mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 15:38:22 +01:00
76c787fffcaa8a9d7c07ffb4ddafbbcf0495f436
9
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
8148fc0b1e |
fix(release): fetch draft-notes PR summaries in batches (#20602)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release workflow drafts the next stable's release notes when a beta publishes (`draft_stable_notes`) > - The draft nests each referenced PR's summary under its commit subject, and it fetches each summary with its own `gh pr view` call > - A beta range now references more than 1,500 PRs, so these serial calls do not finish inside the job's 10-minute timeout > - This pull request fetches the summaries in batches of 50 per GraphQL query > - The benefit is that the job finishes in under a minute and pushes the notes branch again ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The `draft_stable_notes` job of [run 42763789753](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42763789753) (beta `2026.1110.0-beta.0`) reached its 10-minute timeout. GitHub cancelled it during "Draft stable notes from the published beta", while a `gh` process was still running. The beta itself published and its smoke tests passed. The `release-notes/v2026.1110.0-beta.0` branch was not pushed. **Expected behavior** The job writes the notes draft and pushes the branch for every beta, whatever the size of the commit range. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Publish a beta whose range from the last stable has many PR-referencing commits. This range has 1,586 commits, and 1,583 different PRs. 2. `draft-stable-notes.sh` calls `gh pr view <n>` once for each commit, one after another. 3. The job reaches `timeout-minutes: 10` before the loop ends. **Paperclip version or commit** `09e24dd12c36251dd12af2d73dbc715ce990f922` (beta `2026.1110.0-beta.0`). This was the first beta to run the job after #12124 added the PR summaries; earlier betas skipped it. ## What Changed - `scripts/draft-stable-notes.sh`: - Collects the unique PR numbers first. Fetches their bodies 50 per `gh api graphql` query (aliased `pullRequest(number:)` fields), into a temporary cache that `enrich_pr` reads. - Parses the raw response with `jq`, not with `gh --jq`. When any number in a batch is not a PR (for example, an issue reference), gh exits non-zero and does not apply its `--jq` filter. The other PRs in the batch still have usable data. - The output format does not change. A missing `gh` or `jq`, a failed batch, a cache directory that `mktemp` cannot create, or `DRAFT_NOTES_SKIP_PR_ENRICHMENT=1` still gives bare subjects. - No code comments are added (per `CONTRIBUTING.md`); this description holds the explanation. - `scripts/draft-stable-notes.test.mjs`: - The enrichment tests now use a fake `gh` that answers GraphQL like GitHub. - New tests: batching (120 PRs make 3 queries, and a repeated PR is fetched once); a batch with a non-PR number; a failed batch; a failed `mktemp`; prose-only and empty bodies; the opt-out. - Range tests now run with enrichment disabled, so an authenticated `gh` on the test machine cannot reach GitHub. - `package.json`: adds the test file to `test:release-registry`. These tests did not run in CI before. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/draft-stable-notes.test.mjs`: 17 pass. They also pass with macOS bash 3.2 first on `PATH`. - `node scripts/ci-profile/node-test.mjs scripts/draft-stable-notes.test.mjs scripts/release-lib.test.mjs`: 31 pass. - Red check: the new tests against the old script fail 5 cases (all batching and enrichment cases). The `mktemp` test fails against an unguarded `mktemp` call. - Live run on the real range: `./scripts/draft-stable-notes.sh 2026.1110.0-beta.0` finished in 47 seconds. It wrote 4,596 excerpt lines for 1,583 PRs. - Parity: for 40 randomly sampled PRs from that range, the new excerpts are byte-identical to the old per-PR `gh pr view` output. - `shellcheck`: no new findings. The two remaining notices were there before this change. ## Risks - Low. The change touches only the post-publish draft job, and every failure still gives the bare-subject draft. - `jq` is now needed for the PR summaries. GitHub's Ubuntu runners include it. Without `jq`, the draft has no summaries, the same as without `gh`. - I did not change `release.yml`. The job already checks out `master`, so after this merges, re-running the failed job of run 42763789753 should push the missing notes branch with the fixed script. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) via Claude Code, with tool use (shell, file editing, test runs, read-only GitHub API calls). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
89ec4e7614 |
feat(links): add cached GitHub pull request previews (#20593)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task conversations contain links to pull requests and other work. > - A URL alone cannot tell the operator whether a PR is open, merged, or blocked by conflicts. > - Fetching every link at render time wastes API calls and can expose private data through a shared cache. > - This pull request adds a demand-driven links service and a GitHub PR adapter. > - Each viewer and company has a separate cache. Repeated links share one request and result. > - Operators get context when they hover or focus a link. Normal links stay useful when a provider is unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Task Markdown links, shared link metadata, and the server GitHub API boundary. **Problem or motivation** PR links have compact labels and neutral icons. They do not provide a rich hover card or a common status source across repeated mentions. A background resolver cannot borrow a person's GitHub connection because it has no viewer identity. **Proposed solution** Recognize supported links locally. Request metadata after a delayed hover or keyboard focus. Show a card at the first line of the link, aligned with