PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-21 16:27:18 +02:00

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	6b804bfeba	Fix Docker dependency installation for Copilot lifecycle hooks (#16983 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - The standard Docker image contains the server and Runner. > - Its dependency stage installs packages before copying application source. > - New Copilot postinstall hooks need files absent from that stage. > - Both image architectures stop before compilation. > - This change supplies the lifecycle inputs and tests both entrypoints. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Master Docker builds fail with a missing `packages/paperclip-runner/scripts/install-copilot-assets.mjs`. The server postinstall also needs its bootstrap script and source marker. See the failed public [Docker build](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39450988012). Expected behavior Dependency installation recognizes the existing source workspace. The later build compiles and verifies provider assets through the existing path. Steps to reproduce 1. Build the standard Docker image from master. 2. Reach `pnpm install` in the `deps` stage. 3. Observe the missing lifecycle-script error before compilation. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced in the Docker build for `24758b9da129a5e424fb7ba6b423d748ce23f3bc`. This PR starts at `33cc567f75ae8a3fecf4442d20772e62944f1552`. Deployment mode Docker, Linux amd64 and arm64. No database is involved. Searched open PRs and issues for Docker, Copilot, installer and the exact missing script. No matching fix was found. ## What Changed - Copy the Runner installer and its two helper modules into the dependency layer. - Copy the server installer and both existing source-workspace markers. - Execute both real postinstall entrypoints in a temporary fixture populated from the relevant Docker COPY inputs. - Run the fixture in the existing trusted PR dependency-stage check. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/docker-deps-postinstall.test.mjs` passed. - The same test fails with the original Dockerfile because the installer is missing. The fixed Dockerfile was restored and the test passed again. - `node scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` passed. - The fixture passed through the existing timing wrapper in default and `PAPERCLIP_CI_PROFILE=true` modes. The latter wrote test timing records. - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` passed. - All three `node --test packages/paperclip-runner/scripts/install-copilot-assets.test.mjs` cases passed. These test fresh Runner/server assets, source bootstrap and published-package failure. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. The full local test command is running. All 55 checks passed on exact head `8ab57339cb9a0dcefa3ae9c2c0f92dc4f6210a23`, with one neutral security scan and four conditional skips. This includes full server, browser, Runner, typecheck, build, package-smoke and dependency-stage checks. Apex reviewed the same head at 5/5 with its prior timing finding resolved. No review thread remains unresolved. - The local Docker daemon does not respond to an info probe. A complete local image build has not been run. The post-merge canonical image build must pass before any deployment uses this change. ## Risks The dependency cache now includes these small lifecycle inputs. Source edits to the two marker files invalidate that cache. The existing source-workspace detection and compiled asset verification remain in place. This does not add an installer bypass, change provider pins or alter runtime behavior. No schema change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with source inspection, code execution and GitHub tools. The exact served model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run focused tests locally and recorded the results above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 09:46:48 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	2c96f76780	feat(connections): add model-backed prompt injection prevention Add opt-in OpenRouter checks at existing tool-result boundaries with regex fallback, service accounting, and settings on Connections. Make migration 0362 safe to replay over existing or partially applied schema state. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 11:32:25 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	33cc567f75	Add lease-scoped Runner task hooks to environment plugins (#15406 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates AI agents and their runs. > - Environment plugins own remote capacity. > - A plugin needs a typed API to start and stop its installed Runner. > - Core must derive authority from the saved lease. > - A lost reply or controller restart must not lose cleanup authority. > - This PR adds the worker contract and the host task service. > - Native execution and Runner changes are separate PRs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Plugin SDK and environment lease services. Current behavior Environment plugins have no typed Runner task hook. Core cannot dispatch these tasks or recover their credential handoff through a saved lease. Proposed behavior Add validated task operations, worker negotiation, company and project checks, retained-session authorization, and durable cleanup. Keep credentials out of lease metadata. Additional context This PR is the first part of a smaller series. Runner installed-home support is in #16977. Native execution and setup are in #16978. Both are stacked drafts. This PR does not enable native plugin execution, change default environments, add a route, or add a database migration. ## What Changed - Add `supportsTasks` and `onEnvironmentTask` with seven typed operations. - Validate worker requests and responses. Reject shell commands and file transfer operations. - Pin dispatch and cleanup to the saved company, lease, plugin, and driver. - Authorize projects and retained sessions. Validate the current run separately from the retained PRP identity. - Save dispatch before the provider call. Fence admission during cleanup. Require observed process termination. - Save account writeback authority on the lease. Recover Codex refreshes through the existing account and secret services. - Document the task API. Keep the Runner, heartbeat, setup, workspace, and provider changes in later PRs. ## Verification - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the separated API scope. - 201 focused tests passed: SDK worker dispatch, task validation, PostgreSQL task lineage, credential recovery, and existing environment cleanup. - The lineage test covers a third run, repeated same-run replacements, a stale submitting run, and exact termination receipts. - Initial commands hit sandbox socket/IPC restrictions. The permitted runs executed PostgreSQL and passed. A typecheck attempt lacked Cargo in PATH; the run with the installed toolchain passed. - The earlier combined implementation had a full local run with 22,286 passing tests, 120 skips, and eight failed assertions. Task fixture failures were fixed before this split. Remaining host Git and temporary-path assertions are recorded in the previous PR revision. This split does not claim a fresh full local suite pass. - The standard Greptile review scored this API head 5/5 with no unresolved threads. CI is green. The single Apex review also scored this head 5/5 with no actionable findings. - Fresh API CI lost a self-hosted runner during server shard 9. GitHub reported lost communication, with no failed test step. The affected jobs passed on retry without code changes. - CI on the prior combined head failed an unchanged workspace dev-server readiness case. No unrelated test fix is included here. Fresh CI is required for this smaller head. - This scope does not run a provider or a Cloud test. The user owns deployment and the intermediate Cloud test. ## Risks - The API is opt-in. Native plugin execution requires the later integrations. - Providers must make task submission idempotent and prove descendant termination. - A failed status read or credential export keeps the lease available for cleanup. - Codex refresh writeback requires the same active grant, secret reference, and session epoch. Revocation or account replacement discards the old refresh. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used source inspection, code execution, tests, and GitHub tools. The exact served model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run local checks and recorded failures and their results above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 09:14:23 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	98d17da1e2	Fix native monitor dispatch and finalization recovery (#16975 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native runs persist their results and workspace before they release execution. > - A task monitor must wait for that settlement before it starts the next run. > - The scheduler checked provider status but did not check unfinished finalization. > - A timer could dispatch too early, then its old finalizer could no longer find the consumed schedule. > - This pull request delays dispatch and reconciles prior delivery from server records. > - The task can continue without repeating the provider turn or removing a newer run's ownership. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A native run saved a yielded monitor result while workspace finalization needed recovery. Its timer dispatched after the provider stopped. The follow-up failed because the earlier run still held workspace recovery. The old finalizer then retried `monitor_wait_authority_lost` indefinitely. Expected behavior Timer dispatch waits for native finalization. If an older timer already dispatched, the finalizer uses its saved scheduling receipt and admitted successor to settle the old result. It preserves current task state and ownership. Steps to reproduce 1. Schedule a task monitor from a native run and save a yielded result. 2. Leave native finalization retryable after the provider reaches a terminal state. 3. Let the monitor become due. Before this change, the scheduler consumes it. 4. Restore workspace persistence and retry the old finalizer. Before this change, the missing schedule leaves it retryable. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced against master `34be1b831bcaba070264ae8d214ceffe6a8f9eab`. Deployment mode Self-hosted server built from source, with PostgreSQL and the native runner. Related recent recovery work: #16962 and #16963. No duplicate repair found for this failure. ## What Changed - Scheduled and manual monitor dispatch wait for unfinished native finalization. If the monitor expires during workspace recovery, the accepted result can settle into the persisted schedule, and the scheduler then applies its existing expiry policy. New monitor-wait results still require an unexpired, unexhausted schedule. - A narrow reader joins the run's server-issued monitor receipt to its durable wake and admitted successor. - The finalizer and locked status commit verify that evidence and preserve current task ownership. They do not create another wake. - Monitor delivery participates in assessment identity, so recovery can replace a prior error decision without violating the decision ledger's uniqueness constraints. - PostgreSQL regressions cover saved-result replay, active successors, wrong task or agent, missing receipts, unadmitted wakes, ownership races, and failed workspace persistence. - The execution contract and verification maps describe the recovery boundary. ## Verification - Red: the saved monitor regression remained `retryable_failure` instead of `committed` on unpatched code. - Red: the scheduler admitted a wake while terminal-run finalization remained retryable. - Red/green: two PostgreSQL cases reproduce timeout during workspace recovery for scheduled and manual checks. Before the review repair, both remain `retryable_failure` with `monitor_wait_authority_lost`. Afterward, both commit, apply board escalation once, preserve the saved result, and enqueue zero provider wakes. New completion still rejects the expired schedule. - Typecheck: `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - Build: `pnpm build` passed. - Maps: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - Review: Greptile 5/5 and Ponytail Paperclip Review 5/5 on the current head, with no unresolved findings. Both reviews are static; execution evidence is recorded separately above and below. - Linux staging: the original repair passed 170 tests across monitor integration, scheduling, status arbitration, and workspace finalization. The expanded suite passes all 172 tests, including both new timeout regressions. - Live acceptance: deployed the original repair to the authorized Linux ARM64 self-hosted instance. The stranded saved result finalized automatically; the original task then completed through normal admission, with its final answer persisted after browser reload. The other original task was already complete and its external delivery was verified without repeating it. - The initial Mac regression run passed 68 tests, but three suites failed during embedded PostgreSQL startup. A subsequent focused run confirmed the host had exhausted its PostgreSQL semaphore allowance. Linux verification uses isolated databases; the local failure logs remain preserved. - The local full test suite is not claimed as passed. It is blocked by the same PostgreSQL startup limitation; full-suite CI passed on head `8bc29d1b7783446f397b858e558083570a96bb66` ([run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39447913466)). ## Risks - A delivery match must not grant new execution authority. The lookup requires the original run's server receipt and a matching company, agent, task, wake, and admitted successor. The locked commit rejects old-run checkout ownership and permits no status effects. - Workspace persistence must succeed before settlement. Its existing failure path remains effective. - The scheduler waits while a native finalizer is unfinished. Workspace recovery must settle before dispatch; elapsed monitor limits transfer to the existing scheduler recovery policy instead of stranding the result. Neither settlement path renews a deadline or changes budget, approval, pause, or provider authority. - No schema, migration, credential, or provider configuration change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The exact backend model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 10:58:41 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	24758b9da1	Avoid loading tool schemas for effective assignments (#16969 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tool profiles define which tools an agent can use. > - Run preparation and connection checks resolve these assignments from the database. > - These callers need tool IDs and names, but the existing lookup also reads complete schemas and provider metadata. > - Repeated lookups transfer data that these callers discard. > - This pull request adds a small assignment projection through the same permission resolver. > - The benefit is less database transfer and JSON work with current permission checks and the same public response. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? Effective tool assignment reads during run preparation, native runtime setup, and connection policy checks. Subsystem affected server/ — tool access and orchestration services. Current behavior Internal callers use the public effective-profile lookup. Its catalog query reads complete tool rows, including input schemas, output schemas, annotations, and provider metadata. These callers only use catalog IDs and names. Proposed behavior Internal callers use an assignment lookup that selects catalog identity and selector fields. Both lookups share one resolver. The public effective-profile endpoint keeps its complete definitions. Reason and benefit Large catalogs increase database transfer and JSON work for every assignment lookup. The smaller query avoids that payload without caching permissions or changing query frequency. Breaking changes None. No route, schema, migration, permission rule, or public response changes. Related: Refs #16761, Refs #16723. The former narrows profile summary reads. The latter changes how the gateway presents tool definitions. Neither narrows this internal effective-assignment lookup. ## What Changed - Share effective-profile resolution between full definitions and assignment records. - Select the existing catalog identity and selector projection for internal assignments. - Use the assignment lookup in run preparation, native runtime setup, and connection policy checks. - Add real PostgreSQL tests for selectors, exclusions, current profile and binding state, company boundaries, and returned payload size. - Document the database read contract. ## Verification - Five focused test files passed: 521 tests. They cover tool access, connection intents, runtime preparation, native runtime context, and the new assignment lookup. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm check:module-boundaries` passed. - The PostgreSQL fixture compares the full authorization result with the assignment result. It checks all selector types, excludes removed tools, and observes catalog, profile, and binding changes on later calls. - The payload test measures rows returned by PostgreSQL before application mapping. With large schema and annotation fields, the assignment result is less than 1% of the full catalog payload. This is a synthetic fixture result, not a fleet savings estimate. - `pnpm build` passed. - The full local suite is in progress. It found two Git fixture failures that also reproduce on unchanged master with `init.defaultBranch=main`. Both pass with a process-only `init.defaultBranch=master` setting. The global Git configuration was not changed. This earlier failure remains recorded; it is not counted as a clean first pass. - Apex review: 5/5, no actionable comments. All 54 CI checks passed; two conditional jobs were skipped. - The broader local run also reached two UI test timeouts and one adapter test timeout. All three passed when rerun in isolation with unchanged source. The exact cause of these timeouts is not established. No UI or adapter implementation is changed by this PR. The CLI import/export journey passes its assertions but its local teardown fails with `ENOTEMPTY` while a runtime context asset is written. Its CI check passed. The complete local suite is not reported as a clean pass. ## Risks - Both lookups share permission resolution. Existing tool access tests and result parity checks cover that extraction. - Future assignment callers must use the fields in the smaller result. Typechecking rejects attempts to read full schemas from it. - The lookup still scans the active company catalog and resolves current connections on every call. This change reduces returned bytes; it does not reduce query count or introduce a cache. - No database migration or operational configuration change is required. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool-assisted source inspection, implementation, and test execution. The exact model variant and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 08:42:59 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	ba3bdd0675	Keep Muse maintenance idle on unclaimed warm instances (#16974 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud keeps unclaimed applications warm so new users can enter quickly. > - Empty warm applications use an existing standby predicate to skip recurring database work. > - Muse maintenance starts without that predicate and scans its tables every five seconds. > - These scans keep an empty database active even when no Muse binding exists. > - This pull request applies the existing standby predicate to Muse startup and recurring maintenance. > - The benefit is idle database compute while the application stays warm, with normal maintenance after claim. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? `createApp` starts Muse maintenance without the warm standby guard used by other background services. The worker updates qualification evidence at startup and reads binding tables every five seconds, including on an empty unclaimed instance. Expected behavior An unclaimed warm application must not run recurring database work. Muse maintenance must resume after the signed claim, without a process restart. Steps to reproduce 1. Start the maintenance service with background work disabled. 2. Advance the timer beyond several five-second sweeps. 3. Observe database calls from the original implementation despite the disabled state. The new regression test uses real PostgreSQL. The original source fails its zero-query assertion; the patched source passes. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on `813e808af46` before this fix. Related: Refs #16448. ## What Changed - Pass the Cloud standby predicate to Muse maintenance. - Admit both the startup evidence update and recurring sweeps only when background work is enabled. - Mark startup evidence once, before reconciliation. Retry that write after a database failure. - Add PostgreSQL tests for standby, claim, later ticks, default deadline enforcement, and startup-write failure. - Document the maintenance boundary. ## Verification - Five focused test files passed: 278 tests. They cover Muse maintenance, Muse control and qualification routes, and Cloud standby behavior. - Controlled regression: the new standby test fails against the original maintenance source. The patched source was restored after the comparison. - The new PostgreSQL test advances ten minutes while admission is closed and observes zero database operations. It opens admission and verifies the persisted qualification evidence update and reconciliation. Later sweeps retain a single successful startup update. - `pnpm check:module-boundaries` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - All 54 CI checks passed; two conditional jobs were skipped. - Apex review: 5/5, no actionable comments or unresolved threads. - The full local test command is still running. The focused tests, workspace typecheck, build, and complete CI matrix above are the finished checks. ## Risks - Claimed workspaces retain existing Muse maintenance. The app gate depends only on warm standby. It does not suppress deadline enforcement or terminal cleanup during idle task drain. - Work resumes on the next five-second maintenance tick after claim. Request-driven work remains available through the existing claim path. - The receiver keeps its existing lifecycle. Its empty pending-contact map causes no database writes in standby. - No database migration, provider configuration, or authority rule changes. - Broker and receiver effects are mocked in the new maintenance tests. The database operations are real. Existing Muse control tests cover the broker boundary; no live Muse provider qualification is claimed. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool-assisted source inspection, implementation, and test execution. The exact model variant and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 08:42:42 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	4b05795712	fix(github): reuse review instructions across native turns (#16971 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub events continue an ordinary task and can reuse its provider conversation. > - Each automatic event appended the full review policy and PR description. > - Native GitHub follow-ups also repeated task history because only Slack used the compact path. > - This pull request separates admitted review configuration from commit updates. > - A verified resume sends the current messages and changed configuration. A fresh session gets full context. > - This reduces repeated input while retaining review rules and current tool checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13959, #16645, #16901. What happened? Opening a PR and pushing twice stored three full review prompts. A later native turn repeated all three in a retained provider conversation. Expected behavior A new event supplies its commit and event data. The harness delivers stable review instructions once per retained conversation and configuration. Fresh sessions receive full instructions. Steps to reproduce 1. Enable automatic GitHub reviews for a repository. 2. Open a PR, let the review finish, and push two new commits. 3. Inspect task messages and the native submitted envelopes. Before this fix, the policy and old requests repeat. ## What Changed - Store compact automatic event messages. Fetch the PR description through the existing metadata tool when needed. - Load review instructions from processed deliveries bound to the company, task, agent, and source comments. Preserve each admitted policy snapshot. - Use the existing verified native continuation path for complete GitHub text batches. Deliver configuration changes using a key over endpoint, PR conversation, revision, and instructions. - Keep full bootstrap input for fresh sessions and failed resume, including board follow-ups with no new GitHub event. Retain existing framing for incomplete batches, attachments, interactions, and recovery. - Keep the same configuration identity across automatic review, discussion, and automatic review. Coalesced requests use the last accepted request's admitted policy. - Add regression and database coverage. Update the execution contract and verification recipe. ## Verification - Red: the new event-size regression failed because policy and PR body repeated. The GitHub continuation regression failed because it returned no compact prompt. - Green: focused policy, continuation, native input, and adapter prompt tests passed (231 tests). Native resume/fresh-bootstrap cases passed (9 tests). - The signed-webhook/database case passed at `6296168253`. It checks configuration edits, queued older snapshots, coalesced policy selection, discussion continuity, board follow-ups, and company/task/agent/comment boundaries. The private PostgreSQL template used 12 connections because the host reached its semaphore limit with the default settings. - The earlier broad channel/session integration run passed 1,432 tests. Later review fixes invalidated that run. The latest focused database case passed after those fixes. - Reviewer regressions failed against the previous lookup, then passed with the fix: a mixed-revision batch delivered multiple policies, and a discussion lost the configuration identity. The board wake-to-rendered-prompt regression also failed before repair. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `git diff --check` passed on the final source. - Full local `pnpm test:run` exposed follow-up/fixture failures during development. Those cases are fixed and pass separately. The stale run was stopped after source edits. Full-suite validation for the final commit passed in CI. - All required CI checks passed for `6296168253`, including tests, typechecks, build, and clean public npm install checks. The two unrelated Storybook checks were skipped. - A live two-turn Codex smoke could not start: the local macOS sandbox helper rejected execution of the installed Codex 0.153.4 binary. No live GitHub/provider acceptance or deployment is claimed. ## Risks Skipping instructions is safe only after a verified checkpoint resume with the correct previous run. The full bootstrap remains available if resume fails. Changed or previously unknown configuration is sent again. Tests cover these cases. Tool authorization and publication checks still run under the current server policy. No database migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The exact deployment model identifier and context window are not exposed in this session. No delegated agents were used. