminal actionable blocker and rank it by impact. Reason and benefit Operators get one consistent triage model. The badge reflects new and overdue work. High-impact blockers move to the top. Duplicate confirmation work no longer consumes attention. Breaking changes The attention summary field `decideNowCount` changes to `deskBadgeCount`. Consumers must use the new field. Older repeated confirmation interactions can now finish with the `superseded_by_newer_request` outcome. ## What Changed - Supersede older pending confirmation requests for the same issue and record the mutation in activity history. - Resolve blocked-work attention to actionable terminal blockers, suppress live blocker trees, and rank rows by blocked-work impact. - Group the decisions desk into New today and Earlier, and count new plus overdue work in the desk badge. - Share the decision toolbar and shelf components across the desk and queue. - Add queue grouping, sorting, filtering, aging, visible training controls, and clearer recommendation copy. - Add server, shared-contract, and user-interface tests for the new behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` (all server, UI, CLI, shared, and catalog tests passed; one fixed five-second DB timeout flaked under full-suite load) - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/status-card-migrations.test.ts` (passed in isolation) - `pnpm build` ## Risks - The attention summary field rename requires synchronized consumers. - Terminal-blocker traversal uses cycle and depth guards. A malformed dependency graph can stop at the last safe node. - The new arrival grouping changes which items contribute to the decisions badge. - Superseding repeated confirmations changes the terminal state of older pending interactions. > 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 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>	2026-08-03 21:31:45 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	6a69a3d6b0	refactor(observability): stop writing detailed per-step timing to the run log (#10776 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip tracks agent work for the team. > - The startup timing path already emits detailed spans. > - The run log repeats the same detailed timing. > - That makes the event larger than it needs to be. > - This pull request removes the redundant per-step timing fields from the run-log payload. > - The benefit is a smaller log with the same detail still available in traces. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue or open pull request matches this change. I described the enhancement below. What existing behavior does this improve? `run.startup.step` event output. Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) Current behavior `run.startup.step` writes `roundTrips`, `providerExecMs`, `providerGetMs`, `createRuntimeMs`, and `ensureSessionMs`. The same detail already exists in the spans. Proposed behavior `run.startup.step` keeps only `step`, `durationMs`, and `outcome`. The heartbeat lifecycle timestamps stay unchanged. Reason and benefit This change removes redundant data from the run log. It keeps the useful detail in trace spans. It also makes the payload smaller and easier to read. The revert path stays clear because the removed data has one producer chain. Breaking changes Yes. Consumers that read the removed fields must switch to span data or the remaining event fields. The heartbeat lifecycle timestamps do not change. Additional context I searched GitHub for related open PRs and issues. I found no match. ## What Changed - Removed the redundant per-step timing fields from the run-log payload. - Removed the now-dead producer chain that fed those fields. - Kept the span-level timing data and the heartbeat lifecycle timestamps. ## Verification - `adapter-utils` typecheck clean - `server` typecheck clean - `startup-timing` suite: 30 passed - `adapter-utils` `execute` suite: 99 passed - `server` `environment-execution-target` suite: 21 passed ## Risks - Consumers that still read the removed fields will need a code change. - This is a one-way-door data removal for the run log. ## 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 - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-03 15:58:21 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	af6b32d82a	feat(observability): add provider OTel spans - cache-hit flag, plugin tracer, Daytona pack/transfer spans (#10764 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses pull requests to ship control-plane changes with review and audit. > - This change extends sandbox provider telemetry. > - The first PR added startup and exec spans. > - This PR adds provider spans for cache hits, plugin tracer flow, and Daytona file sync steps. > - The host must keep the trust boundary and reject unsafe span data. > - The result is fuller OTel coverage with bounded labels and safe parentage. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Problem or motivation Sandbox provider telemetry lacks an explicit cache-hit signal, plugin span context, and file-sync pack and transfer spans. The current proxy for a cache hit is fragile. The plugin SDK also needs a safe tracer surface and a per-call parent context. Proposed solution Add an explicit `cacheHit` flag from the Daytona sandbox handle lookup. Expose `ctx.tracer` on the plugin context and pass a `traceparent` string with each call. Record provider spans on the host with allowlist clamping and capability checks. Wrap Daytona file sync pack and transfer steps in spans. Alternatives considered Keep the old `providerGetMs == 0` proxy. Reject that path because the cache-hit decision belongs at the handle lookup, not in a timing proxy. The host stays the trust boundary for worker span data. It clamps labels, rejects bad parent data, and gates the worker-to-host span RPC by capability. A security review completed before this PR opened. ## What Changed - Added an explicit `cacheHit` flag from the Daytona sandbox handle lookup. - Added `ctx.tracer` on the plugin context and a `traceparent` field in the per-call context. - Added host-side span recording with attribute clamping and capability checks. - Wrapped Daytona file sync pack and transfer steps in spans. - Added tests for the host trust boundary, the plugin tracer no-op path, and the Daytona span paths. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-daytona exec vitest run` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk exec vitest run` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run plugin-host-services environment-execution-target instrumentation plugin-worker-manager` - `tsc --noEmit` for server, plugin-sdk, and adapter-utils ## Risks - Span data now crosses the worker boundary, so the host allowlist and capability gate must stay strict. - The `traceparent` path must stay valid and host-owned. - Daytona file sync spans must not add new round trips. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, 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 linked existing issues with `Fixes:` / `Closes:` / `Refs:` or described the issue in the PR body - [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>	2026-08-03 13:09:01 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	ba396c608c	feat(server): configure shared workspace concurrency (#10759 ) <!-- 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 heartbeat service starts agent runs in local, SSH, sandbox, plugin, or Kubernetes environments. > - Runs can share one project working tree. > - PR #10699 made every shared working tree single-file, including trusted local and SSH hosts that support coordinated concurrent work. > - Operators need a policy that keeps remote environments safe and restores local multi-agent work. > - This pull request adds an `auto`, `serialize`, or `allow` concurrency policy and applies it to the final execution environment. > - The benefit is safe serialization by default for sandboxed targets and useful concurrency by default for persistent local targets. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: #10699 introduced the busy gate that this change makes configurable. #7852 covers a separate environment-lease race and does not provide this dispatch policy. Subsystem affected `server/` heartbeat orchestration and `packages/shared/` workspace policy contracts. Problem or motivation The shared-workspace busy gate always defers a second run. This behavior prevents local multi-agent projects from running concurrently even when operators expect agents to coordinate through commits. Proposed solution Add `sharedWorkspaceConcurrency` with `auto`, `serialize`, and `allow` values. Default `auto` permits local and SSH concurrency. It serializes sandbox, plugin, and forced Kubernetes execution. Alternatives considered Keeping unconditional serialization is too restrictive for persistent host working trees. Always allowing overlap removes the protection that sandboxed and remote targets need. Roadmap alignment This is a focused correction to the shipped cloud and sandbox execution milestone. It does not add a new roadmap feature. ## What Changed - Added the optional tri-state field to project policy and issue override contracts and validators. - Added a pure resolver with issue override, project policy, and `auto` default precedence. - Moved final environment and Kubernetes resolution before the shared-workspace busy gate. - Kept the existing deferral and retry behavior for every path that resolves to serialization. - Added a task-context warning and a structured log when a run dispatches beside a live holder. - Added policy and heartbeat coverage for all requested policy and environment combinations. - Documented the new policy and its default behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` — 32 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `PAPERCLIP_IN_WORKTREE=false PAPERCLIP_DATABASE_RESTORE_IN_PROGRESS=false PAPERCLIP_RESTORE_IN_PROGRESS=false pnpm test:run` — all 3,528 server tests passed. The later UI/workspace phase passed 3,384 tests and hit one unrelated `CompanyEnvironments` navigation timing failure. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx -t "opens the edit form on a standalone page with existing values and closes after save"` — the unrelated UI test passed in isolation. - `pnpm build` — passed. Policy matrix: \| Policy \| Final target \| Expected result \| Result \| \| --- \| --- \| --- \| --- \| \| `auto` \| local \| Dispatch with holder note \| Passed \| \| `auto` \| sandbox \| Defer with `workspace_busy` \| Passed \| \| `auto` \| instance-forced Kubernetes \| Defer with `workspace_busy` \| Passed \| \| `serialize` \| local \| Defer with `workspace_busy` \| Passed \| \| `allow` \| sandbox \| Dispatch with holder note \| Passed \| Existing serialization, retry, and stale-holder tests also pass. ## Risks - `auto` changes the post-#10699 local and SSH behavior back to concurrent dispatch. Concurrent agents can mutate the same working tree, so each dispatched run receives an explicit coordination warning. - `allow` is an operator override and can permit overlap in sandbox or plugin environments. - Unknown environment drivers serialize in `auto` mode. This keeps the fallback conservative. - There is no database migration. An absent field resolves to `auto`. > 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 API snapshot and context-window size are not exposed to the agent. Reasoning, repository editing, terminal tool use, and local 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>	2026-08-03 14:25:05 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	c09ea7112b	feat(observability): add granular OpenTelemetry spans for sandbox startup and execution (#10758 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates AI agent work and records execution data. > - The sandbox startup path and the host-to-sandbox execution path need clearer OpenTelemetry spans. > - The trace data now shows wait time, critical path data, and bounded labels. > - This pull request adds bounded spans and closed attribute helpers for sandbox startup and execution. > - The result is better trace data with low cardinality and no secret leakage. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. - Related PR: #10536 - This PR extends the sandbox OpenTelemetry work with exec spans, root timing, and bounded labels. ## What Changed - Added a closed span-attribute contract for sandbox startup data. - Added a bounded label helper for command and region values. - Threaded the active step context into the execution path. - Added a `sandbox.exec` span with true timestamps and bounded attributes. - Added skipped-step and root-span timing data with low-cardinality context. - Moved handshake sub-times and bridge batch data onto spans. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils run typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server run typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec vitest run` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run environment-execution-target` - `git log --oneline origin/master..origin/feat/sandbox-startup-otel-spans` - `git diff origin/master...origin/feat/sandbox-startup-otel-spans --stat` ## Risks - Span attribute rules could still miss a future field if new code skips the shared helper. - Low-cardinality labels may hide some detail, but that is the intended tradeoff. - Tracing stays fail-open, so a missing tracer still hides data rather than stopping work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use enabled. 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 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] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge The current head still has one failing required check: `e2e`. The PR stays unready for board handoff until that check passes. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-03 10:13:19 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	185515c97b	fix(external-objects): refresh PR status labels (#10704 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue properties panel can show external objects such as GitHub pull requests. > - Those objects are resolved by external-object providers and then displayed as compact status labels. > - A GitHub pull request could remain in the fallback `unknown` state and appear as `Not yet resolved`. > - That label is confusing when the object is known but has not been refreshed yet. > - This pull request refreshes due external objects from the heartbeat scheduler and improves the unknown-status copy. > - The benefit is a properties panel that moves from pending refresh to the real pull request state without a manual refresh. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. I searched for related public issues and pull requests using the terms `Not yet refreshed`, `external objects refresh`, and `external PR status`, and did not find a duplicate implementation. What happened? The issue properties panel could show a GitHub pull request as `Not yet resolved` even when the referenced pull request was valid. The object stayed stale unless a manual refresh path ran. Expected behavior A known external object should show pending-refresh copy while it waits for provider data. When the scheduler refreshes it, the properties panel should show the provider status such as open, merged, or closed. Steps to reproduce 1. Create or view an issue that references a GitHub pull request. 2. Open the issue properties panel. 3. Observe the external object row before a manual refresh has run. Paperclip version or commit Current `master` before this pull request. Deployment mode Local dev and self-hosted server. Installation method Built from source. Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific. Database mode Not database-related. Access context Board view. Privacy checklist I reviewed this description and did not include logs, credentials, private URLs, internal issue IDs, or PII. ## What Changed - Added a heartbeat scheduler tick that refreshes due external objects for active companies. - Kept manual external-object refresh behavior on the same service path. - Changed display copy so known provider objects use liveness labels such as `Not yet refreshed`, while fresh unknown provider statuses show `Status unavailable`. - Added server and UI tests for scheduled refresh and label behavior. ## Verification - `corepack pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts ui/src/components/ExternalObjectPill.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` - GitHub PR checks passed on head `0e7fcd30` - Greptile reported 5/5 on head `0e7fcd30` with no unresolved review threads Notes: - I ran recursive typecheck and build first. Both hit container resource limits with exit 137 during concurrent package work, so I reran the affected server and UI targets separately. - An unrelated workspace-runtime auto-port test fails in this container with a PID ownership mismatch. It is outside the files changed here. ## Risks Low to medium risk. The scheduler does more periodic external-object work, so the main risk is extra provider refresh load. The implementation bounds the work to active companies, due non-terminal objects, and 50 objects per company per tick. The path also stays behind the external-objects experimental setting. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex in the Codex execution environment, with shell and GitHub CLI tool use. The runtime did not expose a more specific internal model ID or context window. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-02 20:24:52 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	717684ad8f	Add project folder browsing to skill imports (#9930 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane teams use to manage AI agents and their reusable capabilities. > - Skills Manager lets operators discover and import skills from project workspaces. > - Automatic discovery only surfaces skills in conventional locations, so valid skills stored elsewhere in a project are invisible. > - Operators need a safe way to navigate project folders without exposing paths outside the selected workspace. > - This pull request adds company-scoped workspace folder browsing and selection to the project skill import flow. > - The benefit is that operators can find and import valid skill folders regardless of repository layout while preserving workspace boundaries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Subsystem affected: Cross-cutting (`server/`, `ui/`, and `packages/shared`). - Problem or motivation: Project skill imports rely on conventional directory discovery, which prevents operators from selecting valid `SKILL.md` folders stored in atypical locations. - Proposed solution: Add a company-scoped browse endpoint and a folder browser in the import dialog. The server resolves real paths, rejects traversal outside the workspace, skips symlinks and high-noise directories, identifies skill directories/files, and caps listings at 250 entries. - Alternatives considered: Expanding the automatic scan to every directory would be slower and noisier, while accepting arbitrary filesystem paths would weaken project/workspace scoping. - Roadmap alignment: This extends the completed “Skills Manager, Skill Studio & Skills Store” capability in `ROADMAP.md` without duplicating planned core work. - Additional context: GitHub search found no duplicate or closely related public issues or pull requests. ## What Changed - Added shared browse request/result contracts and validation for project workspace navigation. - Added a company-scoped API route and service that safely lists local workspace folders and detects `SKILL.md` entries. - Added project workspace/folder navigation to the import dialog, including parent navigation, workspace switching, truncation feedback, and direct skill selection. - Added service and route regression tests for browsing, skill detection, company isolation, and traversal rejection. - Added shared response schemas and OpenAPI documentation for the browse endpoint. - Hardened explicit skill selections with realpath containment so symlinked directories cannot escape the project workspace. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills.test.ts` — 64 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — 3 tests passed. - Focused post-review reruns: `company-skills-service.test.ts` — 45 tests passed; shared/server typechecks passed. - GitHub latest-head checks — all green after one transient e2e rerun; no pending or failing checks. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean on the rebased head. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate risk: this adds a filesystem browsing surface. Realpath containment checks prevent workspace escape, symlinks are excluded, remote-managed workspaces are rejected, and directory listings are capped. - The browser intentionally hides `.git` and `node_modules`; skills inside those directories cannot be selected through this flow. > 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-5.5`, reasoning-enabled with terminal/tool use and code execution; runtime context-window size is not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details — the execution harness requires preserving the assigned branch name. - [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 — no user-facing docs changes are needed beyond this PR description because the flow is self-explanatory UI behavior. - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-02 10:55:36 -05:00
Dotta Claude Opus 4.8 Paperclip	0a09e4d975	feat(decisions): add desk workflow and retention (#10672 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Decisions desk shows work that needs a human decision > - The queue foundation can group and rank decision work > - Operators also need a focused daily view and a safe way to handle old work > - This pull request adds the desk controls, the aging shelf, and reversible retention > - It also binds bulk archive decisions to the exact reviewed item set > - The benefit is a smaller daily queue without lost or orphaned work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: server, UI, database, and shared contracts. Problem or motivation Decision work can grow into one large company list. Operators need quick queue and date controls. Old items also need a safe retention path that does not delete work. Proposed solution Add queue and date controls to the Decisions desk. Compute the aging shelf on the server. Archive idle items after 90 days unless an operator keeps them. Keep archived items searchable and revivable. Notify origin agents in one batch per sweep. Bind bulk archive proposals to a signed, exact item manifest. Alternatives considered Client-only aging can drift across browsers and source kinds. Deleting old rows removes audit and recovery paths. An unsigned dynamic bulk query can archive items that the reviewer did not inspect. Roadmap alignment This work supports the Work Queues and decision-memory directions in `ROADMAP.md`. It extends the Decisions and attention-feed foundation from #10651. Related earlier work includes #9380, #10010, and #10474. ## What Changed - Added the queue rail, date chips, decide split, triage strip, queue page, and aging shelf UI. - Added server-owned shelf state with per-queue retention overrides. - Added reversible retention state, archive history, and an idempotent notification outbox. - Added the 90-day archive sweeper, Keep exemption, archived feed query, and revive actions. - Added one origin-agent notification per agent and sweep. - Added signed bulk archive proposals with exact-set and version checks. - Persisted queue-exclusion reasons atomically and kept cross-domain source resolution per-item until it has an exact-set transaction contract. - Added API contracts, OpenAPI entries, migration coverage, focused tests, and Storybook screens. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` (server: 329 files and 3,453 tests passed; UI: 408 files and 3,362 tests passed) - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - Focused retention, attention, decisions, migration replay, startup, and UI API tests. - Complete queue snapshot regression with 51 items across the normal 50-item page boundary. The unmodified CLI test reports one warning assertion in this runtime because the harness injects static AWS credential variables. The isolated test passes when those two variables are removed. ## Risks - The migration adds retention and notification outbox tables. It uses idempotent table, index, and foreign-key creation. - Retention runs on the heartbeat scheduler interval. Compare-and-set version checks prevent stale archive writes. - Bulk archive acceptance fails closed when authority, activity, version, or the reviewed set changes. - Archive is reversible and does not delete source records. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The model used tool calls, code execution, database migration generation, and test execution. The context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-02 10:47:03 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	dcac49a4fd	feat(workspaces): defer isolated setup until runtime start (#10653 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Isolated workspaces give each task a safe and reproducible checkout. > - The existing setup cloned the development database before an agent needed to run the app. > - This made worktree creation slower and heavier for tasks that never start a service. > - Runtime services already use one server start path for heartbeat, operator, and startup recovery flows. > - This pull request moves heavy setup to that start path and keeps worktree creation lean. > - The benefit is faster isolated workspace creation with the same reliable runtime setup when a service starts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related pull request: #10652 covers the initial deferred database-seeding slice. This pull request supersedes it with end-to-end runtime provisioning and safe cleanup. What existing behavior does this improve? This improves isolated worktree creation, runtime service startup, and isolated instance cleanup. Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: CLI worktree setup, server runtime orchestration, shared workspace contracts, and development scripts. Current behavior Paperclip seeds an isolated development database during worktree creation. It can also leave an isolated instance directory after workspace teardown. This work happens even when no runtime service starts. Proposed behavior Paperclip creates the worktree with a lean eager setup. It runs an idempotent runtime provision command before the first managed service spawn. Concurrent starts share one provision attempt. Teardown removes the isolated instance safely. Reason and benefit Many agent tasks only edit and test code. They do not need a running Paperclip instance. Deferring the database seed reduces workspace startup cost while preserving automatic setup for tasks that start the app. Breaking changes None. The new runtime provision command is optional. Existing workspace behavior is unchanged when it is absent. ## What Changed - Split Paperclip worktree setup into a lean eager script and an idempotent runtime provision script. - Added `runtimeProvisionCommand` to project, issue, realized workspace, and persisted workspace contracts. - Added a per-workspace provision mutex before local service spawn for heartbeat, operator, and startup recovery flows. - Added a persisted `provisioning` service state and the `workspace_runtime_provision` operation phase. - Kept provision time outside the service readiness timeout and made failed attempts visible and retryable. - Reclaimed isolated instance data during safe workspace teardown. - Serialized deferred database seeding across processes and bound teardown to the instance root captured in persisted workspace metadata. - Added tests for config flow, concurrency, retry, no-op behavior, readiness timing, scripts, CLI commands, and cleanup. - Documented the eager and runtime provisioning contracts. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm test:run` (server: 3,201 passed; UI: 3,345 passed; the CLI phase exposed one environment-sensitive AWS doctor assertion because the agent runtime injects static AWS credentials) - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts -t 'passes AWS doctor checks when non-secret provider config is present'` - Focused runtime tests cover serialized provisioning, retry after stderr failure, absent-command no-op behavior, operation logging, persisted state order, and readiness timeout exclusion. - Focused CLI and cleanup tests cover concurrent seed serialization, stale-lock fail-closed behavior, persisted instance ownership, and rewritten sibling pointers. ## Risks - A faulty runtime provision script blocks service startup. Paperclip records stderr, marks the service failed, and retries on the next start. - Concurrent service requests share an in-process provision attempt, while the seed command uses an atomic filesystem lock across processes. A stale lock fails closed and requires an operator to verify no seed is running before removing it. - Isolated instance cleanup is destructive. The cleanup service validates ownership and path containment before removal. > 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`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The service 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-02 10:37:10 -05:00

1 2 3 4 5 ...