its icon. Share the result across all mentions in the current viewer and company. Keep the exact original navigation URL. The first adapter supports GitHub pull requests. Open is green, merged is purple, and merge conflicts are orange. Draft, closed, unknown, loading and unavailable states remain quiet. **Alternatives considered** Eager page scans would spend API quota on links the operator does not inspect. Company-wide caching of personal GitHub results would cross the credential boundary. This change uses neither approach. **Roadmap alignment** ROADMAP.md was checked. This extends existing task links and the GitHub resolver. It adds no deployment adapter or new background worker. Searches of open and closed PRs for link previews and PR hover cards found no matching implementation. ## What Changed - Add host-owned link recognition and a normalized preview contract. The service selects an adapter by provider. - Add a board-only company read endpoint. It checks company access before cache reads and sends a private, no-store response. - Use the current viewer's eligible GitHub connection. A configured connection that cannot supply credentials fails closed. With no managed connection, reuse existing company credentials or public access. Instance credentials retain the public-repository check. - Reuse the GitHub external-object resolver for API transport and response parsing. Add title and mergeability to its normalized snapshot without changing its existing state contract. - Coalesce requests by company, viewer and canonical PR URL. Bound cached entries and concurrent work. Cache success for one minute and failures for a short period or the provider retry window. - Add an abortable request deadline. Timed-out work stays in the concurrency budget until it settles. No periodic worker or idle polling is added. - Add a shared browser query and anchored preview card. Repeated Markdown links observe the same result. There are no automatic retries, window-focus refreshes, toasts or connection prompts. - Add ten production-component Storybook examples and real pointer/keyboard browser checks. Document the API and verification route. ## Verification - Linux source checkout: 233 focused tests passed in nine suites. They cover recognition, fixed API destinations, provider states, access failures, credential selection, viewer/company isolation, request coalescing, expiry, cache bounds, concurrency bounds and mounted OpenAPI coverage. - A live public GitHub smoke returned this PR's correct title and open state. Two equivalent URLs shared one real network request. Personal connection access was not part of that smoke. - A controlled HTTP server stalls a real response body. The test proves cancellation while another lookup completes. - UI typecheck and the server layered typecheck passed. The UI production build passed. - Token gates and query policy gates passed. All 30 map/catalog support checks passed. The three new server test files also passed a focused TypeScript check. - All 27 focused browser checks passed on the reviewed source tree. They cover light/dark themes, narrow layouts, open/merged/conflict/draft/closed/loading/unavailable/failed states, fixed positioning during pointer movement, exact navigation and keyboard access. A real browser HTTP interception counts one deferred lookup for two equivalent PR links. - The first browser attempt lacked Chromium. A later combined build/test attempt exhausted the sandbox's 8 GiB memory limit and killed Storybook. Those attempts supply no pass evidence. Chromium is installed, and the final browser checks run with the build stopped. One initial Storybook dependency reload interrupted a streaming check. All eight existing inline-link cases passed on the warmed server, followed by a complete 27-case pass. - Synthetic Storybook pointer events did not exercise the native hover boundary. The assertions now run through real Playwright pointer and keyboard actions. The fixture stories retain the production components. - Review fixes preserve the Draft label when GitHub reports both draft and conflicts. They also preserve neutral link colors in dark mode. The 25 affected service checks pass, including the added combined-state regression. Browser checks compare unknown, draft and closed links with the muted theme color. - The first CI policy run rejected a literal retry opt-out. The code now uses the existing explicit zero-retry helper. A new test-spy type error was also corrected. These failures are fixed; their earlier runs remain failed. - `pnpm verify --explain` returned exit 2 because the browser test path selects broad CI. No full local suite is claimed. The final CI run supplies that coverage. - The previous head `437913c797963aa113bb82e2ae8b836969317ef9` passed CI and received a 5/5 Greptile score. All four review threads are resolved. Master then advanced. The current head `ae2a1c2adbd61a621cca9bdd160561952613df6e` resolves the source-manifest conflict against master `9b21dcbdda01296349f3cfe0a3a6891e79df6130`. Fresh CI and review are running. - The previous CI run found a lost class on decorated PR links and a stale SDK source manifest. Both are fixed. The existing CommentThread integration test and 26 focused link service tests pass. All 45 SDK source/privacy tests pass. All eight source-manifest helper tests pass. The manifest helper changed only source identities and added the two new shared files. Runtime, compiler, parser and library pins stay unchanged. - A later review found that expired timeouts could reuse a settled promise. The service now removes settled requests from its shared-request map and counts unfinished provider work separately. The new regression failed before the fix and passes after it. The concurrency-bound and real stalled-HTTP tests also pass. - UI typecheck and token gates pass after these fixes. The browser rerun needed Chromium in the new session. That first attempt did not