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> canary/v2026.1020.0-canary.8	2026-10-20 10:39:17 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	1f3695ac67	fix: expire native session failover backups after their issues close (#16866 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Native agent sessions that run in a remote sandbox keep a host-side failover copy of the sandbox's harness state, so a replacement sandbox can resume the conversation > - Each session keeps that copy forever, and one copy can reach several gigabytes > - On a busy instance these copies fill the volume, and no existing cleanup touches them > - Once a session's work is closed, its copy matters only if someone reopens that work later > - This pull request expires the copy after the session's issues have been closed for a configurable window, and makes a reopened issue start a fresh session > - The benefit is bounded disk use without breaking active, recoverable, or leased sessions ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Bug report described in-PR (bug report template). What happened? After every remote turn, `checkpointRemoteRunner` writes the sandbox's runner state and provider session home (for example `codex-home`) to `durable-sessions/<scope>/failover-backups/current`. Only the same session's next checkpoint replaces it. No code path deletes a session's copy when the session ends, its issue closes, or its agent goes away, so the instance volume fills. On one instance: - 246 sessions held 17 GB of copies, 84 of them older than a week; - 24 new sessions added 5 GB in a single day, one copy alone 3.2 GB. Expected behavior Disk used by failover copies stays bounded. A copy is kept while its session can still resume (open issue, live run, pending recovery, or live lease), and expires once the session's issues have been closed for a while. A reopened issue then starts a fresh native session, instead of failing with `runner_harness_backup_unavailable` on a replacement sandbox. Steps to reproduce 1. Run agents with a native runtime in a remote sandbox environment. 2. Let them complete many issues. 3. Watch `<instance>/runtime/paperclip-runner/durable-sessions//failover-backups/current` grow without bound after the issues close. Paperclip version or commit:* `master` at `9179d8dcc3`. Deployment mode: server with remote sandbox environments. Agent adapter(s) involved: not adapter-specific (core bug); observed with Codex sessions. Breaking changes - Reopening an issue that has been closed for longer than the window (default 7 days) starts a fresh agent session instead of resuming the old conversation. - Disable with `PAPERCLIP_NATIVE_HARNESS_BACKUP_EXPIRATION_ENABLED=false`, or lengthen the window with `PAPERCLIP_NATIVE_HARNESS_BACKUP_EXPIRATION_DAYS`. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-harness-backup-expiration.ts` (new): the sweep. It checks at most 200 sessions and expires at most 50 per batch, continuing from a cursor. A copy expires only when all of these hold: - every issue the session ran on is `done` or `cancelled`, closed before the window; - the copy was written before the window; - no run of the session is queued, running, or unfinished; - every native run finalization of the session is settled (`committed` or `terminal_failure`), with no recovery state or lease owner; - no `active`, `released`, `retained`, or `pending_cleanup` environment lease references the copy (by backup stamp, session run, or recorded lease); - the session is not executing, initializing, warm, or closing in this process, and its directory has no pending cleanup activation. - One transaction: the database checks share-lock the issues and delete the agent task session that points at the session, so a reopened issue cannot resume the expired session. - Atomic, non-blocking removal: the copy is renamed to `failover-backups/.retiring-<UUID>`, and a final check looks for a run of the session. If one appeared, or the check throws, the rename is undone. Only a confirmed copy becomes `.expired-<UUID>` and is deleted with asynchronous file operations, so a multi-gigabyte removal does not block the event loop. A later sweep restores an unconfirmed `.retiring-` copy when `current` is missing, drops it when a newer `current` exists, and finishes an interrupted deletion. The rest of the session directory is kept. - `native-session-executor.ts`:* exports `nativeSessionScopeDigestIsBusy`, which checks the in-process executing, initializing, warm, and closing session maps. - `native-harness-backup-stamp.ts`: exports the state base path the sweep scans. - `config.ts` and `index.ts`: three environment controls (`_ENABLED`, `_DRY_RUN`, `_DAYS`) and the scheduled sweep. It starts two minutes after boot, honors shutdown, standby, and idle drain, and logs candidates, reclaimed bytes, cleared task sessions, and skip reasons. - Docs: `doc/recoverable-disk-cleanup.md` describes the sweep; `doc/DEVELOPING.md` lists the variables. - No code comments were added. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/native-harness-backup-expiration.test.ts src/__tests__/native-harness-backup-expiration-config.test.ts` (in `server/`): 30 passed, 24 of them against embedded Postgres plus 6 config tests. Cases: - expiry for done and cancelled issues, including clearing the task session; - each keep condition: open issue, recently closed, live run, pending finalization, recovery in progress, live lease, recent copy, cleanup activation, in-process session; - settled finalizations and expired leases do not block; - dry run changes nothing; - bounded batches continue across ticks; - an interrupted deletion is finished, and an unconfirmed retiring copy is restored or dropped; - the configured clock controls the closed window. - Mutation checks: treating `in_progress` as closed, ignoring live leases, ignoring the configured clock, or not restoring a retiring copy each fail the corresponding tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run native-harness-backup config` (in `server/`): 19 files, 293 tests passed. - `pnpm run typecheck` (in `server/`): pass. - Real server: after building and bundling, `scripts/server-boot-smoke.sh node server/dist-runtime/index.mjs` reached healthy. - Manual equivalent on a live instance: applying these checks by hand (with a 3-day window) to 242 copies freed 7.1 GB. Most of the remainder belonged to open issues or live leases. ## Risks - Reopen after the window: the agent starts a fresh session and loses the old conversation's provider history. Issue comments, documents, and work products are unaffected. - Race with a wake: the checks share-lock the issues, so a reopen waits for the transaction. A run created for the session between commit and rename is caught by the post-rename check, which restores the copy. Such a run would find no task session and start fresh. - Missing owner run: if the owning run row is gone (for example, after an agent was deleted), the copy is kept, because the sweep cannot prove the session is closed. - Untouched: quarantined session roots and `continuity-breaks` archives are not touched by this change. - Rollback: set `PAPERCLIP_NATIVE_HARNESS_BACKUP_EXPIRATION_ENABLED=false`, or revert. Expired copies cannot be restored. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), 1M context, through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, local builds, tests and boots, read-only measurements on a live instance). ## 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>	2026-10-20 07:57:43 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	39906096c4	chore: ignore personal agent instructions (#16970 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use repository instructions to guide their local agents. > - Personal instructions can differ between contributors. > - A root `AGENTS.local.md` file can hold these personal additions. > - Git must keep this file out of shared commits by default. > - This pull request adds a root ignore rule for the file. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? Git ignore rules for personal agent instructions in a local checkout. Current behavior Git lists a root `AGENTS.local.md` as an untracked file. A contributor can add it to a commit by mistake. Proposed behavior Git ignores the root `AGENTS.local.md` by default. Each contributor can keep personal instructions in that file. Reason and benefit Personal agent settings stay local. Contributors can keep using the shared `AGENTS.md` for repository rules. Breaking changes None. The rule applies only to an untracked file at the repository root. No related public issues or pull requests appeared in searches for `AGENTS.local.md`. ## What Changed - Add `/AGENTS.local.md` to `.gitignore` under a personal agent instructions comment. ## Verification - `git check-ignore -v AGENTS.local.md` selects the new root ignore rule. - `git ls-files AGENTS.local.md` returns no tracked files. - `git diff --name-only origin/master...HEAD` lists only `.gitignore`. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passes. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build` were attempted. All three stopped before execution because pnpm could not fetch and verify the pinned `pnpm@9.15.4` through the network sandbox. This checkout also has no installed dependencies. The Git checks above passed. CI status remains separate. ## Risks Low risk. Git will hide a root `AGENTS.local.md` from normal staging. Existing tracked files remain tracked. The ignore rule does not make Codex load the file; contributors must configure that separately. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with file editing, shell execution, and GitHub tools. The exact backend model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 09:53:43 -05:00
Nicky Leach	34be1b831b	Fix duplicate ACPX skills cleanup in test teardown (#16937 )	2026-10-20 07:44:28 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	813e808af4	Remove filesystem history authorization from workspace preparation (#16963 ) Remove physical-root source/reader authorization and sticky directory classifications from workspace preparation. Preserve current task/run authority, app-record privacy, credential authorization, containment, and lifecycle/publication integrity. Validate replacement selections against persisted new inputs and refresh verified checkout ownership so bounded reuse survives earlier workspace relocation. Add real PostgreSQL/Git regressions, a reproducible history-scaling benchmark, and documentation. Full CI passed all 48 jobs and Greptile scored 5/5 at `3d5da6c259`. Five preparation-guard medians improved from 20,512.99 ms to 52.22 ms on the 8,500-workspace fixture; these are not end-to-end startup timings. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 09:19:59 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d84061b923	fix(runner): recover journaled completion proposals (#16962 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Native runs preserve provider sessions across controller restarts. > - A completion event can reach durable storage before the next session checkpoint. > - Recovery advanced the event cursor but lost the saved completion proposal. > - The completed turn then appeared to need another provider turn to report its result. > - This change restores the exact active turn's proposal before advancing the cursor. > - Recovery can finalize completed work without repeating its external actions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? After a controller restart, a native run could fail with `native_finalization_missing` even though `run.result.proposed` was already durable. The recovered driver skipped that event when its cursor advanced, so the result was absent from its state. Automatic disposition retries could then encounter outstanding tool receipts and exhaust recovery. Expected behavior Restore the saved result for the exact active turn. Wait for provider termination, then use normal finalization. Do not start another provider turn to repeat completed work. Steps to reproduce 1. Start a native Codex task and save its active-turn checkpoint. 2. Persist its completion proposal, then lose the controller before another checkpoint. 3. Recover the same run after the provider completes. Before this change, finalization reports a missing result. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on `92b238137b`. The repair is based on `7c247243e5`. Deployment mode Native Runner with Codex. The incident used a remote sandbox; the regression covers controller event recovery. Related: #12845 and #15297. The older #12241 addresses provider process continuity; this change repairs the controller's saved event projection. ## What Changed - Restore valid completion proposals for the checkpoint's exact active turn during event replay. - Reject conflicting, invalid, or incorrectly bound proposals. Ignore proposals from another turn and prevent adoption after a newer turn starts. - Keep provider termination and normal finalization as separate requirements. - Add eight behavioral cases using the real Codex driver and a simulated transport, and document the recovery contract and verification scope. ## Verification - Red: the new restart regression failed with `native_finalization_missing` before the production change. - Green: 254 tests passed across the native runtime, backend adapter, and Codex recovery suites. The new cases check no repeated provider work, no early finalization, duplicate proposals, conflicts, invalid proposals, and stale turn/session bindings. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. All CI gates passed on `2ac025a15c`; Greptile rated that commit 5/5 with no outstanding findings. The full local `pnpm test:run` was started after completing the embedded PostgreSQL installation, then stopped while still running once the complete CI test matrix passed; it is not reported as a completed local run. - Real local acceptance passed on `2ac025a15c` with the production Rust Runner transport, Codex CLI `0.160.0`, and `gpt-6.1-sol` on macOS arm64. Persisted the completion proposal while retaining the older active-turn checkpoint; let the provider finish without persisting its later controller events; stopped the exact owned runner/provider; recovered the same provider session and turn. Observed one accepted result, one durable `turn.start` command, and one line in the receipt file. Hosted sandbox restart and recovery of the original stopped task have not been performed. - Initial setup failures are retained: dependency drift caused diff-viewer type errors, and skipped PostgreSQL postinstall links prevented database startup. Dependency alignment and the package postinstall repaired those local prerequisites. Probe setup iterations failed on a direct-provider response schema, invalid probe input fields, and an original provider that still held its writer lock. Acceptance uses the production transport, validated input, and exact-owner shutdown. No production code changes were made for those probe setup failures. ## Risks - A stale proposal could finalize the wrong work. Recovery requires the checkpoint's active turn and matching run, session, and source. It rejects conflicting results and waits for provider termination. - The change uses the existing paginated recovery scan. It adds no database query per event or new retry allowance. - No schema migration or change to task authorization is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running as Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact served model snapshot and context-window size are not exposed in this session. The live acceptance probe uses `gpt-6.1-sol`. ## 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>	2026-10-20 09:09:22 -05:00
Devin Foley Paperclip Claude Opus 5.5	628993fc59	fix(runner): name the tool receipts that block the next provider turn (#16961 ) When a resumed run cannot start a turn because the semantic tool bridge still holds pending or unsettled completed receipts, the error now names each blocking receipt by operation and call ID (bounded to four per set). Tool input and result content stay inside the bridge. Adds an integration test covering the four-receipt limit and the trailing "...". Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <Paperclip-Paperclip@users.noreply.github.com> Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> canary/v2026.1020.0-canary.7	2026-10-20 06:49:17 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	96824a71d1	fix(db): migrate connector hooks on SQL_ASCII databases (#16958 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work for AI agents. > - Server startup applies database migrations before accepting work. > - Some older embedded databases use SQL_ASCII encoding. > - Migration 0355 uses a Unicode escape literal that PostgreSQL rejects on those databases. > - A source rebuild can pass but the updated server cannot start. > - This change makes that migration portable and preserves its shipped receipt. > - Existing databases retain their newer connector triggers during upgrades. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A source deployment failed at startup with `conversion between UTF8 and SQL_ASCII is not supported`. Migration 0355 could not compile its connector policy function on an older embedded database. The previous app was restored while this repair was prepared. Expected behavior Supported legacy databases complete startup migrations. Connector selector trimming matches JavaScript `trim()`. A database that already applied 0355 must not replay it over the later 0356 connector trigger definition. Steps to reproduce Create a PostgreSQL database from template0 with SQL_ASCII encoding, then apply the current migration chain. The new regression fails with the observed conversion error before this change. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on `92b238137ba716cdf1746dd49969e2f5ab7af8fe`. The branch includes current master `f57ed25385`. Database mode Embedded PostgreSQL 18.1; legacy SQL_ASCII database. The UTF-8 path is also covered. Related background: #645 fixed encoding for new databases. Existing SQL_ASCII installations still need portable migrations. #16956 fixes a separate workspace lock timeout that motivated this deployment. ## What Changed - Build the whitespace pattern from UTF-8 bytes instead of a Unicode escape literal. - Match whole whitespace sequences so SQL_ASCII does not trim partial multibyte characters. - Recognize the original 0355 checksum as a valid receipt. This prevents replay of its older trigger body over 0356. - Add real PostgreSQL coverage for both encodings, selector behavior, and preservation of the later trigger definition and receipt count. - Document the legacy encoding and migration-history contract. ## Verification - Red: SQL_ASCII migration failed with the same conversion error; UTF-8 passed. - Second red: fixing only the SQL caused an existing receipt to replay and overwrite the later connector function. - Green: 29 focused tests passed across the new regression, migration replay tests, and database client tests. - Rebased regression: all 29 focused tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` passed. - Linux ARM64: clean build and 37 focused tests passed, including both encoding and workspace-lock regressions. - Live acceptance: the same legacy SQL_ASCII database completed all seven remaining migrations. The server reports the tested commit and healthy status. The restart report has no lost runs. - All 55 current-head checks passed; two unrelated Storybook checks were skipped. Full test, typecheck, build, runner, release, and E2E CI gates passed. The complete suite ran in CI; local verification used focused tests. - Greptile reviewed this exact commit at 5/5 with no findings. - Preserved failures: the initial unmodified-master startup failed at migration 0355 and was rolled back. A later build-cache path error in the deployment commands was corrected before the successful clean build; it required no source change. ## Risks The migration content changes, so receipt compatibility matters. The original checksum remains recognized to avoid replaying historical DDL. The tests compare complete later function definitions and receipt counts. The whitespace pattern contains encoded bytes; tests cover every ECMAScript whitespace character and preserve non-whitespace Unicode input. Database data and schema shape are unchanged by this repair. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository tools, code execution, and browser verification. The exact served model variant and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> canary/v2026.1020.0-canary.6	2026-10-20 07:56:32 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7c247243e5	Qualify and package Copilot for ordinary installations (#15706 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A provider must work through normal installed packages on local and Daytona environments. > - Candidate-only success does not prove that the shipped package contains the manifest and native runtime needed for Daytona. > - The release must preserve saved-token access and task lifecycle guarantees. > - This pull request will qualify Copilot and include the exact-source remote manifest in normal release archives. > - The benefit is a reviewable part of the Copilot production release. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15701, #15703 and #15705. Supersedes qualification work in #15563 and the original candidate in #14434. Base: #15705. ## What Changed - Keep Copilot discovery passive during reconnect reconciliation; refresh on explicit opening, account/environment changes and reconnect. - Retain the selected Product cases, permission/continuity evidence and cleanup checks. - Build the Linux provider manifest from the existing pinned Docker stage in the cloud. - Join all four native daemon receipts with that manifest before server packing. - Reject missing or incompatible remote authority during normal release assembly; retain historical workflow compatibility. - Promote the completed profile47 qualification marker, publish the current qualification record and preserve every failed attempt. - Keep one current release checklist and the shipped-canary gates explicit. ## Verification Runtime #15701 is merged at `d855e550ad8d2a267312983f26457aabf5393c3a`. History #15703 is merged at `df80616d98119cbf5abd40549794d9980a5fabf6`. Remaining source [`42bcbd61299655f7e37aabe6bb5f19bba770ad1d`](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/commit/42bcbd61299655f7e37aabe6bb5f19bba770ad1d) contains the four-file authorization repair. The remaining PR trees preserve six nonoverlapping files from the newer public mainline managed-settings fix and the CI-owned lockfile. No unrelated provider is enabled. The security finding is repaired: existing-agent discovery requires `agent_config:update` before connection selection or token resolution. The saved environment is the default. Authorized editors can select a prospective environment. Both denied board-viewer and agent-reader regressions fail on the original source. All49 route tests and server typecheck pass with the fix. Denied requests perform no connection selection, credential resolution or probe. Current-head security scans pass on both remaining PRs; the repaired thread is resolved. Copilot CLI1.0.88 and profile47 retain digest `sha256:55044aa235e88b3fe36ec8a556ee1e3382590870aab907e4462ef7d64af49cea`. The [qualification record](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/42bcbd61299655f7e37aabe6bb5f19bba770ad1d/doc/plans/2026-10-20-copilot-qualification-v47.json) reports20/20 Product cells,154 assertions and7/7 protocol cases,46 assertions against frozen normal installed source `c2616370800f5f6df45246b0890ba35a7cd2faab`. The exact qualification model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Every passing Product case confirms cleanup. Original failures remain recorded; automatic behavior retries are disabled. The route-only authorization repair changes no bound runtime/profile bytes and does not relabel the frozen campaign. The ordinary installed remote journey passed saved-token selection, model discovery, normal UI save/reopen, metadata-only Test, completed task, accepted receipt and exact19-byte browser download. An open model catalog caused no additional discovery requests during117seconds. Actual installed runtime smokes passed on macOS ARM64, macOS x64 under Rosetta and native Linux x64 on Daytona. Raw token browser entry was not exercised; encrypted connection creation used the normal API. The first Daytona file attempt timed out during delayed semantic dispatch; its precise stalled layer remains unresolved. Independent ordinary remote delivery and the other19 Product cells passed before one instrumented recheck passed8/8 with unchanged source,prompt,assertions and deadlines. No causal latency repair is claimed. Before the authorization repair, all four final PR heads passed required verify/E2E and fresh Greptile5/5 reviews with zero unresolved threads. Current-head CI/review is running for the two repaired heads. Local focused checks retain129 connection,59 runner,72 shared-eval and88 recovery/workspace passes, plus migration safety and token gates. The additive Copilot migration is361; released master history is preserved. [Cloud normal-package run39414239704](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39414239704) builds the pre-security source4f3f. All four native producers and Linux package assembly pass; the final clean installed consumers are finishing. All18 retained archives match their hashes;37,863 regular files contain zero selected credentials. That package does not contain the later route repair. The actual final published package must include it and pass the local/Daytona live canaries. The frozen Daytona image remains published and independently verified. No separate full-image scan is claimed. Docker builds run in the cloud. Remaining: current-head CI/review, setup and qualification merges, final publication, and ordinary local/Daytona canaries against the actual shipped package. The user explicitly authorizes the maintainer review override; CI remains a merge gate. No production deployment is claimed. Provider USD remains unknown and GitHub-attributed. ## Risks An omitted or mismatched image manifest prevents ordinary Daytona startup. Final normal archives must contain the matching image authority and platform daemons. The completed runtime campaign remains bound to its original source; the final UI-only repair needs its own normal-install setup proof. Credit notices are not measured USD receipts. Native steering, native plan mode and detached work remain outside this release. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. Used for code changes, review and tool-assisted verification. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 07:33:14 -05:00