exercise the UI. The complete 27-case browser rerun passed before the master merge with retries disabled. All 27 browser cases also passed on the merge revision with retries disabled. - After the master merge, all 84 focused link, OpenAPI and integration tests pass. All 55 SDK source/privacy/manifest tests pass. UI typecheck and token gates pass again. The source manifest retains master's reviewed runtime pins and includes both sets of source changes. GitHub confirms the PR can merge cleanly. The preflight helper rebuilt the shared package and plugin SDK; Cargo is unavailable locally. Final CI supplies Rust coverage. - The latest master update changed the reviewed report-lock policy but left the SDK lock hash at its previous value. The SDK source/evidence checks reproduced the mismatch. This change sets only the SDK lock hash to the authenticated output of the existing master policy and patch. Compiler, parser and Zod pins stay unchanged. All 56 SDK source/evidence/manifest tests now pass. All 84 focused link/API/integration tests, UI typecheck and token gates also pass on the updated source. ## Risks - This cache is process-local. Separate server replicas can make separate GitHub requests. - A cached result can remain visible for its short lifetime after GitHub changes. A later hover refreshes expired data. - GitHub can report unknown mergeability. The UI shows conflicts only when GitHub explicitly reports them. - Personal preview data stays in viewer/company caches. It is not written to company external-object records or persisted browser query storage. - Stories simulate the API. They do not prove a live GitHub login or private-repository access. - No schema migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The runtime does not expose the exact serving model ID or context-window limit. Used reasoning, repository inspection, source editing, shell execution and browser tools. No subagents 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 - [ ] 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> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
42d4499489 |
fix(daytona): force a stuck stop before starting a retained sandbox (#20609)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - On Daytona, a follow-up task resumes the agent's retained sandbox before the agent starts > - The host stops an idle sandbox gracefully. A process that ignores SIGTERM can leave Daytona in `stopping` for many minutes > - Resume waited for that state change until its 300 s start deadline. It never escalated, so each attempt failed after five minutes, and the bounded retries did the same > - On staging, a user comment waited about 21 minutes before the agent started. Two resume attempts each used 299.7 s in the plugin dispatch > - This pull request forces a stuck stop once, then starts the sandbox within the same deadline. It also traces the wait with the observed state > - The benefit is that a stuck stop costs about 30 s instead of failing the run, and the next case is diagnosable from the trace ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A user commented on a task that used a retained Daytona sandbox. The first run and its first retry each failed after about 5 min 20 s with `reusable_sandbox_resume_failed (cause=provider_error)`. The Honeycomb trace shows `execution.plugin_dispatch` at 299.7 s in both. Inside it there is only `lease.lookup` (44 ms) and `lease.channel_cleanup`, and no `lease.start`. So the whole budget went to `waitOutSandboxTransition`, which polled a sandbox that stayed in a transition state. The later attempt, after a control-plane restart, found the sandbox `stopped`. Its `lease.start` took 1.3 s. A transition that ends in `stopped` is a stop. **Expected behavior** A sandbox that stays `stopping` for longer than the host's own graceful-stop budget is forced to stop, then starts. The run does not fail on the start deadline. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Retain a Daytona sandbox whose graceful stop does not finish (Daytona reports `stopping`). 2. Resume or realize the lease. 3. Before this change, the call polls until the 300 s deadline and fails with "is still stopping at its start deadline". ## What Changed - `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/src/plugin.ts`: `waitOutSandboxTransition` tracks how long the sandbox stays `stopping`. After `STUCK_STOPPING_FORCE_AFTER_MS` (30 s) it calls `sandbox.stop(seconds, true)` once, then keeps polling. A refused force stop keeps the old wait within the same deadline. - The wait is a `lease.wait_transition` span. The force stop is a `lease.force_stop` child span. - `lease-tracing.ts`: the closed `paperclip.sandbox.startup.state` label also records `starting`, `stopping`, `restoring`, `archiving` and `resizing`. Before, these were all `other`. - `server/src/services/plugin-host-services.ts`: the host admits the two new span names and the new closed state values. - `doc/observability.md`: documents the new spans and states. ## Verification - Red/green: with the plugin change stashed, the three new stuck-`stopping` tests (realize, refused force stop, resume) fail by hanging to the deadline. With the change they pass. The "settles on its own" test confirms that no force stop happens for a normal stop. - `vitest run` in `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona`: 14 files, 618 tests passed (8 skipped). `tsc --noEmit` passed. - `server/src/__tests__/plugin-host-services-span.test.ts`: red before the allowlist change, 25/25 after. - `pnpm verify` exited 2 (the doc is a global CI input), so CI supplies the broad coverage. - Not verified on a live Daytona sandbox. Hosted acceptance needs the change deployed to staging. ## Risks - The force stop sends SIGKILL to processes in a sandbox that is already stopping and is about to start. The disk persists across a stop, so the retained workspace is kept. A graceful stop that is still running past 30 s is killed. The host's own graceful stop budget is 30 s, so the host had already given up on it. - Daytona can refuse a stop while a state change is in progress. Then the code waits as before, so the result is no worse than today. - The root cause is inferred from the trace (a transition that ends in `stopped`). The new state label confirms or refutes it the next time it happens. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, browser, test execution). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
9b21dcbdda |
refactor: remove SPEC docs and repoint spec citations (#20565)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Contributors and agents read the docs under `doc/` before they change code > - `doc/SPEC.md` and `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` were out of date. `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` became an append-only log: in 60 days it got about 1,645 new lines and lost 181, across 140 commits > - #20557 changed `AGENTS.md` so the code and its tests are the source of truth, and the specs are only background > - This pull request removes the two spec docs. It moves only the sections that live code comments cite into focused docs, and it repoints all other references > - The benefit is one less stale document that agents read and append to ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20557 (merged). This PR is the follow-up that removes the docs. It is based on `master`, which already contains #20557. **Issue type** Outdated content. The docs are out of date and conflict with the code. **Where is the issue?** `doc/SPEC.md`, `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and the code comments and docs that cite them. **What's wrong?** `doc/SPEC.md` and `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` are out of date, but agents still read them and append a paragraph with each fix. **Suggested fix** Delete both files. Move the sections that code cites into focused docs. Repoint the references. ## What Changed - Deleted `doc/SPEC.md` and `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`. - Moved these spec sections, because live code comments cite them: - §9.3.1 "Shared default-open issue writes" → new section in `doc/agent-permission-defaults.md`. - §9.8.1 "Issue-thread interaction resolver contract" → `doc/execution-semantics.md`, "Issue-thread interaction resolution". That section already had most of the contract. I added only the missing parts: the `supersedeOnUserComment` default, the canonical policy list, the addressee and cap rules, the rule that surfaces show the server's effective audience, and the cross-issue budget charge. The short policy summary at the top of the section now points to the list, so the definitions occur one time only. - §9.9 "Task Watchdog Authority Contract" → new "Authority contract" section in `doc/TASK-WATCHDOG.md`. It holds the allowed and disallowed mutation lists and the deferred capabilities. The atomic recovery batch, restoration verification, and interaction rules were already in `doc/execution-semantics.md` §11, so the new section links there and does not repeat them. I did not move the "Downstream acceptance criteria" checklist or the sentence about the CTO and Security sign-off. These were implementation-time notes; the tests now hold that coverage. - §9.10 "Company Skill Policy Contract" → new `doc/company-skill-policy.md`. No focused doc had this contract. I did not move the "Required regression tests" phase checklist. - Did not move any other part of the specs. - Repointed code comments that cited spec sections: - `packages/shared/src/issue-write-denial.ts` (§9.3) → `doc/agent-permission-defaults.md` - `server/src/routes/issues.ts` (§9.9) → `doc/TASK-WATCHDOG.md`, "Authority contract" - `server/src/routes/issues.ts` (§9.3, §9.8.1 cross-issue budget) → `doc/agent-permission-defaults.md` - `ui/src/lib/interaction-audience.ts` and `ui/src/components/InteractionGovernancePanel.tsx` (§9.8.1) → `doc/execution-semantics.md` - `ui/src/lib/skill-policy-denial.ts`, `ui/src/pages/CompanySkills.tsx`, `ui/src/pages/CompanySkills.production.tsx`, `ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.tsx` (§9.10) → `doc/company-skill-policy.md` - `server/src/services/recovery/ownership-invariant-report.ts` (monitor deadline wait path) → `doc/execution-semantics.md` §8. That section already lists the one-shot monitor as a valid wait path. - Resynced the git blob pin for `packages/shared/src/issue-write-denial.ts` in `tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.json`. The comment edit changed the file's hash, and the Runner support suite checks that pin. I used `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --write`; only that one pin changed. - Updated `AGENTS.md` §1 so it does not name the deleted files. - Removed the links to the deleted files from `doc/plugins/PLUGIN_SPEC.md`. - Updated the `doc-maintenance` agent skill (`.agents/skills/doc-maintenance/`) so it no longer audits or stages `doc/SPEC.md`. - Removed or replaced references in `maps/README.md`, `maps/feature-map/README.md`, `maps/storybook-map/README.md`, `doc/PRODUCT.md`, `doc/CLIPHUB.md`, `doc/DEPLOYMENT-MODES.md`, `doc/DEVELOPING.md`, `doc/evals.md`, `doc/spec/agent-runs.md`, `doc/AGENTCOMPANIES_SPEC_INVENTORY.md`, `doc/connections/CONNECTOR-PLAYBOOK.md`, `doc/plugins/ideas-from-opencode.md`, `doc/execution-semantics.md`, `doc/TASK-WATCHDOG.md`, and `.devin/wiki.json`. - In `doc/execution-semantics.md`, the "admission is independent of cleanup and accounting" reference now states the rule inline: only a hard stop, an explicit pause, or an inactive company refuses admission. - Kept these references as they are: dated plans in `doc/plans/` and `docs/plans/`, the dated log `doc/logs/2026-05-24-cli-api-parity-e2e-log.md`, `releases/`, the transcript fixture `ui/src/fixtures/runTranscriptFixtures.ts` (it uses the filename only as sample text), and `docs/specs/external-task-protocol.md` (it refers to the Symphony project's own `SPEC.md`). ## Verification - `git grep -n "SPEC-implementation\|SPEC\.md"` (without `releases/`, and ignoring `PLUGIN_SPEC.md` citations) finds only the kept references listed above. - `grep -rn "§9\.