github-actions[bot]andlockfile-bot	f57ed25385	chore(lockfile): refresh pnpm-lock.yaml (#16897 ) Auto-generated lockfile refresh after dependencies changed on master. This PR only updates pnpm-lock.yaml. Co-authored-by: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-10-20 07:23:53 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	92b238137b	Connect and configure GitHub Copilot through Apps (#15705 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Apps and AI Connections store credentials and govern access to agent runtimes. > - Users need a supported saved-token connection and config values that survive save and reopen. > - The release must preserve saved-token access and task lifecycle guarantees. > - This pull request will connect Copilot through the normal Apps and AI Connections path. > - The benefit is a reviewable part of the Copilot production release. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15701 and #15703. Supersedes setup work in #15562. Base: #15703. Next: #15706. ## What Changed - Require configuration update authority before Copilot credential-bearing model discovery; default to the saved environment and preserve explicit selection for editors. - Keep Copilot discovery passive during reconnect reconciliation; refresh on explicit opening, account/environment changes and reconnect. - Add GitHub AI token connections with encrypted storage, ownership, grants and audit logging. - Keep repository access separate from Copilot runtime authentication. - Probe the selected environment without sending a model prompt and preserve authenticated model selection through save/reopen. - Keep fresh execution admission consistent with normal Copilot setup; persist task model choices without changing provider or permission policy. - Refresh authenticated models after reconnecting the same saved Copilot account, including recovery from a previous authentication error. - Apply the additive provider-default constraint migration through the normal generated migration workflow. ## Verification Runtime #15701 is merged at `d855e550ad8d2a267312983f26457aabf5393c3a`. History #15703 is merged at `df80616d98119cbf5abd40549794d9980a5fabf6`. Remaining source [`42bcbd61299655f7e37aabe6bb5f19bba770ad1d`](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/commit/42bcbd61299655f7e37aabe6bb5f19bba770ad1d) contains the four-file authorization repair. The remaining PR trees preserve six nonoverlapping files from the newer public mainline managed-settings fix and the CI-owned lockfile. No unrelated provider is enabled. The security finding is repaired: existing-agent discovery requires `agent_config:update` before connection selection or token resolution. The saved environment is the default. Authorized editors can select a prospective environment. Both denied board-viewer and agent-reader regressions fail on the original source. All49 route tests and server typecheck pass with the fix. Denied requests perform no connection selection, credential resolution or probe. Current-head security scans pass on both remaining PRs; the repaired thread is resolved. Copilot CLI1.0.88 and profile47 retain digest `sha256:55044aa235e88b3fe36ec8a556ee1e3382590870aab907e4462ef7d64af49cea`. The [qualification record](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/42bcbd61299655f7e37aabe6bb5f19bba770ad1d/doc/plans/2026-10-20-copilot-qualification-v47.json) reports20/20 Product cells,154 assertions and7/7 protocol cases,46 assertions against frozen normal installed source `c2616370800f5f6df45246b0890ba35a7cd2faab`. The exact qualification model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Every passing Product case confirms cleanup. Original failures remain recorded; automatic behavior retries are disabled. The route-only authorization repair changes no bound runtime/profile bytes and does not relabel the frozen campaign. The ordinary installed remote journey passed saved-token selection, model discovery, normal UI save/reopen, metadata-only Test, completed task, accepted receipt and exact19-byte browser download. An open model catalog caused no additional discovery requests during117seconds. Actual installed runtime smokes passed on macOS ARM64, macOS x64 under Rosetta and native Linux x64 on Daytona. Raw token browser entry was not exercised; encrypted connection creation used the normal API. The first Daytona file attempt timed out during delayed semantic dispatch; its precise stalled layer remains unresolved. Independent ordinary remote delivery and the other19 Product cells passed before one instrumented recheck passed8/8 with unchanged source,prompt,assertions and deadlines. No causal latency repair is claimed. Before the authorization repair, all four final PR heads passed required verify/E2E and fresh Greptile5/5 reviews with zero unresolved threads. Current-head CI/review is running for the two repaired heads. Local focused checks retain129 connection,59 runner,72 shared-eval and88 recovery/workspace passes, plus migration safety and token gates. The additive Copilot migration is361; released master history is preserved. [Cloud normal-package run39414239704](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39414239704) builds the pre-security source4f3f. All four native producers and Linux package assembly pass; the final clean installed consumers are finishing. All18 retained archives match their hashes;37,863 regular files contain zero selected credentials. That package does not contain the later route repair. The actual final published package must include it and pass the local/Daytona live canaries. The frozen Daytona image remains published and independently verified. No separate full-image scan is claimed. Docker builds run in the cloud. Remaining: current-head CI/review, setup and qualification merges, final publication, and ordinary local/Daytona canaries against the actual shipped package. The user explicitly authorizes the maintainer review override; CI remains a merge gate. No production deployment is claimed. Provider USD remains unknown and GitHub-attributed. ## Risks Bad credentials, missing entitlement, runtime installation and unavailable models must remain distinct failures. A connection must not adopt ambient credentials. The constraint migration changes accepted provider values, with no credential-storage migration. Current-master NewAgent fixture extraction is retained. Copilot cases use that shared support and test both passive discovery and explicit reconnect under the same setup lifecycle. The onboarding retry regression shares the component suite’s saved-connection, authenticated-model, draft, agent-list, hire and render lifecycle fixtures. Keeping it beside the existing onboarding failures makes adoption versus duplicate hire observable under the same lifecycle; this is the concrete cohesion reason for the existing large test file. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. Used for code changes, review and tool-assisted verification. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 07:02:22 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	0b266bd084	fix(workspaces): keep source preparation locks active (#16956 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Each task prepares its workspace before it starts the provider. > - Source preparation holds a transaction-scoped advisory lock on a dedicated database connection. > - Preparation can use other connections and the filesystem for longer than PostgreSQL allows that lock connection to stay idle. > - PostgreSQL then closes the connection and releases the lock while preparation still runs. > - This pull request reuses the workspace lock keepalive during source preparation. > - Slow preparation retains exclusion and returns its original result or error. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Tasks failed during workspace preparation with `CONNECTION_CLOSED` at the configured 60-second idle transaction timeout. No provider had started. A live retry showed the source-lock transaction idle while authorization reads ran on another connection. Its advisory-lock key matched the task's source-preparation key. PostgreSQL closed that transaction at the timeout. The same defect remains on current master. A real PostgreSQL regression also shows that another preparation can enter after the timeout while the original callback still runs. Expected behavior Source preparation must keep its advisory lock until the callback and any pending keepalive query finish. The ordinary pool must remain usable. The original preparation result or failure must survive. Steps to reproduce 1. Set `idle_in_transaction_session_timeout` to one second in a disposable PostgreSQL database. 2. Call `withIsolatedRepositorySourceLock` and keep its callback active for longer than one second without querying the lock connection. 3. Try to acquire the same source lock from another operation. 4. On the old code, the second operation enters and the first transaction fails with `CONNECTION_CLOSED`. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on source at `cde944ed75648adfb569e86133adc8b118b55dd6`. The repair is rebased onto `d855e550ad`. Additional context Refs #16340. That change introduced the keepalive for workspace copyback. This PR applies the existing helper to the source-preparation transaction. ## What Changed - Read the configured idle timeout in the same query that acquires the source lock. - Keep that dedicated connection active during source preparation with the existing helper. - Add two real PostgreSQL regressions for exclusion, company independence, a one-slot ordinary pool, nested acquisition, cleanup, and preservation of callback errors. - Update the execution contract and workspace verification maps. ## Verification - Red before the production edit: both new tests failed. A competing operation entered after the lock expired. A callback failure was replaced by `CONNECTION_CLOSED`. - Green after the repair: 86 tests passed across the source lock, source admission, keepalive, and heartbeat workspace preparation suites. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed on final commit `2b5000ce25`. - `git diff --check` passed. The lockfile is unchanged. - After rebase, the same 86 focused tests passed. The two source-lock tests passed again after the review cleanup change. - Live acceptance on `7df94d7a06`: a fresh local instance on macOS arm64, Node v26.4.0, native Codex `gpt-6.1-sol`, and permission mode `never`. PostgreSQL had a one-second idle transaction timeout. A temporary Git wrapper delayed repository reads by four seconds. Workspace preparation after environment acquisition took 8,297 ms. The real task completed, wrote and attached the correct line-count/SHA-256 report, reached `done` with native phase `committed`, and cleared its execution lock. The attachment matched the workspace file and survived browser reload. No dedicated lock connections remained. - The live probe initially used `gpt-5.4`, which the ChatGPT account rejected. Selecting the reported task model, `gpt-6.1-sol`, resolved that readiness failure. The local Claude CLI has no login, so no live Claude run is claimed. - Full CI passed on `2b5000ce25`: all general, chat, workspace, serialized-server, Runner, and E2E test shards, plus typecheck, build, and canary packaging. Both Greptile and Paperclip Review rated this commit 5/5 with no open findings. The Paperclip check concluded neutral; two unrelated visual checks were skipped. - The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` serial invocation was stopped with SIGINT after the complete CI test shards passed. It did not finish locally; no local full-suite pass is claimed. Local proof consists of the focused real PostgreSQL tests, typecheck, build, map checks, and the real task above. - The final commit changes test teardown only; production code matches the live acceptance commit. - Initial sandbox runs could not open test database ports or build IPC sockets. The same commands ran with local process access. The frozen install also found an existing manifest/lockfile mismatch; dependency resolution was local and the lockfile was restored. ## Risks - The lock connection sends one small query per keepalive interval. The helper derives that interval from the configured timeout and caps it at 30 seconds. It does no polling when the timeout is disabled. - The helper joins an in-flight query before the transaction ends. A slow database can therefore delay cleanup. - This change does not disable database deadlines, retry preparation, or recover an unexpected connection loss. It preserves existing admission checks and company/source lock keys. - Deployment and recovery of the reported tasks remain separate from code verification. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository tools, code execution, and browser verification. The exact served model variant and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 07:01:17 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	df80616d98	Preserve Copilot historical runtime attestations (#15703 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Runner recovery must distinguish old profile identities from the current launch identity. > - The long integration produced historical attestations that must remain inspectable after consolidation. > - The release must preserve saved-token access and task lifecycle guarantees. > - This pull request will retain the historical Copilot profile records without granting old profiles launch access. > - The benefit is a reviewable part of the Copilot production release. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15701. Supersedes the provenance work in #15561. Base: #15701. Next: #15705. ## What Changed - Retain historical Copilot profile attestations as separate immutable records. - Preserve the mainline and candidate histories when version numbers overlap. - Keep exact current-profile launch checks in the runtime PR. ## Verification Final reviewed source [`4f3f1af807d2ed21adabb04c2f27f4df9c4bc8d5`](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/commit/4f3f1af807d2ed21adabb04c2f27f4df9c4bc8d5) includes master `cde944ed75648adfb569e86133adc8b118b55dd6`. The combined four-part PR tree matches it except for the CI-owned lockfile. Every prior public PR head remains an ancestor. Released master migrations remain unchanged; Copilot adds migration361. No unrelated provider is enabled. Copilot CLI1.0.88 and profile47 retain digest `sha256:55044aa235e88b3fe36ec8a556ee1e3382590870aab907e4462ef7d64af49cea`. The pending qualification marker is removed. The [qualification record](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/4f3f1af807d2ed21adabb04c2f27f4df9c4bc8d5/doc/plans/2026-10-20-copilot-qualification-v47.json) reports 20/20 Product cells,154 assertions;7/7 protocol cases,46 assertions against frozen installed application `c2616370800f5f6df45246b0890ba35a7cd2faab`. Both environments use the exact authenticated model `gpt-5.6-luna`. Every passing Product case confirms cleanup. Automatic behavior retries are disabled. Original failed attempts remain recorded. The ordinary installed remote journey passed saved-token selection, authenticated model discovery, normal UI save/reopen, metadata-only Test, task completion, accepted receipt and an exact19-byte browser download. An open model catalog caused no new discovery requests during117seconds. Actual installed runtime smokes passed on macOS ARM64, macOS x64 under Rosetta and native Linux x64 on Daytona. Raw token browser entry was not exercised; the encrypted connection was created through the normal API. The original Daytona file attempt timed out during delayed semantic dispatch. Its precise stalled layer remains unresolved. Independent ordinary delivery and the other19 cells passed before one instrumented recheck passed8/8 with unchanged source,prompt,assertions and deadlines. No causal latency repair is claimed. After current-master reconciliation,129 connection tests,59 runner tests,72 shared eval tests and88 recovery/workspace tests pass. Migration generation/safety, unchanged profile identity and UI token gates pass. Prior required CI was green. Fresh exact-head required CI and E2E are green for all four updated heads. Each has a fresh Greptile5/5 review and zero unresolved review threads. The [final normal-package cloud build](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39414239704) is running. Recursive typecheck,full CI test shards,build and all8 browser shards pass. These checks cover the final source; no additional local full-suite pass is claimed. The [frozen image build](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39334401638) and [original normal package build](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39334407471) passed. The exact image is published and independently retrieved anonymously. No separate full-image scan is claimed. All18 original normal archives were scanned with zero selected credentials. Docker builds run in the cloud. Provider USD remains unknown and GitHub-attributed. Qualification is complete on the recorded frozen build. Normal protected merge, automatic master canary publication and final shipped-package local/Daytona canaries remain. No production deployment is claimed. ## Risks Historical records are evidence only. They must not be treated as current qualification or as permission to launch an old provider profile. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. Used for code changes, review and tool-assisted 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 11:44:30 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	d855e550ad	Finish Copilot native runtime on current master (#15701 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Runner controls provider processes, permissions and task completion. > - Copilot needs its pinned distribution, native message identities and accepted semantic completion receipts. > - The release must preserve saved-token access and task lifecycle guarantees. > - This pull request will keep the current completion and recovery fixes while adding the Copilot runtime. > - The benefit is a reviewable part of the Copilot production release. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #14434. Supersedes the runtime work in #15560. This is the first PR in the stack; #15703, #15705 and #15706 follow. Related alternative adapter work: #15881. This change uses the shared Runner path. ## What Changed - Pin Copilot CLI 1.0.88 and bind the integrated implementation as profile45. - Keep native instruction, permission, receipt, process ownership and cancellation boundaries. - Preserve current master completion continuation and remote verification behavior. Other provider release identities stay unchanged. ## Verification Final reviewed source [`4f3f1af807d2ed21adabb04c2f27f4df9c4bc8d5`](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/commit/4f3f1af807d2ed21adabb04c2f27f4df9c4bc8d5) includes master `cde944ed75648adfb569e86133adc8b118b55dd6`. The combined four-part PR tree matches it except for the CI-owned lockfile. Every prior public PR head remains an ancestor. Released master migrations remain unchanged; Copilot adds migration361. No unrelated provider is enabled. Copilot CLI1.0.88 and profile47 retain digest `sha256:55044aa235e88b3fe36ec8a556ee1e3382590870aab907e4462ef7d64af49cea`. The pending qualification marker is removed. The [qualification record](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/4f3f1af807d2ed21adabb04c2f27f4df9c4bc8d5/doc/plans/2026-10-20-copilot-qualification-v47.json) reports 20/20 Product cells,154 assertions;7/7 protocol cases,46 assertions against frozen installed application `c2616370800f5f6df45246b0890ba35a7cd2faab`. Both environments use the exact authenticated model `gpt-5.6-luna`. Every passing Product case confirms cleanup. Automatic behavior retries are disabled. Original failed attempts remain recorded. The ordinary installed remote journey passed saved-token selection, authenticated model discovery, normal UI save/reopen, metadata-only Test, task completion, accepted receipt and an exact19-byte browser download. An open model catalog caused no new discovery requests during117seconds. Actual installed runtime smokes passed on macOS ARM64, macOS x64 under Rosetta and native Linux x64 on Daytona. Raw token browser entry was not exercised; the encrypted connection was created through the normal API. The original Daytona file attempt timed out during delayed semantic dispatch. Its precise stalled layer remains unresolved. Independent ordinary delivery and the other19 cells passed before one instrumented recheck passed8/8 with unchanged source,prompt,assertions and deadlines. No causal latency repair is claimed. After current-master reconciliation,129 connection tests,59 runner tests,72 shared eval tests and88 recovery/workspace tests pass. Migration generation/safety, unchanged profile identity and UI token gates pass. Prior required CI was green. Fresh exact-head required CI and E2E are green for all four updated heads. Each has a fresh Greptile5/5 review and zero unresolved review threads. The [final normal-package cloud build](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39414239704) is running. Recursive typecheck,full CI test shards,build and all8 browser shards pass. These checks cover the final source; no additional local full-suite pass is claimed. The [frozen image build](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39334401638) and [original normal package build](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39334407471) passed. The exact image is published and independently retrieved anonymously. No separate full-image scan is claimed. All18 original normal archives were scanned with zero selected credentials. Docker builds run in the cloud. Provider USD remains unknown and GitHub-attributed. Qualification is complete on the recorded frozen build. Normal protected merge, automatic master canary publication and final shipped-package local/Daytona canaries remain. No production deployment is claimed. ## Risks Shared Runner behavior can affect active tasks. Exact profile admission rejects stale runtime identities. The final campaign and installed canaries remain release gates. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. Used for code changes, review and tool-assisted 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 06:31:47 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	fc0d390d98	fix: enforce Cloud-enabled features on every managed stack (#16953 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud sets managed feature values for each tenant stack. > - Staging lets admins change experimental features. > - The staging exception also let old tenant false values override Cloud true values. > - This could disable required features such as isolated workspaces. > - This pull request keeps every Cloud-enabled feature on and rejects attempts to disable it. > - The same rule applies to staging, production, and managed stacks without a hostname. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16876 What happened? The staging override added in #16876 treats managed true values as editable defaults. A stored tenant false value can disable a feature that Cloud enables. Settings writes also accept attempts to disable Cloud-enabled features. Expected behavior If Cloud sets a feature to true, the tenant reads true and cannot turn it off. This applies to every managed stack. Staging can still change allowed experiments that Cloud has not enabled. Steps to reproduce 1. Set a managed staging primary hostname and enable isolated workspaces in `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG`. 2. Start with `enableIsolatedWorkspaces: false` in the tenant settings row. 3. Read `/api/instance/settings/experimental`. Before this fix, staging returns false. 4. Try to PATCH that flag to false. After this fix, the API returns 403 without saving, and reads return true with managed control metadata. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced against master at `cde944ed75648adfb569e86133adc8b118b55dd6`. ## What Changed - Keep managed true values in the staging read overlay. They override old tenant values and lock the existing UI controls. - Reject attempts to set any Cloud-enabled feature to false before writing settings. - Cover every managed feature in service tests across staging, production, and an absent hostname. Add real-service HTTP tests for isolation on staging and production. - Update operator documentation and the feature and access maps. ## Verification - Confirmed the new service regression fails before the fix: staging returns stored false, and writes can attempt to disable enabled flags. - Passed all six focused settings suites: 168 tests. Passed the final route and overlay suites after adding the HTTP regression: 109 tests. - Passed existing experimental settings UI tests: 54 tests. These cover the existing managed-control behavior. - Passed `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check`. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. The first typecheck used an install that did not honor locked versions and hit an unrelated `@pierre/diffs` API mismatch. Reinstalling from the lockfile resolved it; no lockfile changes are included. - Full CI passed on `f43136812a92ec838a24f0c423270e4fbd997c28`: 55 successful checks, one neutral review check, and two expected skips. This includes typecheck, build, general and serialized tests, runner checks, and E2E shards. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39411907756). - The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the complete CI matrix passed. It is not counted as a completed local full-suite pass. - Greptile reviewed `f43136812a92ec838a24f0c423270e4fbd997c28`: 5/5 with no outstanding findings. The only finding on the first review was the repository rule against new code comments; those comments were removed. ## Risks - Staging users can no longer disable a feature that Cloud enables. This is the intended behavior. - Clients that send a stale full settings form containing false for a Cloud-enabled feature receive 403 and must reload. - No database migration is needed. Stored false values remain in the database, but cannot override an active Cloud true value. - Cloud-disabled staging experiments remain editable. Production restrictions and self-hosted settings remain unchanged. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, repository tools, and test execution. The context window size is not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> canary/v2026.1020.0-canary.4	2026-10-20 06:14:52 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	cde944ed75	fix(workspaces): keep retained readers valid after cross-task wake coalescing (#16928 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Before a run starts, repository admission checks every retained reader of the physical repository root and of overlapping roots. > - Each retained reader records the run, task, agent and responsible user that the server admitted. > - A wake for another task can coalesce into a running run. The merge replaces `contextSnapshot.issueId` and `taskId` with the other task. > - The retained-reader check used that mutable context task before the run's immutable task binding. The old reader then looked like a changed identity. > - When a later run admits an overlapping root, such as a shared project checkout that contains earlier task worktrees, every admission on that root fails. The root stays blocked and no operator action can repair it. > - This pull request accepts a retained reader when its task matches the run's immutable binding or its current context task. > - The benefit is that legitimate wake coalescing no longer blocks a shared root, and missing or truly mismatched identities still fail closed. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16717 and #16832. Those cover retained readers whose run, agent or task was deleted. This pull request covers a different cause: every identity still exists, but wake coalescing changed the run's context task. #16832 keeps identity mismatches fail-closed, so it does not fix this case. Both pull requests change the same condition in `execution-workspace-root-readers.ts`. The pull request that merges second must rebase. What happened? A scheduled routine run failed in setup with `Repository root retains a reader whose identity is no longer available` (403). Every later run of the routine failed in the same way, for eight hours in a row. Two earlier runs of the same agent were the retained readers. Each run started for its own task and recorded its reader. About 10 to 16 minutes later, a monitor wake for a different task coalesced into the running run with reason `issue_execution_same_name`. `mergeCoalescedContextSnapshot` set `contextSnapshot.issueId` to the other task. `heartbeat_runs.issue_id` stayed on the original task, because the `heartbeat_runs_set_scope_kind` trigger makes the binding immutable. The readers were on per-task worktree roots, so nothing failed at first. Then the routine's tasks changed to the shared project checkout. That root contains those worktrees, so admission loaded the two readers, compared them with the changed context task, and threw. Expected behavior A retained reader stays valid while its run, agent, task and responsible user still exist and still match what the server admitted. A context change from wake coalescing must not make the reader unavailable. A reader whose task matches neither the run's binding nor its context must still be rejected. Steps to reproduce 1. Admit run R for task A on a nested root, for example `<checkout>/.paperclip/worktrees/a`. 2. Coalesce a wake for task B into R. `contextSnapshot.issueId` becomes B. `heartbeat_runs.issue_id` stays A. 3. Admit or publish another task on the parent root `<checkout>`. 4. Observe the 403 `Repository root retains a reader whose identity is no longer available`. Every later admission on that root fails in the same way. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on `master` at `b44871098` with the new regression test. ## What Changed - Add `runRetainsIssueIdentity(run, issueId)` in `server/src/services/execution-workspace-root-readers.ts`. It accepts the previous derived identity (`nativeIssueId ?? context issueId ?? context taskId ?? issueId`) or the immutable binding (`nativeIssueId ?? issueId`). - Use the helper for the three retained-run identity checks: `loadRepositoryRootReaders`, `requiresAnonymousRepositoryAcquisition` and `assertRootProjectTrust`. - Add a real PostgreSQL regression. A reader on a nested worktree root is admitted for task A. The test builds the coalesced context with the real `mergeCoalescedContextSnapshot`. Publication on the parent root must succeed. A reader whose task matches neither the binding nor the context must still fail. - Move one existing row. The old "rejects" test changed only the context task, which is now the legitimate coalescing case. The test now changes the reader's recorded task to a different existing task, so the mismatch path still fails closed. - Update the retained-reader contract in `doc/DATABASE.md`. ## Verification - Red before the fix: `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server --maxWorkers=1 --fileParallelism=false server/src/__tests__/repository-root-reader-queries.test.ts` fails 1 of 9 tests. The new test passes its first publication. It fails after the coalesced context with `Repository root retains a reader whose identity is no longer available` (403), which is the production error. - Green after the fix: the same command passes 9 of 9 tests. - One intermediate attempt failed and is kept here. My first test draft changed `heartbeat_runs.issue_id`. The database trigger rejected it with `run task binding is immutable`. That rejection confirms the binding this fix relies on. The final test uses a separate run for the negative case. - Related suites: `task-workspace-repositories*.test.ts`, `task-workspace-source-copy-privacy.test.ts`, `project-workspace-root-provenance.test.ts`, `workspace-authorization-query.test.ts`, `execution-transaction-timing.test.ts`, `execution-workspace-reopen.test.ts`, `file-resources.test.ts`, `heartbeat-project-repositories.test.ts`, `heartbeat-workspace-source-trust.test.ts` and `heartbeat/workspace-preparation.test.ts`. All 13 files pass on the fixed head. The first invocation passed 8 files. The other 5 files failed to import `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk`, because its `dist` was not built in this fresh checkout. That run reported 37 failed tests, all from the import error, not from this change. After `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk... build`, the same 5 files passed 206 of 206 tests. - Production evidence (read-only SQL on the affected instance): exactly two readers in the company fail the current check. Both are on the blocked root. For both, `heartbeat_runs.issue_id` equals the reader's task and the context task is a different task after a coalesced `issue_execution_same_name` wake. Both pass the new rule, so the blocked root recovers after deployment without data repair. - Not run: full `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run` and `pnpm build`. The sandbox has 4 GB of memory. CI runs these checks. ## Risks - The rule now also accepts a reader whose task equals the run's immutable binding while the context points to another task. The binding is the run's privacy binding. The database sets it at insert and does not let it change, and it requires `native_issue_id` to agree with it. The reader's own recorded task is still the authorization context. - The rule keeps the previous context identity. A run that coalesced a wake before it started and then coalesced another one later could still produce an unavailable reader. I did not find that sequence in the affected data. The cross-task coalesce targets a run that already holds the other task's execution lock, and that happens after admission. - No schema, migration or API change. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) through Claude Code in a Paperclip agent run, with tool use, code execution and read-only SQL diagnostics. The context window and reasoning settings are managed 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 (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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> nightly/v2026.1020.0-nightly.0 canary/v2026.1020.0-canary.3	2026-10-19 22:40:25 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip devinfoley	b448710986	fix: derive startup warmth from per-layer reuse evidence (#16908 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and inspect their work. > - Agent startup can reuse a lease, workspace, Runner, process, or session. > - A session ID can remain the same when other resources are new. > - The old cold/warm label did not show these separate decisions. > - This pull request records closed reuse receipts and derives labels from them. > - Reports now show partial reuse and missing evidence. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11685. That issue tracks a specific ACPX fingerprint repair. This change records reuse evidence across startup resources. It does not repeat that repair. What existing behavior does this improve? Startup labels in the operator trace and Product E2E reports. Current behavior A cached runtime or a continuous session can suggest a warm startup even when workspace staging or provider launch work occurs. Proposed behavior Record each layer's reuse decision and a closed reason. Record observed provider launch counts. Use `warm`, `cold`, `partial_reuse`, or `unknown` from those receipts. Keep old runs unknown when they have no receipts. ## What Changed - Add local run-log receipts for the lease, workspace, Runner, provider process, and provider session. - Count physical ACPX launches, including respawns. Preserve the reason for a new process. - Reuse native workspace adoption and session lifecycle evidence. Keep native and bridged remote provider-process reuse and launch counts unknown where physical evidence is absent. - Show the per-run summary in retained results and the dashboard. Keep missing legacy values explicit. - Set the legacy trace boolean only for fully evidenced cold or warm startup. Keep the operator OTLP gate. Add no first-party Telemetry. - Test full reuse, workspace invalidation, two direct provider launches with session continuity, and report generation. - Start the final diagnostic write without waiting for persistence. Keep lease cleanup independent of a stalled event sink. - Keep remote provider evidence unknown after runtime setup fails or the host relay starts twice. - Align a stale Pi support-test expectation with current master profile 28 and its suite fingerprint. Keep the qualification rules unchanged. ## Verification - Passed: all 319 runtime, startup-timing, reuse-summary, and native workspace-history tests. Disposable local Git tests used the native Git binary. - Passed on the current commit: all 2,768 Runner E2E support tests across 128 files. This includes report and history tests for generated HTML and normalized JSON. - Passed: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck`. - Passed on `df60f8dbdbfcb6d80c84cd3bf563f8d58b2f9f03`: all PR CI gates, including repository typecheck and build, all test shards, and browser tests. Both automated reviews are 5/5. GitHub reports 55 successful checks, one neutral review, and two skipped Storybook checks. - The first server shard run failed because an unchanged workspace-runtime fixture did not accept health connections within 10 seconds. Its isolated local test and the single failed-jobs rerun both pass. This establishes recovery; the cause of the first timeout remains unknown. - Passed in the hosted source run on this exact commit: recursive typecheck, token gates, the large Runner E2E typecheck, Runner E2E unit tests, and build. The retained `source.txt` matches this PR head. - The extra unsharded `pnpm test:run` reached its 60-minute limit (exit 124). It has no complete verdict. The broad workflow therefore reports failure. No assertion-failure marker appears in the retained partial log. Full-suite acceptance uses the passing canonical PR CI partitions. A read-only inventory check found no gaps across 1,023 general server files, 161 serialized suites, and 20 workspace projects. The separate chat/native Runner lanes cover the excluded server files. No tests or timeouts were weakened. The local environment has 4 GiB of memory. Use CI for the large Runner E2E typecheck. - The initial report tests failed because the harness could not resolve package imports from the repository root. Relative source imports fixed that failure. - The first broad local run had timeouts from the environment Git bridge. Native Git resolves the ancestry timeout and all runtime tests pass. The added report fixture lacked its required screenshot; the corrected report tests pass. A stale master assertion expected Pi profile 27, while the generated profile is 28. Updated its expectation and exact suite fingerprint; all 78 targeted support tests pass. The clean full support run passes all 2,768 tests. - The three review regression cases failed before repair. They showed remote counts of zero and two, and a completed run that waited for the final diagnostic sink. They now pass. The stalled-sink case keeps persistence pending while the run returns, both bridge stops run once, and the staging lock map becomes empty. - Hosted evidence for this commit: [source verification](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39335475416), [retained command logs and status table](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39335475416/artifacts/12228829282). All listed commands exited zero except the incomplete unsharded test command described above. - The physical-launch test drives the executor's spawn callback twice. The native workspace test uses real Git repositories and verifies reuse and invalidation. These are deterministic tests, not a paid provider qualification campaign. ## Risks - Consumers must handle `partial_reuse` and `unknown`. Partial evidence no longer produces a legacy cold/warm boolean. - Native and remote bridged provider process evidence is still unavailable on some paths. The report shows unknown values for those paths. - Receipt emission is best effort. Missing receipts reduce confidence in a label and must not change execution or settlement. - No schema migration, first-party Telemetry event, or endpoint default changes are included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, used reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact provider model ID and context window are not exposed to this session. The existing implementation checkpoint was preserved from the earlier agent 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> Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-10-19 21:52:57 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	bc091f0a21	fix(recovery): recover retained workspaces before saved messages (#16906 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A stopped run can leave useful files in its original sandbox. > - The server keeps that sandbox when it cannot confirm file copyback. > - The task can then save new user input but offers no safe way to recover the files. > - A retry of the old agent turn can repeat work that already finished. > - This pull request recovers files through the existing workspace owner and delivers only saved human input. > - The user can recover a task without certifying infrastructure facts or losing completed work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16883 and #16835 for publication receipts and verified process termination. Related: #16478 clears stale holds after copyback already succeeded. This change performs the missing export and records its proof. #16901 manages the main GitHub response comment and does not perform workspace repair. What happened? A failed run retained its workspace. A later user message stayed saved behind a file-repair hold. The task asked the user to verify process termination and file recovery but offered no repair control. Sending a message could show an optimistic Working state and move the task to Todo before admission succeeded. Expected behavior The harness should recover the original files when it can prove ownership and termination. It should preserve newer edits and completed operations. Only waiting user input may start another turn. Missing evidence must keep the source held with a specific explanation. Steps to reproduce 1. Interrupt a sandbox run before workspace finalization succeeds. 2. Retain its exact allocation and save a user follow-up. 3. Observe the file-repair hold and missing end-user repair path. ## What Changed - Add source-bound background recovery for native and legacy runs. An accepted native result is not required. - Share the physical copyback lock and durable owner. Resume only the exact stopped allocation, export files, verify persistence and obtain a fresh stop receipt. - Persist retry limits and idempotent requests on the existing recovery record. Limit each server to two background exports. Add an indexed candidate scan and a separate cleanup obligation. - Add a task-editor recovery endpoint. Deny agents and viewers. Reject caller-supplied stop or repair claims. - Deliver waiting human input once through ordinary admission. Preserve pause, approval, budget and assignment gates. Require historical conversational-adapter evidence for legacy-to-Runner continuation. - Include exact GitHub publication receipts in continuation context. Preserve unknown effects and the original failed run. - Show observed recovery progress, a transient-failure retry action and specific service blockers. Keep saved messages visible. Suppress false startup feedback and implicit Todo promotion behind a file hold. Hide unavailable workspace links. - Update execution semantics, capability maps and production-component stories. ## Verification - Red: the original read model failed the new recovery-progress assertion; the other 23 checks in that file passed. - Passed: recovery regressions with 28 cases with real PostgreSQL, files, tar and Git operations. Lifecycle provider calls are controlled test boundaries. Coverage includes native/legacy export, concurrent owners, rollback after export, interrupted archive export with a new database connection, lost replies, historical discovery, durable retry limits, separate cleanup and saved-input delivery. The actual candidate query uses its partial index with 3,000 unrelated history rows. A first automatic repair can bind verified old-controller stop proof without an accepted native result. Review also reproduced and fixed export-only continuation and cleanup lost after a committed repair. Cleanup remains discoverable without waiting input and after task reconciliation. - Passed: two GitHub integration cases verify that continuation context carries the existing publication receipt and does not write another response. Company and task boundaries are checked. - Passed: 293 continuation, workspace-sync, platform-receipt and OpenAPI checks. After file repair, actual dispatch retains pause, cancellation, approval, real budget-policy and assignment gates. - Passed: 174 route checks, including editor admission, agent/viewer denial and rejection of fabricated repair claims. - Passed: 351 task detail, workspace properties and comment-reopen checks after updating the new read boundaries and asynchronous workspace-link expectations. Two new route cases keep held tasks Blocked when a comment is saved. - Passed: 265 task-thread and recovery-notice checks. The broader continuation suite also passed; its new legacy migration case first exposed a gap that the focused recovery suite now covers. - Passed after rebase: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. The later master merge adds an unrelated permission migration; recovery migration generation and safety checks passed after the merge. - Passed: token gates, module boundaries, map structure and migration checks. The recovery index is migration 0360 after current master. - Browser: inspected the production recovery component and its retry-to-queued transition with fixture data. The first dev dependency load failed; a reload after optimization resolved it. This is UI evidence, not a live provider recovery claim. - Every test shard passed on final commit `bbbc09efb4`. The older local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the complete CI test matrix passed. Local full typecheck and production build passed. The first CI build compiled and booted, then lost its runner during the clean public npm-install check. An isolated retry passed the build, production boot and clean public npm-install verification. - Greptile reviewed final commit `bbbc09efb4` at 5/5. All review threads are resolved. - The change is not deployed. Hosted recovery remains unverified until the served revision includes this change. ## Risks - Recovery crosses process, provider and persistence boundaries. Missing or mismatched ownership, stop, descriptor or file evidence keeps the hold. It never selects a replacement allocation or silently starts over. - File recovery does not certify external action outcomes or authorize replay. New input still uses normal execution admission. - Historical sources without sufficient durable evidence can remain blocked. Destructive reconstruction stays separate. - The index migration is idempotent. It changes no task data. Snapshot pruning follows repository policy. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, with code execution and browser tools. `gpt-6-astra` assisted earlier investigation. 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>	2026-10-19 21:51:46 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3b8324a233	fix(github): keep one main PR review comment and reconcile stopped work (#16901 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub connections send review requests to an assigned agent. > - A PR needs one main comment that shows its current review state. > - The response ledger used one comment per incoming request. Pushes and follow-up messages created more placeholders. > - Thread subscriptions also accepted requests addressed to external bots. Recovery could leave an acknowledged request without a final notice. > - This pull request shares the main PR comment, filters other recipients, and reconciles stopped work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #16874 showed the repeated placeholders. #15416 introduced the per-request response path. The prior summary path used one PR-level marker. What happened? Repeated pushes created new main PR comments. A subscribed `@greptile review` message also woke the Paperclip bot. If execution stopped before staging a milestone, its comment could keep claiming that work was active. Expected behavior One bot keeps one main comment per PR. Progress and review results update it. A message addressed to another recipient does not wake the bot unless it also explicitly mentions this bot. Stopped work gets an accurate notice. Steps to reproduce 1. Accept two review requests in one PR conversation. 2. Add `@greptile review` to that subscribed conversation. 3. Fail the assigned run before it stages a milestone. Run channel maintenance. ## What Changed - Add a durable main PR response target. Keep per-request receipts and the existing publication lease. - Recover the target from App-owned provider markers. Adopt older placeholders and point verified duplicates to the current review. - Use a queued notice before a PR run starts. Preserve version ordering and final responses. - Filter leading mentions addressed to another recipient. Explicit mentions of this bot take precedence. Incidental mentions keep normal thread behavior. - Reconcile acknowledged requests after terminal execution. Show paused state for saved requests on a blocked task. Preserve newer work and confirmed or uncertain tool delivery. - Keep a request open when its stale acknowledgement is suppressed. Close placeholders after replies published elsewhere. Retire old coalesced placeholders before replacing their receipts. Resolve native request identity when legacy wake fields are absent. - Update guidance, connection documentation, and feature/access maps. ## Verification - Red: all three behavioral regressions failed on the original code. A second review created a second comment; an external-bot request was processed; stopped execution retained its working placeholder. - Green: the same three cases passed after the fixes. - Review regressions also failed before their repairs: a delayed acknowledgement closed a new request; normal and stored formal-review receipts left a live placeholder; coalesced completion lost a duplicate receipt; native terminal work without legacy wake fields stayed queued. All 13 combined regression and safety cases passed after repair. - The same legacy receipt-loss bug was also reproduced in the superseded-acknowledgement branch. Its four affected cases passed after adding retirement before that receipt replacement. - A further review regression reproduced paused requests rejecting resumed progress and skipping stopped-run cleanup. Four cases failed before repair; all eight resume and neighboring safety cases passed afterward. Both paused-notice branches keep the request open. - Repeated paused maintenance reproduced two needless GitHub edits. The writer now skips an identical complete comment body. Nine affected cases passed, covering repeated maintenance, resumption, stopped work, final assessment preservation, and main-comment reuse. - Safety cases cover lost receipts, legacy adoption, newer progress, published assessments, provider-verified mention aliases, and old replies that must not complete new requests. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, map validation, and module boundaries passed. The server TypeScript check passed after the final repair. The broader local GitHub workflow and policy run passed 188 tests. Full CI passed on the final commit (`554979d79285b68bcbf90cd639e3d2d053f4ea4b`), including all three chat shards, server/workspace/Runner suites, typecheck, build, and E2E gates. Greptile is 5/5 with no open review findings. One serialized job received a runner shutdown signal mid-test; its single retry passed. - Preserved failure evidence: the first CI run exposed an overbroad recipient filter and an old queued-text assertion. The next commit passed all three CI chat shards. Greptile then found the receipt transitions covered by the new regressions above. Local full-suite runs were stopped when those defects required source changes; no clean full local pass is claimed. - Tests use real PostgreSQL and controlled provider responses. They do not establish a live GitHub App rollout. The original instance needs the fixed server before its comments change. ## Risks - Leading mentions now select a recipient even when that account has no Paperclip connection. A leading human mention also selects that person. Mid-message incidental mentions retain normal subscription behavior. - Existing comment adoption edits only comments proven by this endpoint's request ledger or prior summary marker and App identity. Deleted and replaced comments remain protected. - Failure cleanup uses current authority and does not replace newer progress or unresolved provider writes. It does not restart failed execution. - No schema migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. The model used reasoning, tools, code execution, and browser inspection. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 21:51:20 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	16689de291	fix: add one-click retry for restricted workspace setup (#16909 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks need a clear way to resume after a setup failure. > - A shared repository can contain another task that the assigned agent cannot read. > - Paperclip correctly stops before the agent starts, but the user must then understand workspace settings to recover. > - This pull request gives that failure a single Retry button and selects a clean copy of the configured repository through normal admission. > - The task keeps its assigned agent and execution settings, while access checks and existing work remain protected. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #16895 classifies the restricted source failure. This change adds the user recovery action. #16906 handles retained files after execution; this change handles a setup failure before execution starts. What existing behavior does this improve? Recovery of a task whose shared repository includes a task workspace the assigned agent cannot read. Current behavior The task stops before provider work and asks the user to understand workspace choices or access grants. Proposed behavior Show Retry above the task message box, independent of loaded conversation history. One click requests one attempt using a clean checkout of the configured remote. Show Retrying while the request is pending. Show an error only if the request fails. Reason and benefit The user can resume work without understanding repository isolation or changing access to another task. Breaking changes None. The recovery source value is server-owned. The public workspace selection request does not accept it. No migration is required. ## What Changed - Add one Retry control above the composer in both task conversation views. It stays available when an older notice is outside the loaded comment pages. - Bind recovery to the latest failed run, current assignee, and recorded proof that provider work did not start. - Use the existing atomic recovery route and pending workspace selection. Normal admission clears the old session and creates the isolated checkout. - Choose a fresh task-owned branch for recovery, including fixed project branches, existing task branches, and adapter branch overrides. Preserve the model, environment, setup commands, pending user workspace choices, previous files, and all execution gates. - Update execution documentation and both workspace maps. ## Verification - Passed all 461 tests in the eight affected database, Git, HTTP, workspace binding, and conversation suites after the review fixes. An additional 292 tests passed after the final compatibility fixes, including IssueDetail and recovery action routing. - Concurrent HTTP retries produce one wakeup. Paused projects and runs that started provider work reject recovery without changing the workspace. - Real Git tests exclude private files, private commits, and unpublished original files from the clean checkout, preserve the original, and exercise reuse, cleanup, and reopen. - Verified in a running local app: a task failed twice, displayed only Retry, and reached Done after one click. A second browser test put the failure notice behind 501 newer comments and used a fixed project branch. Retry stayed visible and the task reached Done. The credential-free process worker used the selected checkout and wrote its result there. This does not claim a live model-provider run. - The first manual fixture lacked a responsible-user membership and failed after successful workspace recovery. Corrected the fixture, retained that failure evidence, and verified the full flow with ordinary authorization. - Full typecheck, build, token gates, and map checks passed. The full local suite was stopped after review changed its source during execution; current-head CI provides the complete suite result. - An earlier unrelated peer-comment read test hit a socket hangup. The next complete affected-suite run passed; the first failure is retained in local evidence. - Current-head CI hit an unchanged runner credential-concurrency test failure. That lane passed on the preceding commit, and all 42 credential tests passed locally. The original failed job is retained; the one-time rerun passed. All latest-head CI checks are green (55 success, 2 skipped, 1 neutral), and Greptile is 5/5 with both review threads resolved. ## Risks - A remote repository outage can still prevent the next attempt. Retry does not grant access or copy unpublished files from the old checkout. - Recovery accepts only the latest recorded pre-provider failure and preserves normal execution gates. This limits duplicate work and stale recovery requests. - No database migration, dependency, or lockfile change. - The first review found fixed-branch retry loops and dependence on paginated notice history. Both had failing regressions before the fixes and now pass targeted tests and the combined browser journey. - Full CI then caught assumptions about missing run evidence and unrelated recovery actions. The final changes tolerate absent evidence and scope the new lookup to board-owned actions with valid run IDs. The previously failing suites now pass locally. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser verification. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 21:49:44 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d9bcf4dfe8	fix(auth): let Cloud stack admins manage experimental settings (#16907 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People use experimental settings to opt into product features. > - Cloud stack Admins can manage their company, but cannot save an experiment. > - Requiring an Owner role adds unrelated privileges to this workflow. > - This pull request gives trusted Cloud stack Admins permission to update experiments. > - Other instance administration and platform settings keep their existing checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A person with the Cloud stack Admin role receives “Instance admin access required” when they enable an experimental setting, such as Fast responses. Expected behavior Cloud stack Admins can save editable experimental settings. This permission does not grant general instance-admin authority. Members, Support users, and agents cannot change experiments. Cloud-managed and operator-hidden settings remain protected. Steps to reproduce 1. Sign into a Cloud staging workspace as a stack Admin. 2. Open Settings → Experimental. 3. Enable Experimental fast responses. 4. Observe the permission error instead of a saved setting. Additional context Related: #10343 introduced computed Owner elevation. #15748 added Fast responses and the company Connections settings page. The roadmap and existing PRs were checked. This is a small authorization fix for the existing settings path. ## What Changed - Derive experiment-management authority from the current trusted Cloud stack Admin role on each request. - Apply that authority only to the experimental settings PATCH route. Keep general settings, environment defaults, and task drain restricted to instance admins. - Preserve existing hidden-setting checks, managed feature restrictions, and activity records. - Add role and role-downgrade regressions, allowed and denied route cases, staging coverage, and updated OpenAPI and access documentation. ## Verification - Before the fix, the Admin fast-response request returned 403 and the new role assertions failed. The first sandboxed HTTP run could not bind local sockets; the regression run outside that sandbox reached the expected authorization failures. - Focused Cloud actor, settings route, managed-overlay, and health tests: 149 passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. - Greptile reviewed commit `7c33b90066121f03183579d2fae2650755e025e4` at 5/5. Its one style finding is fixed and resolved. - The full local `pnpm test:run` did not pass. It reported two early collection failures before workspace build outputs were ready and a 15-second timeout in the unchanged AgentMail recovery test. The run was stopped after those failures while the full CI suite continued. No full local-suite pass is claimed. - The first current-head CI attempt failed the unchanged Runner test “preserves a real listening process and its marker when a health RPC times out” with `runner_remote_process_identity_unavailable` / `process_identity_changed`. The test passes in a local isolated run. This recovery does not establish the CI failure's cause. [Failed job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39332989655/job/118336142261). The failed shard passed on its single rerun. The failure cause remains unconfirmed. All CI checks on commit `7c33b90066121f03183579d2fae2650755e025e4` are now green. [Final CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39332989655). - No deployed staging behavior is claimed. Manual acceptance after deployment: as a stack Admin, enable Fast responses, reload, and confirm Connections appears. Confirm Members and Support users still cannot save experiments. ## Risks - This intentionally extends experimental settings write access to Cloud stack Admins. It does not persist an instance-admin role or expand other instance controls. - Production retains its existing managed feature policy. Staging retains its editable experiment allowlist and protected execution and owner-elevation settings. - No database migration or UI change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser inspection. The runtime does not expose an exact model snapshot 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>	2026-10-19 21:48:00 -05:00
Tonio	8723580071	fix(ui): refine task side panel tabs (#14949 ) canary/v2026.1020.0-canary.1	2026-10-19 19:26:23 -07:00
scotttong Scott Tong Paperclip	7b9334cd10	Draft: Build agent-ready design proposal system (#16875 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - People need consistent UI patterns to review and control that work. > - The current board uses related layouts and controls with different spacing, type, and behavior. > - That drift makes it hard for a designer or an agent to build a new page from a reliable reference. > - Storybook can show the shared patterns and the states they need to support. > - This pull request adds design proposals, a local sandbox, and reusable UI controls so people can compare the patterns in context. > - The benefit is a clearer design system that agents can use to build consistent UI. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected `ui/` — React board UI and Storybook. Problem or motivation Board pages repeat visual and interaction decisions. Storybook did not provide a complete reference for task views, conversation states, typography, toolbars, tabs, and light/dark colors. People could not compare a proposed pattern with the running board in one place. Proposed solution Add a staged Design Proposals catalog with foundations, components, layouts, and page specimens. Add an opt-in sandbox. Reuse production components where possible. Include synthetic conversation states and shared controls so reviewers can compare and refine them. Alternatives considered Separate static mockups would not show keyboard behavior, responsive layout, or real component states. Rebuilding each page only in Storybook would allow the reference to drift from the board. Roadmap alignment This improves existing board UI and Skills Manager surfaces. It does not add a new control-plane capability. ## What Changed - Added dark and light color references, typography and conversation specimens, and component stories for buttons, tabs, toolbars, sidebar, popovers, activity, and task lists. - Added a local design sandbox with synthetic task conversation playback and representative states. - Shared collection toolbars and navigation patterns across task, agent, project, routine, skill, connector, and artifact pages. - Added the streamlined Skills tabs and a My Skills collection that uses the shared skill cards. - Restored saved-thread access during synthetic playback, kept connector searchbox semantics, and updated reproduction checks after moving trial stories. - Documented the proposed patterns and added focused UI, catalog, and browser checks. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check` passed. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed after merging master. After the review fixes, focused UI typecheck, `pnpm build-storybook`, 23 Skills Sources tests, and all 15 Storybook typography browser tests passed. - Focused task-thread and system-notice suites passed: 251 tests. Connector Browse passed 84 tests; the connector, attachment, recovery, and Storybook flyout browser journeys passed locally. - A local full Vitest run hit one intermittent chat-channels integration failure; that test passed in isolation. GitHub CI [39347996059](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39347996059) passed on the exact latest commit: 55 successful checks and two skipped draft-only Storybook jobs. - Greptile reviewed the exact latest commit at 5/5 with no new comments or open review threads. GitHub reports the branch as cleanly mergeable. ## Risks - This PR changes 206 files and exceeds the repository's 100-file review target. Review by commit and consider a scoped split before merge. - Design Proposals are staged references. Fixture interactions do not prove API behavior, permissions, or provider execution. - UI changes to shared controls may affect pages outside the proposal sandbox. Focused browser checks and the full CI matrix passed. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. The model used reasoning, code execution, browser inspection, and local tests. Earlier branch commits were also AI-assisted in this Codex conversation. ## 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 available in this session) - [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 where applicable - [x] I have either linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run focused 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 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: Scott Tong <scott@scotts-mbp-m5-max.local> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> canary/v2026.1020.0-canary.0	2026-10-19 17:45:26 -07:00
TonioandPaperclip	f4d21e2b84	fix(ui): style the offline recovery screen (#16904 ) Style the offline recovery page with the supplied character, embedded token-based CSS, and accessible reload action. Include the production-build fixture regression fix. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> canary/v2026.1019.0-canary.15	2026-10-19 15:12:55 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	7ec6e1a237	fix(runner): explain invalid arguments for assigned tools (#16905 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates agents through authorized tools. > - The native runner validates arguments before it dispatches a tool call. > - Schema failures give repair guidance for only five built-in tools. > - Assigned-tool discovery receives a generic rejection, so an agent can mistake invalid arguments for missing access. > - This PR applies the existing safe schema feedback to every authorized tool. > - Agents can correct their calls while authorization, approval, and replay checks remain in force. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? An invalid `paperclip_search_assigned_tools` call returned only `Paperclip rejected this semantic tool call`. The call never reached the assigned-tool gateway. The same feedback gap affects arbitrary assigned app tools. Expected behavior Identify argument validation as the cause. Return bounded schema locations and ask the provider to correct its arguments. Do not expose submitted values or grant access to unassigned tools. Steps to reproduce Prepare an authorized discovery tool. Submit an invalid query or optional argument through the native runner. Observe the generic error before this fix. Correct the arguments and confirm one dispatch after this fix. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on master at `4970d5ed3d`. The incident did not retain its rejected arguments, so the tests cover representative invalid inputs rather than claim to replay that exact payload. Deployment mode Native runner with the Codex app-server driver. Local verification uses macOS ARM64 and controlled provider fixtures. Related: #16868 added bounded monitor validation feedback. #16723 changes runtime MCP catalog loading; this PR changes the Rust runner validation response and does not depend on that work. ## What Changed - Supply generic repair guidance for any authorized tool whose arguments fail JSON Schema validation. Preserve specific built-in hints. - Keep the existing three-location and 512-byte limits. Do not include input values or unknown keys. Preserve generic authorization failures and the existing retry flag. - Cover missing fields, wrong types, null optional fields, bounds, unknown fields, unchanged rejected-call state, corrected calls, and completed-call replay protection. - Exercise rejection, correction, one dispatch, and successful completion through the real Codex driver with a controlled provider subprocess. - Document the behavior and its verification scope in execution semantics and the agent access map. ## Verification - Red: both new runner regressions failed on the original generic rejection. The existing API-validation regression passed. - Green: all seven selected validation tests passed. The new Codex transport regression passed with one rejection and one corrected dispatch. - `cargo fmt --manifest-path packages/paperclip-runner/runner/Cargo.toml --all -- --check`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `git diff --check` passed. - Full Rust workspace tests, the repository build, and sequential repository typecheck passed. The existing assigned-tool gateway suite passed all 30 tests. All hosted test and end-to-end jobs passed on this head. The duplicate local `test:run` was interrupted after the hosted suites passed; its local result is incomplete. The hosted build and clean public npm installation check also passed. All current-head CI gates are green, including the final verify and e2e aggregates. - Greptile reviewed commit `3e2743e1e15b3b13a7d803ce4d828510e41fb22a`: 5/5, no actionable findings. - Setup evidence: master has a stale dependency lockfile. Dependencies were resolved with the pinned pnpm 9.15.4; lockfile changes are excluded. The first full typecheck overlapped the build and failed copying a generated shared-package file. The sequential rerun passed with no source change. The initial copy failure remains recorded here; the concurrent build-output race was not separately reproduced. - The provider is simulated. This proves runner validation and transport recovery, not that a live model always retries or that GitHub credentials work. ## Risks The provider now sees schema locations for all authorized tools. The existing sanitizer and bounds still apply. Unknown input keys and values remain excluded. No schema, permission, approval, automatic tool replay, database, or connection-auth changes are made. Unauthorized tools still get a generic rejection. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with reasoning, source inspection, and tool execution. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> canary/v2026.1019.0-canary.14	2026-10-19 17:03:42 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	e5927e1db9	fix: give commentary its own default read permission (#16903 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and inspect their work. > - Commentary collects agent suggestions and complaints for company members. > - Commentary used the permission for detailed agent-action audits. > - Owners, admins and viewers could therefore receive a permission error when they opened Commentary. > - This pull request gives commentary its own permission and enables it for all human company roles. > - Members can read feedback while task privacy and detailed audit access keep their own checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16884, which added the Commentary browser. A search found no open PR for this permission fix. What happened? Commentary returned `Missing permission: audit:view_agent_actions` for company members without the detailed audit grant. Default owners, admins and viewers did not receive that grant. Expected behavior All human company roles can read commentary by default. A separate `commentary:view` permission controls this access. Private source tasks remain private. Commentary access does not grant detailed agent-action audits or CSV exports. Steps to reproduce 1. Sign in as an active company owner, admin or viewer without `audit:view_agent_actions`. 2. Open Audit, then Commentary. 3. Observe the permission error before this change. Paperclip version or commit Base commit: `7c58ea07b2`. Deployment mode Authenticated server or Cloud tenant. ## What Changed - Add `commentary:view` to the shared permission contract and all human role defaults. - Require that permission for commentary list and detail reads. - Add an idempotent upgrade migration for existing active human members. Preserve existing grants and scopes. - Add the commentary default when approving saved human invitation grants that omit it, including pre-upgrade invitations. Preserve explicit commentary scopes. - Add regression coverage for role defaults, permission removal, audit separation, private tasks and migration replay. - Update the API description, specifications, database notes and access maps. ## Verification - Passed 68 tests across commentary reads, role grants, old-invitation HTTP acceptance, migration replay, agent audit routes, access services and migration snapshot drift under the repository's locked dependencies. - Confirmed the new role and read tests failed before the implementation. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - Migration numbering and safety checks passed during the build. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally after the invitation fix. - The final-commit CI matrix passed, including all test shards, typecheck, build, public-install checks and canary smoke. The redundant local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the full CI matrix completed; the 68 focused local regressions passed separately. - The first install bypassed the stale lockfile and selected a newer diff-viewer API. The initial typecheck and build failed in that unrelated plugin. Installing the locked versions cleared both failures; the tracked lockfile is unchanged. - The first locked-dependency regression run hit the 15-second limit while importing the audit route graph in its first test. Moving that import into suite setup fixed the timeout; all 58 regressions then passed. - Greptile found that pre-upgrade invitations retain old grant lists. New helper and HTTP regressions reproduced this gap before the fix, then passed after approval added the missing commentary default. - Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no remaining actionable findings. Its earlier thread is resolved. - No UI code changed. The permission tests use real disposable PostgreSQL databases and HTTP routes. ## Risks - The upgrade deliberately enables commentary for every existing active human company member, including viewers. Existing commentary grants retain their saved scopes. - Source-task privacy still filters previews, counts, searches and full messages. Agent-authenticated browsing remains denied. - Agent-action audit grants, detailed filters and CSV export permissions keep their current behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository editing and command execution. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed to this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 16:58:17 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4970d5ed3d	fix(skills): unblock agent attachment and preserve Latest selections (#16899 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators attach company skills to agents from the skill library. > - Attachment first reads the agent's skill snapshot to preserve other assignments. > - That read materialized and validated repository files for the entire library, even in read-only mode. > - The response also treated resolved runtime versions as stored pins. Saving could then fail with beta pins disabled. > - This pull request makes version-cache inspection lightweight and returns the stored assignment choices. > - The benefit is a responsive attachment flow that preserves Latest and explicit pins. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Adding a repository skill to an agent could stall before the save request. The prerequisite snapshot read projected or checked every file in every installed repository skill. Once it returned, an existing Latest assignment could become a version pin in the save payload. The server then rejected that save when beta skill pins were disabled. Expected behavior Reading assignments must not prepare all repository snapshots for execution. Adding a skill must preserve the other assignments and their Latest or pinned choices. Steps to reproduce 1. Install repository-backed skills with stored immutable versions and cold disk caches. 2. Assign one repository skill to a Claude agent with Latest selected. Leave beta skill pins disabled. 3. Open another skill, select Add to agent, choose the same agent, and save. 4. Observe the expensive prerequisite read and the beta-pin rejection after that read completes. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced from master at `ac9459bae3329395f10bc81c638a374eef152baa`. Deployment mode Observed in hosted staging. Reproduced with a disposable local instance, embedded PostgreSQL, and the Claude local adapter on macOS arm64 with Node 26.4.0. Related: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9995 adds a separate read-only assignment endpoint for peer-agent access. This fix keeps the existing configuration-gated snapshot and its permissions. ## What Changed - Respect read-only listing for current and pinned version caches. Check directory and entrypoint safety without projecting repository contents, reading all support files, or updating cache access records. - Keep complete snapshot restoration and byte validation at run preparation. Missing caches are restored from stored data. Corrupted files are repaired there. - Return stored assignment version choices in both list and sync responses. Keep runtime version details in the snapshot entries. - Add database-backed regressions for cold and warm reads, pinned versions, execution repair, and unsafe entrypoints. Add HTTP regressions for save round trips and explicit pins. - Update developer documentation and verification recipes. ## Verification - Red: both latest and pinned read-only cache regressions failed on the original code. The original code created caches during listing. - Red: the HTTP save-roundtrip regression returned 400 with the beta-pin error. The explicit-pin regression also failed. - Green: the updated API and cache suites passed all 145 tests. The three related company-skill service suites also passed. - Real browser: attached a repository skill to a paused test agent with another repository skill already set to Latest and beta pins disabled. The success toast appeared. The skill's Agents tab retained the assignment after reload. API reads confirmed both assignments remained unpinned and no repository version caches were created. - Local synthetic fixture: six skills share a 606-file repository snapshot. A cold HTTP skill-list request completed in 241 ms. This is local evidence, not a staging latency measurement. - Real service comparison on that fixture: the baseline cold list wrote 3,648 version/cache files. A warm baseline list read 3,642 version files and wrote six access records (457 ms). The fixed warm list read and wrote zero version/cache files (61 ms). Both services returned the same 16 library entries. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. The final API edit also passed the server typecheck. - `pnpm build` passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed. - The broad `pnpm test:run` invocation reported six failures in the untouched `tool-gateway-service.test.ts` suite. An isolated rerun passed all 59 tests. The broad run was stopped after recording those failures, so it is not a green full-local result. The PR CI matrix separately passed those suites. Greptile completed on the current commit with 5/5, zero comments, and no open threads. - One CI shard was interrupted by runner shutdown, with no failed assertion in its log. A single failed-job retry passed on the same commit. The aggregate CI gate passed. All current-head PR checks are complete with no failing or pending checks. - This PR does not claim that the fix has been deployed to staging. ## Risks - Settings reads check cache locations and entrypoints. They defer full support-file validation to execution. Regression tests verify that execution still repairs corrupt bytes and restores missing versions. - The response now distinguishes stored pins from resolved runtime versions. Explicit historical pins remain intact. Company, configuration, connector, and beta-pin authorization gates keep their existing behavior. - No schema migration or dependency change. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and browser tools. The exact runtime build ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 16:33:02 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7c58ea07b2	fix(issues): guard prepared task promotion by status version (#16893 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Integrations can prepare a backlog task before its assigned agent starts. > - A person can change its status or assignment during preparation. > - An unconditional promotion can replace that newer decision. > - Safe promotion needs a saved revision that includes every assignment path. > - This pull request checks that revision under the task row lock and derives policy cleanup from the locked row. > - The benefit is safe initialization recovery with the existing company, task, and run authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Prerequisite #16896 has merged. This PR now targets master and contains only the conditional promotion API. The prerequisite fixed the confirmed baseline first-upload browser regression. What happened? A client that saves a task's initial documents and then sends an unconditional status update can override a concurrent status or assignment decision. The update validator previously dropped an expected version, so clients could not make this promotion conditional. Some direct assignment and release paths also did not advance the revision. Expected behavior A prepared task moves from backlog to todo only if its original status and assignment revision still matches. A stale request returns 409 before a task mutation, audit publication, or wake. Policy cleanup preserves unrelated saved settings. Steps to reproduce 1. Create a backlog task and save its statusVersion before preparing it. 2. Release its assignment, or change an assignee and then restore that assignee. 3. Send `{ "status": "todo", "expectedStatusVersion": <original revision> }` to its PATCH endpoint. 