\(3\|8\|9\|10\)" ui/src server/src packages/shared/src` finds no results. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: "Maps aligned: 35 areas, 192 capability IDs". - `pnpm check:token-gates`: "All gates clean". - `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-type.test.ts tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-evidence.test.ts`: 45 passed. These failed in CI before the pin resync. - `pnpm verify`: exit 2 ("Broader verification required") because `AGENTS.md` is a global CI input. Required CI supplies the broad coverage for this revision. - All code changes are comments only. No runtime behavior changes. The title uses `refactor:` because comments in source files changed. ## Risks - Low risk. The change removes docs and edits comments only. - A reader can lose context from spec sections that I did not move. The text stays in git history. The code and its tests are the source of truth. - External links to the two deleted files will return 404. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), in Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). Standard 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 (focused checks above; CI supplies broad coverage) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (not applicable: docs and comments only) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
98ce93dd4e |
Choose project storage from compatible environments (#20587)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Projects supply repository files to agent runs through core staging or a storage plugin. > - A storage plugin's default claim silently attached new projects even when their agents used a different environment. > - An environment name or driver type does not establish shared storage access. The existing binding and task-driver contracts do. > - This pull request groups creation choices by that contract and selects storage from the creator's effective environment. > - The benefit is a visible, validated choice and a clear error before an incompatible managed workspace operation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #20459. Related: #20156 covers a separate provider-failure diagnostic. The PR search found no other fix for #20459. ROADMAP.md has no duplicate project-creation change. ## What Changed - Show **Available in** when configured environments require different project storage. Each option names the environments that can use the same storage owner. Hide the selector when all choices are compatible. - Derive compatibility from repository staging and managed binding ownership. Local, SSH, and sandbox environments use core staging. Managed storage requires a registered task driver from the same installed storage plugin. Separate storage plugins remain incompatible. Unknown plugin contracts and the fake sandbox are excluded. - Follow the creating agent's environment, or the person's primary agent, then the instance default and local fallback. Apply managed-only and forced Kubernetes policy. The product has no separate user or company environment-default field today. - Add a company-authorized discovery endpoint and an optional creation `environmentId`. Validate the choice again on save. Store the storage owner without overriding agent run environments. Preserve explicit API storage choices and existing project ownership. - Keep the hidden repository-free private-task project independent of environment availability. Submit the observed storage owner as `expectedStorageProviderPluginId` so a changed contract fails at save without setting a workspace policy. Instance task-isolation defaults stay inherited. - Reject an incompatible managed workspace before a provider operation. Name the storage and selected environment in the error. Add regression tests, API documentation, creation-story fixtures, and minimal corrections to obsolete map text. ## Verification - **102 tests passed across 7 files:** project environment integration, installed storage policy, repository persistence, project environment routes, project creation telemetry routes, OpenAPI, and NewProjectDialog. Run with `node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run server/src/__tests__/project-environments.test.ts server/src/__tests__/project-workspace-provider.integration.test.ts server/src/__tests__/project-repositories-persistence.test.ts server/src/__tests__/project-routes-env.test.ts server/src/__tests__/project-goal-telemetry-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/NewProjectDialog.test.tsx --silent`. - The review fixes cover both archived-default private-task cases and changed-storage rejection. With both instance isolation flags enabled, a new core repository project keeps a null policy and resolves to an isolated Git worktree. The complete affected set passes all 102 tests. - The CI query-error policy failure was fixed by using the shared query view. The form and shared query-view suites pass **24 tests**, including cached choices during a transient refetch failure. `node scripts/check-query-error-rendering.mjs --enforce --summary` reports zero findings. - CI exposed stale SDK source hashes and heartbeat fixtures that paired plugin storage with Local. Refreshed exactly four shared-source hashes with the maintained generator (runtime pins unchanged). All **53 SDK privacy/source-proof tests**, including real built SDK output, pass. All **7 corrected managed-storage heartbeat scenarios** pass; the fixtures declare the owning plugin's task environment and substitute transport at the existing execution seam. - Shared and UI TypeScript checks pass. The UI production build