4. The stale promotion must return 409. A matching revision on an unchanged backlog task must succeed. Duplicate and related PR searches found no existing prepared-task promotion fix. ## What Changed - Accept an optional nonnegative expectedStatusVersion for exactly a status-only backlog-to-todo promotion. Reject extra public fields before parsing can discard them. - Check the current revision and backlog state under the issue row lock. Reject stale requests before checkout adoption or execution-control effects. - Add SQL migration 0358 to advance the revision for both assignee fields at the database boundary. Release, administrative release, direct writes, and assignment round trips now invalidate an old version. - Derive guarded policy cleanup from the locked row. Preserve review limits and protected authorization when removing a monitor. Reject derived ownership changes or review decisions. - Add schema, real HTTP/PostgreSQL, concurrency, migration replay, and policy regression coverage. Update the response type, OpenAPI, developer docs, and access map. ## Verification - Red before the initial fix: stale requests returned 200 instead of 409, validation removed the expected version, and a stale active task could adopt a checkout. - Review found two further defects. Four new release/direct-assignment tests showed unchanged revisions. The real HTTP/service test returned 422 for a valid two-field promotion after monitor cleanup. Helper tests also proved that cleanup lost valid review limits and protected authorization. All now pass after focused repairs. - Green: 124 route and policy tests, including 7 real Express/PostgreSQL cases, 37 existing route tests, and 80 policy/helper tests. The real row-lock race preserves a policy edit committed while promotion waits. - Green: all 23 database client tests, plus 9 focused assignment and replay checks. Historical migration 0227 receipt recovery cannot remove the new assignment trigger. Reapplying migration 0358 leaves existing rows unchanged and installs one trigger. Combined status/assignment writes increment once; unchanged assignees do not increment. - Earlier verification passed all 218 schema/route/service cases and the generated OpenAPI capability test. Rebased focused regressions passed all 27 selected cases. Final server TypeScript passed after all repairs; shared TypeScript passed. Migration safety/numbering, five-snapshot retention, map validation, and diff checks pass. - The baseline browser attachment case failed twice on the earlier head. Separate #16896 proved the lost-composer cause, passed 335 component tests and the real first-upload journey, and has green CI with a 5/5 review. No assertion or timeout was weakened. - Some early local checks were blocked by missing or stale sibling dependency artifacts. This worktree now has its own frozen offline install and standard SDK prerequisites. The failures and successful reruns remain in the task evidence. - Before rebasing, head `3304bb00de6ad6a248b5e046c008072ad20ac8f5` passed all CI (55 successful checks and one neutral), Greptile 5/5, and a secondary source review at 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The secondary reviewer did not execute project tests, inspect CI, or exercise a live agent journey. Earlier incomplete and must-fix assessments remain visible; both established findings are repaired above. - After #16896 merged, all five CAS commits were rebased onto master `87d9386ae637c652d1fed09d2046be1bcaeb413b`. Migration 0358 was regenerated because master added another 0357. Range comparison shows no other change to the CAS patches; inherited UI commits are absent. The original head is preserved locally. - Rebased head `1c0264e51a280b1dbf597725a7e42e72d4be1b1b` passes all 124 route/policy tests, 9 selected assignment/promotion tests, and all 24 database client/snapshot-drift tests. Database build, migration checks, generated snapshot linkage, five-snapshot retention (0354–0358), maps, and diff checks pass. Fresh-head CI and review are pending. No deployment or live agent journey was performed for this API. ## Risks - The guard supports prepared backlog promotion only. Other statuses or mixed public mutation fields return 422. A stale revision or non-backlog row returns 409. - Preserve the original version from a server that already advertises this guard before initialization. Older versions did not track every assignment path. Reconcile older or uncertain initialization instead of fetching a new revision and blindly retrying. - Migration 0358 is SQL-only and idempotent. It adds no table, column, or task backfill. Its separate trigger survives historical status-migration replay. - Existing authorization and unguarded updates remain in place. Guarded promotion does not provide a general lifecycle or review-stage control API. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this session. Used tool calls, code execution, and test-first regression verification. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 16:27:11 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	c145475cae	fix: admit documented sandbox task context routes (#16892 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip agents use task context to complete assigned work. > - Sandboxed agents reach the controller through a bounded callback bridge. > - The bridge rejects several documented context routes before controller authorization runs. > - An authorized agent cannot read a task screenshot or referenced skill file, or inspect a missed monitor wake. > - This pull request admits only the exact context routes and supported methods. > - The controller continues to enforce company, resource, task and monitor authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Both callback transports return `Route not allowed` for task asset content, company skill detail and files, wake diagnostics, and the monitor check-now action. These operations already exist in the controller. Expected behavior A sandboxed agent can use these documented operations when the controller authorizes its request. Other methods, deeper paths, skill mutations, and recovery resolution remain restricted. Steps to reproduce Use a sandbox callback to read an asset URL from a task description, read a company skill's referenced file, or inspect a task's wake diagnostics. The baseline bridge rejects each request. The new regression matrix runs all five operations against both transport allowlists. Related: #16772 documents refused callback routes. This PR fixes the context routes listed above; it does not add company-wide activity or labels access. ## What Changed - Admit asset content, skill detail/files, and wake diagnostic reads. - Admit the existing monitor check-now action with controller authorization. - Add a focused allow/deny matrix for both transports. - Update the operational API reference and access maps. ## Verification - With the pre-fix bridge rules, all 10 allowed-request cases fail with `Route not allowed` across the two transports; all 24 deny controls still pass. - With the fix restored, all 34 route cases pass. The matrix plus existing callback suite passes 119 tests across two files. - Local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. - The access-map checker, capability contract generation check, and capability inventory check pass. - Full repository CI passes on `97f9f06b2c`: typecheck/release registry, all test shards, build, Docker context, canary dry run, and aggregate verify. - The duplicate local full-suite run was stopped after 24 minutes once full CI passed; it is not claimed as a completed local pass. - Greptile is 5/5 on the current head with no inline findings. Independent source review checked asset, skill, wake-diagnostic, and monitor controller authorization and found no actionable issues. - The secondary Paperclip automated review is neutral/incomplete. Independent review covered its missing controller checks; the real Vitest cases and full CI provide execution evidence. ## Risks This widens transport admission for five existing operations. It does not change controller authorization. Asset reads still check company/task visibility; skill reads keep source policy; monitor checks keep ownership and management permission. No schema or UI change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with tool use and code execution. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID or context window. The work used failing-before and passing-after regression tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 16:27:05 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	87d9386ae6	fix(ui): retain first-chat uploads through task creation (#16896 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent Chat lets a person attach files before the first message. > - The first upload creates the saved chat task while the upload is still pending. > - Initial history loading used that new task ID to reset the open composer. > - Resetting the composer discarded its pending upload even when the server saved the file. > - This pull request uses the conversation's stable draft key for its history readiness. > - The benefit is a first message that retains its selected files and their saved references. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? The first file upload in a new Agent Chat saved on the server but disappeared from the composer. The initial history change in #16878 can unmount the active composer when an empty chat receives its task ID. The pending upload belongs to that unmounted composer, so the new composer has no selected file. Expected behavior The same conversation keeps its active composer and pending file while the task is created. Sending the message binds the saved attachment once. Initial history loading for an existing conversation and ordinary task still waits before mounting its composer. Steps to reproduce 1. Open Agent Chat for an agent with no saved conversation. 2. Attach a text file before sending a message. 3. Let chat creation finish while the upload is pending. 4. Observe that the file chip disappears, although the attachment POST returns 201. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced by a deterministic real-composer regression on master `2e5bf12411`. The existing browser case also failed twice in #16893 before this prerequisite fix. Deployment mode Built from source. Browser acceptance uses a disposable local-trusted server, embedded PostgreSQL, Chromium, and a simulated agent. Related: #16878 added the initial history gate. #15769 covers durable writes during disconnects; this change fixes an in-flight upload lost during first-chat creation. Duplicate searches found no existing fix for this transition. ## What Changed - Use the stable conversation draft key for readiness and timeout state when available. Ordinary tasks keep their task ID as the readiness key. - Add desktop and mobile regressions with a deferred real-composer upload. Check the same editor, file receipt, and one send after chat creation. Keep coverage for deferred initial history on saved conversations. - Update the Agent Chat feature map with the first-upload journey and its verification scope. ## Verification - Red: both new desktop and mobile tests found that the editor became null during the draft-to-saved-chat transition, losing the pending file. - Green: `node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/task-chat/TaskChatComposer.test.tsx --maxWorkers=2` passed all 335 tests. - The existing Chromium first-upload journey passed after the fix. It checks the visible chip, saved attachment, no premature agent run, and the attachment count after send and reload. Command: `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/agent-chat-projects.spec.ts --grep 'first upload creates the chat' --workers=1`. - The browser run built the shipped UI. Token gates, palette and character checks, map validation, and diff checks passed. - Earlier local browser attempts did not reach the assertion: dependencies installed without lifecycle scripts lacked the packaged PostgreSQL library symlinks, then an anchored title filter matched no test. Ran the native package's setup, corrected the filter, and preserved both setup logs. The deterministic component regression supplies the local failing-before proof. - An initial direct UI typecheck lacked generated Storybook catalogs. The standard `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` generated them and passed. - Independent source review found no actionable issue. The readiness key matches the parent thread key, and conversation changes retain their existing remount boundary. - Review found one documentation overstatement: the browser test checks the attachment count after reload, while the component test checks the submitted Markdown reference and receipt ID. Corrected the map and this description to separate those assertions. No production code or browser assertions changed. - Current commit `c6a2734311` has 55 successful checks and 2 skipped checks. Greptile is 5/5 with the finding resolved. The separate Paperclip review is neutral/incomplete: it inspected the changed code but its reads of the parent IssueDetail source stalled. It reported no actionable defect. The independent source review described above did inspect the parent identity boundary. - Full current-commit CI is the repository-wide gate. No deployment or live model was used. ## Risks - A conversation draft key must stay stable while its task is created. Agent Chat already uses that key for its composer draft and thread identity. - A different conversation key resets readiness. Existing conversation and ordinary task history still use their initial loading gate. - No visual values, API contracts, upload retries, or attachment authorization changed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this session. Used tool calls, code execution, and test-first regression verification. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 16:11:36 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	b928c6698f	fix(heartbeat): explain deferred monitor dispatch (#16891 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - One-shot task monitors request future work through the normal heartbeat queue. > - Queue admission can hold execution until recovery or ownership is reconciled. > - The scheduler retained those monitor schedules but recorded no monitor diagnostic. > - Agents could repeatedly reschedule the same blocked check without seeing why it did not run. > - This pull request records safe deferral and failure activity while retaining all execution gates. > - Agents and operators can inspect the actual blocker and use its existing recovery path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #15556 handles transient monitor client errors. #14590 handles parked monitor wakes. This change records the diagnosis when queue admission defers or fails; it does not change their admission or monitor consumption policies. What happened? A due monitor on a task with an unresolved execution-recovery hold was claimed, passed to queue admission, and released without monitor activity. The saved monitor continued to look scheduled. Unexpected dispatch errors had the same audit gap. Repeated rearming could not clear the recovery hold. Expected behavior Keep the monitor and the recovery hold. Record the reason that prevented its wake. Do not execute uncertain work or consume an attempt. Limit repeated identical diagnostics. If audit storage fails, release the claim so a later tick can retry. Steps to reproduce 1. Schedule a due monitor on an agent-owned task in progress. 2. Add an active recovery action for an interrupted legacy execution. 3. Run the monitor scheduler twice. No provider may start while the hold remains. 4. Before this fix, neither attempt writes monitor deferral activity. 5. Resolve the hold through its existing recovery path. The saved monitor can then request one wake. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on master `5739a53f5f` with real PostgreSQL and the assembled heartbeat service. Deployment mode Built from source. This affects the server monitor scheduler. ## What Changed - Pass the existing execution blocker cause to the monitor scheduler through a server-owned diagnostic callback. - Record issue.monitor_deferred for held admission and issue.monitor_dispatch_failed for unexpected admission failures. - Keep activity to known reason codes and allowlisted blocker causes. Do not copy raw provider messages. - Fence claim release and activity against replacement, reassignment, completion and competing scheduler instances. - Limit identical activity for one schedule and cause to one record per five minutes. - Keep claim release functional when diagnostic storage fails. - Update execution documentation and the task verification maps. ## Verification - Red: explains held monitor dispatch without replaying uncertain execution failed because it expected one deferral activity row and received none. The fixture used the real queue, persisted source run and recovery action. - Red: records bounded dispatch failure diagnostics while retaining the schedule failed because no failure activity was recorded. - Green: both regressions pass after the fix. The held-source test proves no successor while held, no monitor attempt consumed, and one wake after explicit hold resolution. - Passed: all 43 tests in heartbeat/scheduling.test.ts and issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts, with at most two workers. - Additional coverage uses real PostgreSQL for diagnostic rate limits, replacement races and an audit-insert trigger failure. Audit failure must not retain the monitor claim. Private error and unknown blocker text do not reach activity. - Passed: node scripts/check-maps.mjs and git diff --check. - Greptile: 5/5 with no actionable issues on `1d0aec738c`. - Latest-head checks: 55 successful, two skipped, and one neutral. No check remains pending or failed. The branch has no merge conflict. Paperclip Review ended neutral because its agent did not return a complete assessment; it is not counted as a validated review pass. - The dependency added on deferral is one bounded recent activity query and at most one audit insert. Successful admission adds no new database read. Existing queue authority checks still decide admission. - The process fixtures validate queue admission and persisted state. They log workspace setup errors after admission; this report does not claim a live provider turn succeeded or that an existing deployment was repaired. - Passed: pnpm --dir server exec tsc --noEmit. The wrapper typecheck was stopped because it started a redundant cold native Runner build. Full repository checks run in PR CI; no local full-suite or full-build pass is claimed. ## Risks - Audit work must not strand a monitor. The storage-failure regression verifies that rollback is followed by a claim-fenced release. - Recovery holds still require their current reconciliation path. This change makes their effect visible and does not bypass ownership, budget, pause, Stop or company checks. - Activity can be stale after a later repair, so each entry includes the checked time and the exact saved deadline. A replacement cannot inherit an old dispatch diagnostic. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use and code execution. The exact runtime model suffix and context window are not exposed to this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 16:11:31 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	370fb50ad4	fix(mcp): keep sibling tools available after transient calls (#16890 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents use remote MCP tools through a governed gateway. > - The gateway lists tools only while their shared connection is healthy. > - One failed call currently marks the whole connection as unhealthy. > - Later calls to healthy sibling tools then fail with `tool_not_found`. > - This pull request keeps non-authentication call failures on their invocation. > - Agents can continue their work while credential and access gates remain in force. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10147. Related work: #15462 fixed oversized and malformed response handling. #15448 covers timeout and JSON-RPC health handling together with separate SSE and catalog discovery changes. Its patch still marks fetch failures and HTTP failures as connection errors. #15325 proposed a transport failure counter; it has merge conflicts and has not changed since October 6. #11910 is an older timeout fix with merge conflicts. This PR covers the remaining fetch and HTTP failure paths on current master, with the same narrow call-health rule for timeouts and JSON-RPC failures. It does not include the SSE or discovery changes from #15448. The timeout session-reset check follows the recovery case discussed in #15448. What happened? A shared remote MCP connection works until one call has a network failure, timeout, HTTP 503, or JSON-RPC error. Every later call on that connection returns `tool_not_found`, including healthy sibling tools. Connection setup then asks for user attention even though the failure did not prove that credentials need repair. Expected behavior The original invocation retains its failure. Authorized sibling tools remain callable. The gateway does not replay an ambiguous action. HTTP 401/403, missing credentials, and explicit insufficient scope keep their access gates. Steps to reproduce 1. Give an agent access to two read tools on one remote MCP connection. 2. Make one tool fail with a network error or HTTP 503. 3. Call the other tool in the same gateway session. 4. Before this fix, the second call fails with `tool_not_found` before provider dispatch. Paperclip version or commit `master` at `e6dcd1e8e9`. The regression runs against source with synthetic data. Deployment mode Any deployment that uses a shared remote MCP connection. This is a core gateway issue. ## What Changed - Preserve connection health after a network failure, timeout, non-authentication HTTP error, or JSON-RPC error from one tool call. - Retain HTTP 401/403 and insufficient-scope health gates. - Retain HTTP 401/403 gates during MCP initialization and its initialized notification, with HTTP 503 controls for both stages. - Discard only the upstream session used by a network failure or timeout. Let the next explicit call initialize again. - Add sibling-tool regression cases, authentication controls, and real HTTP header/body timeout checks. - Update runtime recovery guidance and the feature and access maps. ## Verification - Red: the four new sibling-tool cases failed on the original implementation. Each second call returned HTTP 404 with `tool_not_found`. HTTP 401/403 control cases passed. - Green: the same six-case selection passed after the production change: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-gateway-service.test.ts -t 'keeps sibling MCP tools usable\|keeps the connection blocked' --maxWorkers=1`. - The regression checks the actual gateway and embedded PostgreSQL. The injected provider fault preserves the call boundary. It checks failure recording, no automatic replay, catalog retention, and successful sibling dispatch. - The real local HTTP fixture checks cancellation before headers and during a body, then a successful explicit call with a fresh MCP session. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - Complete nearby suites pass: 166 tests across `tool-gateway-service.test.ts`, `tool-gateway.test.ts`, `remote-mcp-protocol.test.ts`, and `mcp-http.test.ts`, with one test worker. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` passes after refreshing Runner TypeScript declarations. The first package typecheck used declarations from before the rebase and failed two unchanged native-session call sites; rebuilding that dependency resolved both errors. - The rebased head also passes all 11 selected sibling/authentication/session regressions. - Review regression red: setup-stage HTTP 401/403 controls failed because connection health stayed `ok`; the two setup-stage HTTP 503 controls passed. Green: all six setup controls and the complete 166-test nearby run pass. The fix separately handles typed initialization authentication failures and preserves the existing caller error. The server compiler also passes after this change. - Full repository CI passes on `256a65ccc302c1c31a80e87f1f91411d955028de`: typecheck, build, test shards, Runner checks, browser checks, Canary dry run, and aggregate gates. All checks are terminal: 55 successful, 2 expected skips, and the separate Paperclip Review check is neutral. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact head, with no open findings. - Full repository checks were run in CI. Local verification in this worktree used the focused suites and server compiler to keep parallel work bounded. - This change has no live provider or staging deployment proof. ## Risks - A provider that remains unavailable can stay listed until a health check detects the outage. Each call still fails with its original controlled reason code. - No automatic retry occurs because a failed remote action may already have run. - Already unhealthy connections still need a successful health check after an upgrade. - No schema, credential policy, or permission contract changes. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with tool use and code execution. The runtime does not expose the exact serving 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>	2026-10-19 16:11:15 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	6f045207bb	fix(runner): explain rejected API response windows (#16889 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents use the API fallback when dedicated tools cannot express an operation. > - Large responses can be read in bounded text windows. > - The declared schema rejects windows larger than 24576 bytes. > - The runner hid the rejected field behind a generic semantic tool error. > - This pull request returns safe schema locations and the accepted byte range. > - Agents can correct a call without guessing or changing route permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16868, which added repair guidance for task monitor arguments. What happened? A native call_api request with responseText.limitBytes set to 60000 returned invalid_tool_call with no field or size guidance. The declared 4..24576 byte range already matches the server validator. The missing repair guidance is in the runner bridge. Expected behavior Reject invalid input before dispatch. Show bounded schema locations and the accepted window range. Do not echo submitted values or unknown field names. A corrected request can reuse the rejected call ID. Steps to reproduce 1. Use the generated call_api tool contract to request a GET text window with limitBytes 60000. 2. Read the semantic tool error. Before this fix, it contains only a generic rejection. 3. Retry with limitBytes 16000. The corrected call must be admitted. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on master `5739a53f5f`. Deployment mode Built from source. This affects the native runner bridge. ## What Changed - Add call_api to the existing provider-safe schema guidance path. - Name the text-window byte range and pagination field. - Exercise the actual generated production schema through the provider bridge and its error result. - Keep private values, unknown property names, authorization errors and response-size limits unchanged. - Document the response window and repair behavior. ## Verification - Red: api_window_rejection_explains_limits_and_allows_corrected_call failed on master because the provider error did not name responseText.limitBytes. - Green: the same regression passes with a corrected same-ID call, unknown-key privacy checks and unchanged authorization rejection. - Passed: the existing runner-api.test.ts suite, 1935 tests, including server window validation before dispatch. - Passed: all 394 Runner core Rust unit tests, cargo fmt --check and the generated protocol manifest check. The focused test also passed after extraction into its own Rust test module. - Greptile: 5/5 with no actionable issues on the final head `95d65e1646`. - The first CI release-registry run found that a compile-time test fixture was outside the release-cache input set. The fixture now reads the same generated schema at test runtime. The Rust regression and all 10 runner-release-crate-cache tests pass after that repair. - This pure error mapping adds no dependency calls, provider retries or network work. No live provider or staging deployment was needed. - Full current-head CI passed, including repository typecheck, tests, build, Runner verification, canary and browser suites. At `95d65e1646` there are 56 successful and four skipped checks. The separate Paperclip Review bot completed with a neutral check and a 5/5 static assessment with no findings. It did not run current-head Rust, full repository or live-provider tests; its older local cache run is not counted as current-head test evidence. No check remains pending or failed. No local full-suite or full-build pass is claimed. ## Risks - Feedback must not disclose submitted values. The regression checks private values and unknown field names, a 512-byte bound and unchanged generic authorization errors. - Guidance names the current byte range. The regression uses the generated production schema so a contract change must keep this repair guidance accurate. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use and code execution. The exact runtime model suffix and context window are not exposed to this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 16:10:58 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	24067a16b5	fix(workspaces): classify restricted shared repository admission (#16895 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents, their tasks, and their saved work. > - Workspace preparation must check access before an agent starts. > - A shared project checkout can contain another task's private worktree. > - The access guard correctly rejects a run that cannot read that work. > - The isolated-source path reports this as a configuration blocker after #16545. > - Shared project repository admission missed that classification and returned a generic setup failure. > - This change uses the same blocker at that boundary so recovery names the required workspace repair. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16545 and #16095. The open retained-reader repair in #16832 addresses deleted identities, a separate condition. What happened? A task reused a shared project workspace. Another worktree in that checkout retained a private task that the run could not read. Repository admission rejected access before provider startup. The run reported `setup_failed`, and recovery showed a generic no-live-execution notice. Expected behavior Keep the access denial. Report `configuration_incomplete` with reason `workspace_source_restricted`. Preserve the workspace and files. Give the owner the existing workspace repair action. Do not queue an automatic failure retry or report this expected blocker as an unexpected Sentry failure. Steps to reproduce 1. Bind a task to a shared project checkout. 2. Add a private task worktree beneath that checkout. 3. Continue the shared task as an agent that cannot read the private task. 4. Inspect the run result and recovery action. Version and deployment Reproduced in the full heartbeat service from source revision `06d4fe3121`, with PostgreSQL and real Git worktrees on macOS. The provider never starts. The regression also covers the existing Git-worktree path. ## What Changed - Apply the existing restricted-source classifier to task repository admission. - Extend the heartbeat regression to shared project workspaces. - Assert one run and one recovery action, no provider start, no unexpected Sentry report, and preserved binding and files. - Update the workspace documentation and both capability maps. ## Verification - Red: the shared project regression returned `setup_failed`; the Git-worktree control passed. - Green: the same two cases pass after the change. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed. - Current head `e26cdd45da76c6edaa1622856f9c69e9f48b81fb`: 55 successful checks, one neutral check, two skipped Storybook checks. Greptile 5/5, no review threads, mergeable. - All 337 tests passed across `heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment`, `heartbeat/workspace-preparation`, `run-failure-report`, and `recovery/stranded-notice`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. All full current-head CI suites passed in [run 39315969013](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39315969013). The duplicate local full Vitest run was stopped after 11 minutes when CI completed; it has no local full-suite completion claim. The 337 affected local tests completed successfully. - Running-app acceptance at `e26cdd45da76c6edaa1622856f9c69e9f48b81fb`: a synthetic private Git worktree caused the shared task to stop with the visible Workspace source restricted notice and no process start. The normal workspace API selected a separate task directory. Resolving the recovery action resumed the same assignee. A real process fixture completed, the output persisted after reload, and both source files remained intact. Checkout and execution locks cleared. There were no automatic failure retries. - The first recovered process wrote its report to the command cwd. This was a fixture output-path mistake. The corrected fixture reads the selected workspace from the authenticated API before writing. One explicit additional admission verified that output. The record retains both successful process runs and the earlier configuration-blocked run. This is local process-adapter acceptance, not live Codex/provider qualification. - Staging diagnosis confirmed a retained private source and failure before provider startup. The original task has not been recovered. The deployed UI hides its workspace selector, and no authenticated task-write API is available in this session. No live Codex recovery is claimed. ## Risks The same exact 403 denial is now a configuration blocker during shared repository admission. Other failures retain their original type. Access policy, cloning, credentials, provider execution, and workspace contents do not change. An existing task still requires a permitted workspace repair before it can run. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and browser tools. The exact deployment identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 16:03:16 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	ac9459bae3	feat: configure company agent observability (#16874 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Companies use several agent harnesses and execution environments. > - Operators need one place to select where native agent logs and traces go. > - An inference proxy would add a dependency to the agent request path. > - This pull request supplies native OpenTelemetry settings to managed Codex and Claude Code processes. > - Company secrets protect destination credentials. Export failure does not change the task result. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Company settings, shared contracts, database, server, adapters, and runner. Problem or motivation An operator cannot configure a company destination for native agent logs and traces. Manual harness configuration is hard to apply across local and remote execution. Proposed solution Add one company destination: Braintrust or a custom OTLP HTTP/protobuf endpoint. Apply a transient snapshot when execution preparation starts. Keep credentials out of API reads, task environment manifests, recovery files, and command arguments. Replace a warm process when its export settings change and preserve its conversation. Alternatives considered Multiple destinations can use a user-operated collector for fan-out. This change does not add a collector, an inference proxy, or transcript scraping. Roadmap alignment This extends company settings, secret management, and support for multiple harnesses. The maintainer requested this implementation. Searches for observability and Braintrust found no duplicate company destination feature. Related infrastructure tracing work in #16236 has a separate content-free contract. ## What Changed - Add strict schemas, revision checks, encrypted secret storage, activity records, and board-only settings routes. - Add explicit synthetic logs and traces tests with a bounded HTTP request and sanitized results. - Supply native Codex configuration and Claude Code environment values through local and remote launch paths. - Preserve Codex login refresh through the existing managed credential link. Retain unsaved drafts across background reads. Require complete custom header re-entry when the endpoint origin changes. - Separate process export compatibility from conversation identity. Isolate generated Codex configuration and preserve resumable sessions, including remote home refresh after export changes. - Advance the immutable Pi/Copilot source attestations for shared environment and sidecar code changes. Keep their provider payloads unchanged and retain prior identities for decoding. - Redact destination credentials throughout launch diagnostics and HTTP logs. - Add the production settings form, Storybook states and journey, documentation, and feature/access map entries. ## Verification - Real managed local Codex 0.160.0 and Claude Code 2.1.286 tasks exported to Braintrust. API readback and the Braintrust UI showed the test records. A real remote Daytona Codex task exported through the legacy `exec` path. - Live tests exercised content capture off, export disabled, warm conversation reuse, and a destination that accepted connections but never replied. Agent work succeeded and export requests stopped at the configured three-second timeout. The UI connection test returned “Test payload accepted”; the saved API key stayed masked after reload. - All current-head CI test lanes, typechecks, packaging/build checks, and required aggregates passed on `71e994b2be9c8fb6d6e938a4ad7cf4c95fdafe31` ([CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39319194318)). Greptile completed on that exact commit at 5/5, with zero unresolved review threads. The additional optional Paperclip Review check remains queued waiting for its assigned agent. - Local workspace typecheck and build passed. Focused verification included 239 combined runner tests, 789 API/native-session tests, 107 Codex home/ACP/sandbox-site tests, 204 feature/privacy tests, and the affected Rust suites. Migration, token, map, Storybook catalog, and Storybook build checks passed during acceptance. These checks ran at the relevant implementation or merge boundary; the current-head CI is the complete final gate. - Managed AI credential projections now receive enabled and disabled company export settings; genuine caller-owned Codex homes remain untouched. Two regressions reproduced the skip before the repair. All 276 engine/lifecycle tests and adapter-utils typecheck pass afterward. The launched TOML retains provider/MCP settings, credential continuity, and redaction. - Settings saves, removal, and the real company-deletion owner acquire secret mutation ownership before database locks. PostgreSQL NOWAIT probes cover all three paths; concurrent save/rotation/removal/deletion requests settle correctly. The affected suites passed 137 tests, followed by all 32 service/connection cases after expanded deletion coverage. Server and Codex adapter typechecks pass. - Codex source profiles use the effective CLI argument list. A spawned fixture CLI reproduced both ignored-argument failures; all three precedence/fallback cases now pass. - Real tar staging reproduced remote conversation loss in both API-key and subscription modes before the repair. Both now pass: changing managed settings preserves sessions, archives, native indexes, and refreshed subscription credentials. A corrupt upload preserves the prior config and conversation. - Preserved failure evidence: initial CI caught stale Pi/Copilot source attestations, a missing test-harness helper, and packaging fixture/probe mismatches; those were corrected and covered by focused checks. Superseded heads had intermittent attachment-composer timeouts despite successful uploads; [the original trace and screenshot remain available](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39309701089/artifacts/12215109203). The same attachment case passed on the final head: [25/25 tests in shard 3](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39319194318/job/118288637051). - A connection-fault fixture also exposed a stale pooled socket after its hang case; closing fixture responses isolated scenarios and the full affected suite passed. - The broad local test run was not clean: database resource failures, timeouts, an older cached module graph, and a stale optional-resource manifest assumption were recorded. Focused checks passed after the documented fixes. This does not establish a clean full local pass. - Native remote Codex, remote Claude, and the full ACPX Codex bridge remain unqualified. The direct Codex resume test does not establish full bridge acceptance. ## Risks - Native exporters perform network requests from each execution environment. A server connection test does not prove remote reachability. - Prompts, assistant responses, and tool content are enabled by default when supported. Native caps and harness-specific controls still apply. - Caller-owned Codex homes are unsupported for automatic configuration and remain untouched. - Native harnesses and their tool processes can inspect export credentials. The settings form and documentation advise using ingestion-scoped credentials. Retained headers remain bound to their saved scheme, host, and port; changing origin requires fresh values or removal. - Migration 0357 adds a company-scoped row and secret reference. It is safe to reapply. Secret removal and company deletion use the existing secret lifecycle. - Slow or unavailable destinations must not block task settlement. Export settings take effect at the next execution preparation boundary. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, code execution, and browser verification. The exact serving model ID and context window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `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>	2026-10-19 15:36:04 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	8a3d2cb04f	fix(recovery): avoid recursive holds for undispatched waits (#16894 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Queue admission must stop work while a previous execution needs recovery. > - The final dispatch gate can cancel a queued run before it starts. > - Legacy recovery treats this known wait as an unknown provider outcome and creates another hold. > - The extra hold can survive repair of the original execution and leave saved messages stuck. > - This pull request uses one database proof to prevent the extra incident and recognize old false holds. > - Saved input can then pass through normal admission with the original work and safety gates intact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15483. What happened? The dispatcher writes an `execution_reconciliation_required` cancellation when an existing recovery hold denies a queued run. No runtime is selected and no provider starts. Legacy recovery later creates a `legacy_execution_requires_reconciliation` action for that cancelled admission. Its settled `replay: blocked` record remains an effective hold after the real source recovery finishes. The task has saved messages but no eligible Retry or Continue action. Expected behavior A verified admission denial stays a wait. It must not create another provider-outcome incident. Existing false incidents must stop blocking after the server verifies their recorded source. Real execution, uncertain outcomes and file recovery stay held. The harness determines these infrastructure facts; the user does not certify them in a form. Steps to reproduce 1. Persist a queued-run gate cancellation with its task-bound `executionWait` receipt and no execution authority or resource evidence. 2. Run legacy reconciliation. On the old code, it creates a second incident. 3. Persist the old incident as resolved with replay blocked, then clear the original source hold. 4. Restart queue recovery with saved user messages. On the old code, no successor is admitted. Related work: #15965 covers other pre-start dispatch cancellations but explicitly excludes this existing-hold code and leaves historical holds unchanged. #16634 covers stale-cancel classification and queue drain, without re-evaluating historical effective holds. #15383 covers an operator Stop during conversation startup. This change addresses the existing-hold receipt and its persisted false incident; it does not copy those broader changes. ## What Changed - Add one database proof for a legacy admission denied by an existing execution hold. Require the exact dispatcher receipt, matching task identity, no runtime or process claim, no lease or finalization coordinator, and no execution events. - Use the proof before legacy recovery creates an incident and when it computes effective historical holds. Keep the old audit rows. - Preserve source file obligations and the original recovery action. Keep the normal queue, pause, ownership, company and budget checks. - Add real PostgreSQL regressions for incident prevention, old state, concurrent queue recovery, message order, conflicting evidence and scope boundaries. - Update the execution contract and both recovery maps. ## Verification - Red: the regression on unfixed source fails on incident classification, historical hold projection and actual periodic saved-message admission. The other 24 safety cases pass. - Green: all 27 new database cases pass. Two safety assertions were aligned with the existing contract: daily limits stop dispatch after queue promotion; a human comment can intentionally reopen a terminal task. The final regression checks the real daily dispatch gate and agent pause. - Existing `explicit-native-continuation.test.ts`: 255 tests pass. Existing legacy recovery and PostgreSQL dispatcher suites: 61 tests pass. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - GitHub PR CI run `39313204660` passed on `ef6009e656b7c9b4c788480dce322874565960ac`. All 54 successful check-runs and the Snyk status are green. Two optional Storybook checks were skipped. The independent Paperclip Review completed with a neutral check and a 5/5 assessment with no findings. Greptile also reports 5/5 on the same commit. There are no unresolved review threads. - `pnpm test:run` is still running locally. Its overall result is pending; no full local suite pass is claimed. The exact-head GitHub CI suite passed. - A read-only probe of an affected hosted task verifies the same database proof and projects no false blocker with the working source. No live rows were changed. Deployment and a real resumed provider run remain unverified. ## Risks - An incorrect exclusion could admit work with uncertain effects. The proof fails closed on missing receipts, source mismatches, runtime/process ownership, any retained lease, coordinator, execution event or file obligation. Real upstream file recovery remains blocking in the regression. - The effective-hold query adds indexed existence checks scoped to the recorded run and company. It makes no provider calls and performs no database repair writes. - Historical audit records keep their recorded outcome. Only their effective blocking status changes when the server can prove the admission never ran. - No schema, permission, credential or UI form changes are included. Live recovery still needs verification after rollout. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, model ID `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 15:26:39 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	2e5bf12411	test(adapter-utils): retry HTTP/2 fixture port collisions (#16888 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work for AI agents. > - Sandbox agents use a callback bridge to reach the API. > - Tests start the generated HTTP/2 gateway on an assigned loopback port. > - The test probe releases that port before the gateway binds it. > - Another process can claim the port during that gap. > - This PR retries that specific fixture startup collision and tests its limits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? The unchanged callback bridge test failed in #16605 because its selected port was already in use. [CI job 118251110752](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39308303837/job/118251110752) reports `EADDRINUSE` before the gateway READY frame. The same helper is present on master `4d92589799`; no merged or open fix for this exact failure was found. Expected behavior The fixture starts on a fresh port after a confirmed bind collision. It stops after three attempts and preserves other startup failures. Steps to reproduce The new held-probe case keeps the selected socket open before the real child starts. Before the correction, the original authorization test fails with `EADDRINUSE`. The unchanged no-collision case passes. Additional context This is the separate scoped correction for #16605's unrelated CI failure. It changes one test file. ## What Changed - Retry only pre-READY gateway exits with code 1 and the specific `EADDRINUSE` bind diagnostic. - Wait for child close and fully drained stderr before classifying startup. Kill failed attempts and preserve the original failure after three collisions. - Keep the real probe socket open to inject collisions without a timing race. - Verify successful recovery, bounded exhaustion, delayed stderr, and immediate failure for unrelated startup errors. Accept successful starts anywhere within the three-attempt limit. Preserve the original authorization and header-stripping assertions. ## Verification - Negative controls: the held-port authorization case fails with `EADDRINUSE`, and retry exhaustion observes only one attempt before the correction. The ordinary case passes. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-callback-bridge.test.ts`: all 89 tests pass on the final head. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck`: passes. - Initial standard Greptile returned 4/5 for late stderr classification and exact success-count assertions. Both are corrected. The final real-pipe control reproduces missing diagnostics with the old exit listener and passes with close-based readiness. An initial pause-only control was not discriminating because Node resumes pipes on exit; the final control holds that resume until after exit. - Diff checks and the complete secrets/PII review pass. - Full local repository tests and build were not run for this one-file fixture change. Hosted CI and standard Greptile are pending. ## Risks The fixture can still fail after three consecutive collisions. Other startup failures remain failures. The generated gateway and its assigned-port protocol are unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and testing. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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> canary/v2026.1019.0-canary.12	2026-10-19 12:49:25 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	313fb265db	feat(plugins): invalidate runtimes when connector access changes (#16605 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Runtime preparation depends on access and credential state as well as tool definitions. > - Grant, membership, secret, and endpoint changes need committed invalidation. > - Their writers must acquire locks before journal fanout can lock agent rows. > - This pull request adds access hooks with the corresponding transaction guards. > - Plugins can refresh preparation immediately while task-time authorization remains authoritative. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Grant changes, credential rotation and revocation, company access changes, and connector endpoint configuration do not request runtime synchronization. Journal fanout exposes lock inversions between credential persistence, access cleanup, and connection assignment writers. Expected behavior Committed access changes request runtime preparation without polling or credential values in the journal. Agent-specific secret bindings and new personal delegations affect their target agent. Company access changes remain conservative. Provider bookkeeping does not create preparation work. Steps to reproduce 1. Change an audience, delegation, membership permission, referenced credential, vault configuration, or endpoint instruction. 2. Expect a committed runtime event in the correct company and scope. 3. Run reconnect, credential refresh, SSH setup, or membership cleanup concurrently with related writes. 4. Expect both operations to preserve access checks and finish without a lock-order cycle. Additional context Final feature extraction from #16503. The earlier slices, #16604, and the separate delivery-test correction #16871 are merged. This PR is now the active change against master. The rebase preserves the merged assignment and definition recipient rules, Unicode selector semantics, and profile/reference transaction guards. ## What Changed - Add migration 0356 for grants, audiences, delegation, membership/permissions, secret bindings, referenced credentials and vaults, and chat/email endpoint configuration. - Keep events content-free. Ignore health, delivery, publication, Vercel verification, and GitHub webhook bookkeeping while retaining credential and repository-access changes. - Target agent secret bindings and all personal delegation changes to their old and new target agents. Coalesce delegation changes per transaction. - Lock existing grants before connections and credential persistence in OAuth and cleanup writers. - Reject superseded refresh leases before rotating stored credentials. Ignore lease acquisition and release when access metadata is unchanged. - Serialize audience replacement, validate membership, and preserve unchanged audiences. - Lock membership before permission-only saves and grant before Railway SSH setup. Individual delegation revocation locks its grant and target. Whole-grant and membership cleanup lock company recipients before deleting scoped delegations. - Lock grants and connection inputs before static-key reconnect writes. Lock company agents before cascading secret deletion; use a nonblocking secret lock and bounded retries to avoid a new cycle with credential writers. - Add PostgreSQL concurrency coverage for access writers and endpoint publication/configuration behavior. - Preserve the owner lock for plugin instance-secret removal; these secrets cannot use ordinary bindings. - Align Slack search refresh, callbacks, and disconnect with grant-before-connection locking. Recheck newly discovered grants without waiting before provider work. - Retry complete membership transactions when a credential deletion candidate is busy. Cover all four cleanup entry points and process company access in ID order. - Document final invalidation coverage and task-time authorization boundaries. ## Verification - Current head: `78aace55bef7f52bc5742b131e0b3961eb5c0f11`. All 1,061 tests across 23 affected suites pass. The named Slack authorization integration scenario also passes; it exercises authorization, refresh, disconnect, and rejection of a late callback. Server/database typechecks, migration safety and numbering, five-snapshot retention, feature maps, and diff checks pass. The complete PR diff was reviewed for secrets and personal data before push. Final acceptance: [CI run 39308303837, attempt 2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39308303837) is green, with 55 successful checks and two optional Storybook skips. The current-head Greptile reassessment returned Apex 5/5 at 19:16 UTC on 2026-10-19. Its full summary reports no actionable issues. Security passed, all threads are resolved, and GitHub reports no merge conflicts. The reassessment was requested as a standard review after the fixes; Greptile retained the Apex tier. - On this head, [CI run 39308303837](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39308303837) failed the unchanged adapter-utils HTTP/2 fixture with `EADDRINUSE` before READY. Its closed probe left a port handoff race. That test and its gateway are byte-identical on master. No upstream fix was found. The deterministic fixture correction is isolated in #16888; no adapter test changes are included here. The failed jobs recovered on retry without a feature source change. The original failure remains documented here, and #16888 carries the fixture correction separately. That retry demonstrates recovery; the held-probe negative control establishes the port handoff race. - Rebased onto master `194fc11406`, including merged #16604 and #16871. Replayed only the access-hook commit. Resolved OAuth, test, and documentation conflicts while retaining both sets of tests. Migration 0356 preserves the merged assignment/definition recipient rules, Unicode selector semantics, and profile/reference guards. - Apex returned 3/5 on `0fb65bc27`. Negative controls reproduce its Slack delegation and member-cleanup deadlocks (`40P01`) and unwanted Vercel/GitHub bookkeeping events. Slack grant writers now take their locks before the connection. A separate late-grant control reproduces `40P01` without the post-lock recheck; the complete guard passes. All four membership cleanup commands retry from a fresh transaction when the credential is busy. Tests verify successful cleanup and no journal rows from failed attempts. Credential IDs and repository-access changes still notify runtimes. - Earlier review corrections remain covered: static-key reconnect and cascading secret removal each reproduce `40P01` without their guards. Grant lease acquisition/release is ignored. Secret removal releases agent locks when a credential writer is busy. Instance-secret removal retains the owner lock and passes its public plugin API contention regression. Delegation updates and revocations target old/new agents; unrelated-peer, coalescing, unchanged-update, and rollback cases pass. Three negative controls verify the required whole-grant and membership cleanup guards after narrowing delegation scope. - Preserve prior acceptance failures: the first rebased 20-suite run passed 1,025/1,026; its only failure was a draft uninstall fixture blocking a random peer. Blocking the assigned agent corrected that assumption, and all 44 access/assignment tests passed. Later, all 1,044 tests across 21 suites, [CI run 39302185527](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39302185527), standard Greptile 5/5, and security passed on `0fb65bc27`. That did not clear the later Apex findings described above. Draft run 38975428081 failed a server shard; its cause was not re-investigated. A later green run does not establish that earlier cause. - Local fixture corrections are recorded separately from product failures: an assignment filename filter initially matched no file; the actual suite was included in full runs. A delegation fixture omitted its required creator, and a guard run omitted a query import. The new global-access cleanup fixture now uses its own user to avoid earlier fixtures' memberships. All were corrected before publishing their final iterations. - Local checks target affected services and real PostgreSQL boundaries. A full local build and repository-wide test run were not performed. Hosted CI supplies broader verification. Provider responses in tests are controlled; live provider behavior was not qualified. ## Risks Migration 0356 adds triggers without changing table schema. Apply it through the normal migration flow. Most access changes retain synchronous company-wide invalidation. Company fanout takes O(eligible company agents) locks and journal rows, without a fanout ceiling or mutation quota. Agent secret bindings and individual delegation changes retain narrower recipients. Events contain no credentials. Physical removal of non-instance secrets takes ordered locks on all company agents before cascading into bindings. This costs O(company agents) locks even for an otherwise unreferenced secret. Instance secrets cannot use ordinary bindings and retain their owner lock. A busy secret lock releases the transaction guards and retries up to three times. Continued contention returns a retryable conflict. Provider deletion stays outside that transaction; a retry resumes removal of an already disabled secret. Membership cleanup uses nonblocking credential guards and retries the full membership transaction. Slack search adds two grant queries, scoped to the subject and connection. Its retries occur before provider work or credential persistence. Each retry loop is limited to three attempts. Invalidation requests preparation; task-time authorization and provider session activation remain authoritative. Provider calls use fixtures; no live provider qualification is claimed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and testing. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 12:49:11 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	06d4fe3121	perf(runner): preload essential Claude task tools (#16885 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Runner exposes assigned tools to Claude through an authenticated MCP bridge. > - Claude can defer these tools and search for them before a simple task can finish. > - Title and terminal tools are common requirements for a task turn. > - This pull request marks those three tools for immediate loading by Claude. > - The remaining tools keep the SDK deferral policy and the existing access checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15993, #15994, #15997. What existing behavior does this improve? Claude Runner tool discovery during task execution. Current behavior Claude can use ToolSearch to discover the mandatory title and terminal tools before it answers a simple task. Proposed behavior Expose `set_task_title`, `paperclip_finish`, and `paperclip_block` in the first Claude request through per-tool `anthropic/alwaysLoad` metadata. Keep other tools deferred under the SDK policy. Reason and benefit Remove an avoidable tool discovery step without changing the model, effort, or authorization. Repeated product measurements will check the latency benefit. ## What Changed - Add closed metadata for the three essential tools only in Claude runtime hosts. - Keep incoming metadata discarded and private tools hidden. Keep other providers unchanged. - Test real bridge catalogs and provider routing. Check the pinned Claude SDK request against a loopback fixture with no paid calls. - Advance the pending Copilot source binding because it attests the shared bridge file. Preserve historical profile readers and qualification limits. ## Verification - Focused bridge, admission, profile, and effort controls: 185 passed, one skipped. Three provider-routing cases pass. - Runner TypeScript compilation passes. - The production SDK fixture loads exactly three essential tools with the change and zero in the controlled baseline. The document tool stays deferred. - Six real API-key tasks used Opus 5.5 / High in alternating order A B B A A B. Median first assistant receipt was 22.021 s baseline vs 17.060 s candidate (22.5% lower). Median total was 24.119 s vs 19.150 s (20.6% lower). ToolSearch was 3/3 baseline vs 0/3 candidate. All six tasks saved a title and accepted finish. A separate candidate follow-up resumed the same provider session and finished without ToolSearch. - Median startup was 4.786 s baseline vs 5.381 s candidate. This change does not improve startup. Three samples per version give directional evidence only. - Estimated cost for the six tasks was $0.850900800. Candidate total was $0.450341800 vs baseline $0.400559000; the first candidate wrote a new cache prefix. These rate-card estimates are not invoices. - The benchmark used source `5aed3c6a083cf8e6246815455abde3b29ecbbbac`. Rebuilding both bundles at master-reconciled head `d2da07259048c0a2bebd210c35cc0ebb3ff42c67` produced identical SHA-256 values. Baseline bundle SHA-256: `10a92c373bba4fb630bf4fefeab953d850a77cf8258bc2e94711410a73a78ecd`. Candidate: `40348fc67a3b1ae5cc1f27f933f369981d31bcdf5d1bdc7b1797968ddfe53938`. Baseline differs only by compiling the Claude preload selector as false. Fresh task sessions avoid checkpoint changes. - Full local runtime-host runs exposed credential lease collisions in existing cases. A later complete host run passed 67 cases and timed out in an existing admission-abort case; that case passes in isolation. All failures are retained. Focused controls pass. Complete Runner suites, repository typecheck, tests, browser checks, and build pass in cloud CI on this head. ## Risks - These three tool schemas add input to Claude requests. Measurements must include token usage and cost. - Copilot source identity changes because it includes the bridge source hash. It remains pending qualification. Its catalog and executable closure do not change. - The test fixture proves request shape. It does not prove real-provider latency or platform package qualification. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (focused controls and isolated cancellation check; broad local failures are retained above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 14:29:22 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	e6dcd1e8e9	feat: add Commentary to Audit with filters and shareable messages (#16884 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents can submit suggestions and complaints while they work. > - Operators currently need database access to read those messages. > - That makes it hard to find feedback from one agent or share a specific message. > - This pull request adds a standard Commentary tab in Audit. > - Operators can filter messages, browse 50 at a time, and share links to full message dialogs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15367, which added feedback storage and agent submission. The duplicate search found no open PR for a commentary reader. Subsystem affected Server, shared API contracts, and the board UI. Problem or motivation Agent suggestions and complaints are stored but have no board reader. Operators must query the database to inspect feedback. Proposed solution Add Commentary to Audit without an experimental toggle. Show previews, agent and message-type filters, text search, and 50-message pages. Opening a row updates the URL. A copied URL opens the full message with its agent, task, and run context. Alternatives considered Direct database queries remain useful for operators, but do not provide a normal product workflow. An experimental setting would add setup to a read-only audit page. Roadmap alignment This completes the operator view for the existing feedback feature. It supports human oversight and does not change agent execution or task ownership. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped, board-only list and detail endpoints with audit permission and source-task privacy checks. - Return bounded previews and counts. Fetch full bodies only when a message opens. - Add the Commentary tab, search, filters, 50-row pagination, and URL-based selection. Audit tab destinations work in both layouts, with a classic sidebar entry for Commentary. - Add production Storybook examples for populated, filtered, linked, long, paginated, empty, loading, failed, denied, mobile, and light states. - Update API documentation and the feature and agent access maps. ## Verification - Final head `abc4a251c14cfbfec007542214beec528f2b18bf`: 55 checks pass; two conditional Storybook checks are skipped. The PR workflow is successful. Greptile is 5/5 with all findings resolved. - Focused database, HTTP, submission, OpenAPI, and UI regression tests cover company isolation, task privacy, filter bounds, 50-row pagination, and copied message links. - Browser Storybook journeys cover row opening, direct links, combined filters, search, and pagination. Storybook uses synthetic API fixtures; database authorization is tested separately. - Token gates, feature maps, and Storybook catalog validation pass. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm build-storybook` pass on the rebased branch. All 80 focused tests and all 37 Audit tests pass, including the real App route table in both layouts, task grant/revocation through HTTP, deleted-task privacy, and URL UI regressions. The full suite passes in the parallel PR CI matrix. The local serial full-suite run was stopped before completion after checking the recorded 94-minute serial duration. Local focused tests, workspace typecheck, production build, and final server/UI checks pass. - The linked-message Storybook test initially asserted against the loading dialog. It now waits for the message body; both direct-link and row-open journeys pass. - Native and legacy deleted-task privacy regressions failed before the fix and pass afterward. The reader checks the run task binding after the task foreign key clears. - A rapid search-then-agent-filter browser regression reproduced the search overwriting the selected agent. The pending search now restarts when URL filters change. The same browser test passes with both filters applied. - CI found two existing AuditHub assertions that still expected five tabs. They now assert the six-tab model and selected-company Commentary rendering. All 37 Audit tests pass. All other test and build jobs passed before this test-only correction. - The [agent-chat attachment browser test](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39307881171/job/118250189664) timed out waiting for an attachment preview. The [same shard passed on the prior head](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39306658703/job/118245498343) with identical application code; the intervening change only updates AuditHub unit tests. The single retry passed on the same head. The precise cause of the earlier failure remains unconfirmed. ## Risks - Commentary may contain sensitive task context. The reader requires board access and audit permission, and filters source-task visibility before returning previews, counts, or full bodies. - Text search scans stored message bodies. Pages are bounded and full bodies are fetched on demand. - Offset pagination can shift if new messages arrive while paging. Ordering uses timestamp and ID for stable ties. - No database migration or agent submission behavior changes are required. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use, browser interaction, and code execution. The exact backend model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 14:21:13 -05:00
Devin Foley Paperclip Sentry triage Claude Opus 5.5	d747752496	fix(runner): record why an OpenCode turn fails when opencode serve stops (#16863 ) When `opencode serve` stops during a turn, the OpenCode driver now fails the active turn itself with a closed-vocabulary cause (server exit code or known signal, allowlisted socket error code, HTTP status, or closed stream) instead of leaving runnerd to close it with `error: null`. The proxy flushes stdout before a fatal exit so the failed turn reaches runnerd, and the server records OpenCode failed turns as `nativeTurnFailure` (live and persisted-recovery paths) so the run-failure diagnostic names the cause. Provider text is never copied. Run status, retries and recovery behaviour do not change. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip Sentry triage <Paperclip-Paperclip@users.noreply.github.com> Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-10-19 12:20:24 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	8193abb936	feat(claude): default qualified macOS and Linux targets to Paperclip Runner (#15997 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip must run the selected agent on its selected host. > - Claude needs verified packages for each supported target. > - A Mac controller must select the correct Linux provider pack. > - New defaults must follow package and execution evidence. > - This PR adds Claude platform packaging and target-specific pack selection. > - Existing Codex Linux ARM64 behavior remains intact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15683. This PR depends on #15993 and #15994. Related scope: #15422 and #15224. ## What Changed - Reuse the merged four-target daemon producer/consumer matrix. Add target-owned Linux provider packs and carry their immutable identities through release assembly and vendoring. - Reuse master’s landed pinned Claude SDK ARM64 executable admission and retain package-integrity, architecture and no-follow admission. - Select target-specific remote packs so Mac controllers can use Linux hosts without a development pack override. - Preserve read-only runtime context on SSH startup and resume without accepting unverified old content. - Check ordinary installed Claude readiness without injected package authority. Retain Codex and Linux x64 consumer checks. - Extend Claude automatic target selection for the remaining qualified package targets. Retain unsupported-platform and external-override behavior. - Qualify managed Daytona snapshot names through provider IDs during Claude Connect. Pin native acquisition to the measured ID. Preserve a revocation marker after failed probes or target edits, and block native acquisition until requalification instead of falling back to a mutable name. Preserve immutable-image proof, company and account boundaries, and Legacy acquisition. ## Verification - Reconciled with master `9179d8dcc3e908c217fde4f63c9d08ccf8132eeb` through the prerequisite stack, retaining the merged startup fix and latest Codex Linux ARM64 behavior. - [Four-target exact-source package qualification](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39267321383) passed on source `04e0202ca81387b17cbe7fd094a8338648356fe9`: all four native builds, public-package assembly, Linux x64 verification and clean installed consumers on Apple Silicon, Intel Mac and Linux ARM64. The later master reconciliation adds shared OpenRouter attribution and changes runtime source. This historical result keeps its original source identity; [later qualification](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39281100929) passed at `dca62c7aeb4b45f0dd91a8e18d386a16a2658ef8`. It predates the subsequent TypeScript startup fix. - Fresh local product acceptance on integrated source `b2c9fe43f9cd3bc5dd9d22552da0148845ba71a4` completed a useful file and follow-up through native Claude/Opus 5.5, High effort and the API-key connection. Both actual browser downloads were independently checked; the revision preserves the original body and session continuity. Total task estimates: $0.518432800. Ordinary web and API creation saved defaults with the native experiment disabled. - Local focused verification passed 993 startup/session tests, 243 UI tests, 12 workflow security tests, direct server/UI TypeScript checks, and token/palette gates before the last review changes. Initial DB-backed snapshot pin/revocation coverage passed 18 cases; the final serial route suites pass 122 credential/permission and 232 snapshot/environment cases after correcting a test hook timeout. Current-head cloud suites pass. - Preserved the failed pre-provider local fixture and its full pending reservation. The successful fixture has no unpriced or pending usage. Historical failed Cloud journeys, accounting holds, source identities and subscription limitations remain in the dated plan. - All Docker/Rust release production was performed in cloud CI. No local Docker image was built. An inadvertently invoked local Rust prerequisite was stopped. - Current-head cloud CI is green. All three stack PRs have fresh Greptile 5/5 reviews and zero unresolved review threads. Required typecheck, test and build gates ran in cloud CI; Docker work stayed remote. Earlier failed checks remain in their original runs. - The final master merge preserves task-loading, permission, skill-retention and OpenRouter changes. Pi uses a fresh combined profile 27, preserving both historical profile-24 declarations; Copilot remains profile 22. Focused protocol checks passed 155 cases (one skipped), the updated Pi attestation check passed 18 (one skipped), and 91 evaluation/catalog checks passed. - Latest-application manual continuation passed in 37.942 seconds on `695e5c005a85bddc8711d3fcddcaf6b7e1fb64d0`, with High effort, native Opus 5.5, Anthropic API attribution, the same resumed Claude session, an independently checked 635-byte file and persisted Done status. It uses the earlier verified Mac daemon; the preceding-source package qualification passed at `dca62c7aeb4b45f0dd91a8e18d386a16a2658ef8`. That package run predates the small TypeScript startup fix and is not relabeled as qualification for it. - Upgrade limitation: changed compiled sidecar identity rejected old durable launch state and recovery hit session-open bounds before eventually resuming. That attempt was operator-cancelled and retained; the successful manual continuation does not qualify seamless upgrades. - Local latency profile, Opus 5.5/High unchanged: three alternating real-ACP loopback samples per variant reduce median provider-ready time from 5.081s to 4.034s. The matched real API task startup improves from 5.533s to 4.348s, but total reply time changes from 17.933s to 20.221s because agent work varies. This establishes a startup saving of about one second, not a consistent total-reply speedup. A real candidate follow-up passed in 20.146s and resumed the same saved session. The loopback fixture makes no external model requests; failed initial probes remain retained. - The startup change passes 107 focused runtime/effort/lease tests, 53 profile checks (one skipped), TypeScript checking and the TypeScript-only runtime build. Native hire fixture checks pass 70 tests; their first local run retained a socket-hangup failure and stale OpenCode expectation, both accounted for before the passing rerun. Broader required checks run in cloud CI. ## Risks - Experience needs improvement: successful connection setup still shows “Connection needs attention” because runtime checks are deferred. Cold provider-pack upload took 122–126 seconds per run while the task mainly showed “Thinking.” The tested Core-only preview excludes private Cloud UI plugins; this is not full Cloud distribution or subscription qualification. Desktop dark theme was tested; mobile and comprehensive accessibility were not. The portable report validates, but gallery interaction could not be inspected because host preview was queued. - The optional supply-chain scan returned neutral/inconclusive because GitHub Actions package coverage and infrastructure parsing are unavailable. It is not counted as a successful supply-chain qualification. Exact package, daemon and image integrity checks passed. - A stale, missing or wrong-architecture pack must fail admission. It must not change runner or target silently. - Provider-pack source changes invalidate affected earlier execution results. Existing unknown-cost and cleanup holds remain intact. - Live subscription execution remains unverified under the API-key qualification direction. Built-in authentication flows are retained. ARM64 cloud-image production is deferred. Merge and production deployment remain separate. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution and browser testing. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `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 - [ ] Focused local tests and final cloud verification pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> canary/v2026.1019.0-canary.11	2026-10-19 14:17:24 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	5739a53f5f	fix(tests): sanitize installed-consumer validation processes (#16797 ) Start installed-consumer validation through Node and remove ambient Node startup settings before test processes start. Keep pinned historical source fixtures available in shallow checkouts and set filesystem fixture conditions explicitly. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <Paperclip-Paperclip@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-10-19 14:12:45 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4d92589799	perf(ui): defer hidden task rendering until history is ready (#16878 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People open a task to read saved work and reply. > - The conversation waits for its initial data so messages do not move after reveal. > - The hidden conversation and editor still render while those reads are pending. > - Profiling showed a useful cold-load gain when that hidden rendering was delayed. > - Prepare ordinary task content after its initial data is ready. Keep the existing preparation path for comment links. > - Keep the skeleton, measured reveal, timeout, and mounted conversation during refresh. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Follow-up to #16862 and #16849. Related task-layout work: #14758. Searches found no overlapping open rendering change. What existing behavior does this improve? Opening a task mounts hidden message rows and the rich editor while supporting reads are still pending. These trees can render again as data arrives before the user can see or use them. Subsystem affected UI task conversation startup and its browser acceptance suite. Proposed behavior Keep the existing skeleton and outer layout containers. Prepare the hidden conversation and composer when initial history is ready, then use the existing measured reveal. Keep content mounted after reveal. Hash navigation retains eager preparation so older comment targets can be positioned before reveal. The existing 15-second timeout still reveals available history and the composer. ## What Changed - Gate concealed history and composer children with the existing history readiness, revealed-task latch, timeout, and scroll-navigation hash. - Keep data queries, shell geometry, scroll ownership, and the reveal frame unchanged. - Update unit coverage for deferred content, comment-link preparation, task changes, history timeout, and mounted editor identity during refresh. - Add a real browser journey that holds a background task read, retains the same editor and draft, reloads the saved draft, sends one reply, and checks the persisted comment independently. - Document the loading and draft acceptance paths. ## Verification - Repository-wide `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. Token gates and all 231 task-thread unit cases passed. - Seven regression cases failed against the old rendering behavior before the source change. - All 14 loading and layout browser cases passed again against the final production UI and API build at `15c360aa63e01ad9318aaf7865c07d1ee0d36968`. Coverage includes delayed initial data, reading anchors, media growth, composer sizing, older history, cold comment links, desktop/mobile same-task links and Back, rapid switching, reduced motion, failed reads and retry, stalled history, plan reuse, and cached-task profiling. - The new draft journey retained the same editor during a blocked background task refresh, restored the draft after reload, and persisted exactly one reply. - Final performance comparison used current master `249ab47d41834f174ddd5e9523dc07fa8ebd8e4c` and implementation `15c360aa63e01ad9318aaf7865c07d1ee0d36968` against the same local 160-message Markdown conversation and API process. Conditions: 50 ms network latency, 9 Mbps down/1.5 Mbps up, 4x CPU slowdown, fresh browsers, five alternating pairs per scenario, no CPU profiler, and no concurrent local build/test work. Warm task navigation improved in all five pairs: median paired saving 405 ms; variant medians 1,787 → 1,456 ms. Cold results were mixed: paired saving −89 ms (slower), despite variant medians 3,188 → 3,021 ms. There is no consistent cold-load gain established by this comparison. - Earlier prototype comparisons showed paired cold savings of 259–283 ms. Those gains did not consistently reproduce in the final comparison. These are bounded local measurements and do not establish deployed staging latency. - The first prototype delayed comment-link preparation too and failed the older-comment anchor check by 240.5 px. The narrowed implementation keeps hash navigation on the existing eager path. That case and the full suite now pass. The original failure trace is retained locally. - A visual browser walkthrough read the saved conversation and plan, restored a draft after reload, sent it once, reloaded again, and independently checked that exactly one reply was saved. - Greptile reviewed this exact commit at 5/5, with no actionable findings or inline comments. - The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` attempt was interrupted while the same suites were completing in sharded CI so local performance could be measured on an idle host. It is not counted as a local full-suite pass. - All current-head [CI jobs passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39296740548), including the server, workspace, Runner, serialized, browser, typecheck, build, canary, and final verification gates. The first run failed one native-process supervision test (`preserves a real listening process and its marker when a health RPC times out`). Its unchanged shard and dependent gate passed on retry. The specific test also passed locally. No source change was made for that transient failure. ## Risks Delaying preparation can change initial scroll geometry. Hash navigation keeps the existing preparation path because it needs the target present before positioning. The revealed-task latch keeps refreshes from removing history or the editor. The existing timeout still makes saved content and the composer accessible when reads stall. No API, database, permission, or provider changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser verification. A more precise runtime model identifier and context-window size are unavailable. ## 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>	2026-10-19 14:01:37 -05:00

1 2 3 4 5 ...