passes. `pnpm check:token-gates`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs`, and diff checks pass. - Tested UI states: compatible choices, incompatible groups, default within a group, manual override, create failure, loading, discovery failure and retry, and an unavailable default. Tests use the production form and existing design tokens. - The integration tests use real isolated PostgreSQL on macOS arm64 with Node 26.12.0. They cover user/agent defaults, storage persistence, policy restrictions, company and authentication denials, and rejection before a provider call. Discovery uses saved configuration and makes no worker or provider requests. - Local verification limits: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` stop in unchanged adapter-utils code because the installed ACPX types lack `inheritProcessEnv`. A direct server check also finds an unchanged AI SDK type-version mismatch. The existing heartbeat test `inherits the instance default environment across companies while preserving explicit agent overrides` times out at line 518 on both this change and unmodified master with the same dependencies. The full `pnpm test:run` attempt passed all six chat shards (1,948 tests), then the Git workspace expiration suite reported 14 failures. I stopped that broad run. Two sampled failures reproduce on unchanged master with the same `unknown_worktree_git_files` refusal; the other expiration failures were not independently compared. A later broad workspace-preparation run also hit workspace validation failures and was stopped; the seven corrected fixture scenarios pass independently. These limits do not establish a full local suite pass. Hosted CI remains required. - Initial missing-package and loopback-denial failures were resolved by repairing isolated dependency links, building the SDK, and running database tests with loopback access. No deployed or live-provider execution is claimed. ## Risks - Creation defaults now follow the effective environment. A plugin's `defaultForProjects` claim alone no longer selects storage. This is the intended behavior change. - Compatibility covers repository project storage. It does not guarantee arbitrary host paths, retained-workspace moves, adapter/image support, credentials, or worker readiness. Matching provider configs cannot prove a cross-plugin storage contract. - A person's primary agent supplies the personal default because there is no separate personal environment setting. An unavailable configured default requires a valid explicit choice or a configuration repair. - No migration runs. Existing projects keep their storage owner. This change does not detach existing managed data or provide a storage migration. - Full local verification has the limits listed above. CI and standard Greptile review are pending. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving snapshot and context-window size were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude
|
84007892e9 |
refactor: move AGENTS.md section detail to docs and rules, add a bug-fixing section (#20585)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - `AGENTS.md` is the instruction file that each human and AI contributor reads before a change > - Pull request #20557 shortened the file, but several sections still held detail that applies to only some changes > - The scoped-rules section told agents to read each matching rule in full, and most changes match five rules > - The core engineering rules mixed three product invariants with process conventions > - This pull request moves that detail to the docs and to scoped rules, and adds a section on how to fix a bug > - The benefit is a 211-line file that states what applies to every change and points to the rest ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20557 **Issue type** Outdated or unclear contributor documentation. **Where is the issue?** `AGENTS.md` at the repository root, and `rules/`. **What's wrong?** - The scoped-rules section made agents read the full body of each matching rule before a change. The rule bodies total about 47 KB. - Sections 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 repeated detail that belongs in `doc/DEVELOPING.md`, `doc/DATABASE.md`, a route rule, `DESIGN.md` and `CONTRIBUTING.md`. - Section 4 had a database reset command for `data/pglite`. That directory does not exist. - Section 5 had seven rules. Four of them were process conventions or path-specific detail. - The file did not say how to fix a bug. **Suggested fix** Make the rule headers the index. Move section detail to the document or rule that owns it. Keep only the three invariants in section 5. Add a bug-fixing section. ## What Changed - The scoped-rules section now tells agents to list the rule headers with one `grep` command. Agents read a rule body only for a design decision in its area, when the description is not sufficient, or when a reviewer cites it. - `rules/README.md` says that each `description` must state the required behavior in one sentence. - `rules/pull-request-review.mdc` has a description that states its requirements. - Section 4 (dev setup) and section 11 (pull requests) now point to `doc/DEVELOPING.md` and `CONTRIBUTING.md`. - The schema change workflow moved from section 6 to `doc/DATABASE.md`. - The API and auth expectations moved from section 8 to the new `rules/api-route-expectations.mdc`. - Section 9 links to `DESIGN.md` for design rules. `AGENTS.md` no longer tells contributors to run `pnpm check:token-gates`. - Added section 10, "Fixing a Bug": reproduce the error, write a failing test, write the fix, see the test pass, and verify the fix. - Section 5 now has three rules: company scope, contract synchronization, and the control-plane invariants. - The company-scope exceptions moved to the new `rules/company-scope-exceptions.mdc`. - Removed the strategic-docs rule. The plan-doc convention moved to the repo map. The artifact rule moved to section 7. - Removed rule 7. Five code comments that cited `AGENTS.md §5.7` now cite `rules/data-paths.mdc`. - Regenerated the SDK public source pin, because one of those comments is in `packages/shared/src/crash-points.ts`. - Added both new rules to `.greptile/files.json`. - The API route rule applies only to routes that read or write company data. Its status code list is a list of common codes. - The company-scope rule lists the sidebar company order as an instance-wide exception. - The `honeycomb-tracing` skill now points to `rules/data-paths.mdc` for the Telemetry workflow. ## Verification - Open `AGENTS.md` and confirm that each link resolves. A local script checked this. - Run `grep -E '^(description|globs|alwaysApply):' rules/*.mdc` and confirm that each rule prints a description. - Run `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check`. It passes locally. - `packages/shared/src/crash-points.test.ts` passed locally before the rebase onto `master`. - Five source files changed in comments only. No other test suite ran locally. ## Risks - An agent that reads only rule descriptions can miss a detail in a rule body. Reviewers still apply the full rules. - Pull requests and the definition of done are now sections 11 and 12. Sections 1 to 9 keep their numbers. - Dated plan documents under `doc/plans/` still cite `AGENTS.md §5.7`. They are historical records. - Pull request #20565 also changes `AGENTS.md`. The second one to merge needs a conflict fix in section 1 and section 2. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), in Claude Code with tool use. - `claude-fable-5-2`. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ce1ee9e89f |
fix: stop prompts from encouraging subtasks (#20362)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents read runtime prompts, tool help, skills, and role instructions. > - Several of these texts tell agents to create child tasks as a normal next step. > - One accepted-plan prompt even forbids work on the current task. > - Task parentage is useful, but it does not need a prompt that encourages task creation. > - This pull request removes those prompts and keeps the task APIs available. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10642. This change adjusts prompt wording; it does not add delegation-cycle guards. **Current behavior** Prompts tell agents to create children after plan approval, use children for long work, and create a task just to pass context. Onboarding requires a child even for a single request. **Proposed behavior** Continue work on the current task. Keep explicit assignments, optional task creation, parentage, dependencies, and approval gates. Use the separate-task recipes when the user requests that structure or when continuing existing work. **Reason and benefit** Reduce needless task trees without removing subtask support. Keep the patch limited to wording, existing test expectations, and generated catalog data. ## What Changed - Align accepted-plan prompts and remove direct child-creation advice from runtime and error text. - Make task tool descriptions neutral. Keep their fields, defaults, and handlers. - Update the main skill, onboarding, CEO instructions, company templates, specialist workflows, and matching guides. - Keep historical release snapshots intact. Refresh the explicitly seeded schema fixture's catalog digest; the server still verifies historical release snapshot hashes. - Refresh the affected generated catalogs, capability inventory, semantic contracts, and fixture manifest. ## Verification - Final tested head: `c6e304d0c105cdbfbe0b2ab0a233307fcd91a04b`. - All 66 check runs are complete: 60 pass, one is neutral, and five are skipped by CI conditions. Snyk also passes. No checks fail or remain pending. - [PR CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42846226554) passes typecheck, build, server/general tests, all eight E2E shards, Runner support, Runner Rust, and the aggregate verify gate. [Windows](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42846226546) and [Docker Runner](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42846226108) also pass. - [Greptile](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20362#issuecomment-6751419835) and [Paperclip review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20362#issuecomment-6751454010) give this exact head 5/5. All six inline threads are resolved. Neither current summary has findings. - Merged master `bf0220d34a156c81853755c3d1365ddc527037de`. Resolved three generated-file conflicts with the canonical generators. - Local verification passes: 473 focused prompt, continuation, UI, catalog, runtime and native-execution tests; Runner TypeScript build; generated metadata; UI token gates; and diff checks. - The prior head `c22018cb0f` failed three SDK evidence tests because two source hashes were stale. Reproduced all three failures locally. The existing generator refreshed only the hashes for the denial-copy file and its test. All 53 affected evidence/source-pin tests then passed, including private-value rejection. No scanner logic, assertions, or runtime dependency pins changed. Current CI confirms the support suite passes. - A prior commit failed the Rust process reaping test. Its cause remains unproven. No Rust code or assertions changed. Later Rust runs pass; this does not establish the cause of the earlier failure. - Local preflight built shared/plugin SDK packages, then stopped because `cargo` is absent. Current-head CI supplies Rust and full build coverage. `pnpm verify --explain` selects broad required CI; full local suites were not repeated. ## Risks - Wording changes guide the model; they do not enforce a ban on subtasks. - Existing installed skill versions and saved custom instructions need their normal refresh process. This PR does not migrate company configuration. - Existing approved task assignments and approval gates remain in effect. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6, through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact routed model ID and context-window size were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude
|
8d2bf78323 |
test(runner-e2e): resync the SDK public source pins with master (#20550)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Runner support suite checks that the plugin SDK's public types come only from reviewed source inputs, pinned by git blob hash in `tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.json` > - #19614 landed those pins, generated against an older master; since then `package.json` and ten files under `packages/shared/src` changed > - So `source-sdk-public-type.test.ts` (2 tests) and `source-sdk-evidence.test.ts` (1 test) fail the `ci / Runner support suite` check on every PR merge ref > - This pull request regenerates the source pins with the script made for that job > - The benefit is a green Runner support suite for every open PR again ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Since #19614 merged, `ci / Runner support suite` fails on every PR (for example #20047 and #20538) with `SDK public source proof unavailable` and `Source SDK evidence privacy check failed`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. On master at |
||
|
|
f4337bb5fb |
test(evals): land the chat catalog eval harness on master (#19614)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The chat-feature evals measure whether agents complete real chat requests through the product > - The chat catalog eval harness and its repairs live on the `chat-eval/master-candidate` branch, not on master > - Today's work made 139 of 242 chat evals pass in verified single-case live runs. Each product fix landed on master as its own pull request > - The eval-side changes (setups, graders, fault seams, evidence capture) still exist only on the candidate > - This pull request lands the harness on master. Master stays the source of truth for product behavior > - The benefit is one tree: evals run against master commits, and product fixes reach the evals as soon as they merge ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19441, Refs #19599, Refs #20270, Refs #20334, Refs #20342, Refs #20344, Refs #20354, Refs #20360, Refs #20373, Refs #20382, Refs #20409 **What existing behavior does this improve?** The chat catalog eval harness and the product it evaluates live on a long-running branch outside master. Eval fixes do not reach master, so master-based eval runs use old setups and graders. **Subsystem affected** `tests/runner-e2e` chat catalog harness, plus a small set of product changes that exist only on the candidate. **Proposed change** Land the harness on master. Every product fix from this eval work already merged to master as its own pull request. Conflicts keep master's product behavior. ## What Changed - Most of the diff (808 of 851 files) is under `tests/runner-e2e/`: chat-catalog domains, scenarios, descriptors, the TestOps manifest, private evidence tooling, and their tests. - Graders now check saved state, setup literals and rendered or clicked links. Many keyword and regex checks on free-form replies are removed. Each changed grader has a bumped `oracleVersion` and calibration tests (a valid reply, a reworded valid reply, and broken variants that must fail). - The shared link helper `hasLink` no longer treats a list link (for example `/COM/issues?view=mine`) as a link to every task without a URL key. - Setup fixes build real state through supported product routes: routine history, agent grants through the board grant route, budget holds with a real cap, and a storage-layer archive fault for `inbox-search.archive-partial-failure`. - Browser boundary journeys (sign-in, chat-disabled, onboarding) now write the standard pass evidence files. - Retargeted cases, approved by the maintainer: `agent-chat.chat-disabled` (Conference Room gate), `agents.restore-instructions` (no saved instruction history), `access.manage-membership` (member permission edits stay board-only). - The private evidence trusted files (`manual-private-handoff.ts`, `manual-private-retention.ts`, `manual-private-report-assets.ts`) are byte-identical to master. - Product files outside `tests/` (43 files, +1,328 −49) carry candidate-only changes that master does not yet have. Most are tests. The main code changes are in `request-human-input.ts`, `heartbeat-run-summary.ts`, `native-completion-feedback.ts`, `native-run-finalizer.ts`, `openapi.ts`, `secrets.ts` and `IssueChatLongThreadPerf.tsx`. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run chat-catalog-domains chat-catalog-contract.test.ts chat-catalog-consistency.test.ts unit-launcher.test.mjs --testTimeout=180000` in `tests/runner-e2e`: 269 files pass, 3,550 tests pass. - `node --test chat-full-catalog-testops-manifest.test.mjs`: 10 pass. - `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check`: no change. - `tsc` for `server` and `tests/runner-e2e`: clean. - Live single-case verification: 139 of 242 cases passed on paid runs, and a person read the saved evidence for each. These are single-case runs, not one full-cohort run. ## Risks - Large diff. Most of it is test-only, but the 43 non-test files change product code paths. Review those files first. - Some graders are now less strict on reply wording. A person must read replies for meaning on those cases. - 42 cases need disposable outside accounts (Notion, Slack, GitHub, Daytona and others) and stay blocked. `access.invite-teammate` stays failing until local agent isolation lands, because the runner's durable state keeps a live invite token. - The paid workflow compares the trusted private-evidence files with master. They are unchanged, so this risk is low. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution, in Claude Code. Subagents used the same model. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |