70 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
3 people	93d26eb84e	feat(ui): link routine-created tasks back to their source routine (#16471) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Routines create tasks on a schedule. Each task records its source in `originKind = "routine_execution"` and `originId = <routine id>`. > - The issue Properties card shows Relationships such as Parent. It does not show the routine that created the task. > - An operator who reads a routine-created task cannot go to the routine from the task. They must find the routine by hand. > - This pull request adds a "Routine" row under Relationships, below Parent. The row links to the source routine. > - The benefit is a direct path from a routine-created task to the routine that made it. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9727. That PR adds a general provenance model and an "Origin" chip. It also links routine executions to the routine. It is much larger (DB migration, server, plugin SDK). It has merge conflicts and no updates since August. This PR is a small UI-only change with no schema or API change. If #9727 merges later, the two rows can be merged into one. **Is your feature request related to a problem?** A task that a routine creates has no visible link back to that routine in the Properties card. **Describe the solution you'd like** Show a "Routine" row under Relationships for routine-created tasks. The row shows the routine title and links to `/routines/:id`. **Describe alternatives you've considered** A generic "Origin" row for all origin kinds (the #9727 approach). That needs new server data for most kinds. A routine link needs only data that the issue already has. ## What Changed - Add `ui/src/components/issue-properties/routine-origin-row.tsx` (`RoutineOriginRow`). It reads the routine with the same `queryKeys.routines.detail` query as the routine page, so the cache is shared. - Show the row in `IssueProperties.tsx` after Parent, only when `originKind === "routine_execution"` and `originId` is set (+5 lines). The new component is in its own file because `IssueProperties.tsx` already has more than 3,000 lines. - States: - Routine found: an outline chip with the repeat icon and the routine title. The chip links to the routine page. - Routine still loading, routine deleted (404), or any other lookup error: no row. The card never shows an empty Routine field. - Task not created by a routine: no row. No routine request is sent. - Add 4 tests in `IssueProperties.test.tsx`: routine found, routine loading, routine deleted, and task not created by a routine. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx`: 94/94 pass. - `vitest run src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx src/components/TaskSidePanel.test.tsx` (other surfaces that render the panel): 195/195 pass. - `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs`: all gates clean. - `tsc --noEmit` in `ui`: no errors in the changed files. Other errors came from workspace packages that were not built locally (`@paperclipai/plugin-sdk/ui`, generated storybook catalog JSON). This change does not touch them. - Manual check: open a task that a routine created. Find the "Routine" row under Parent. Click it. The routine page opens. - Not run locally: full `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, `pnpm build`, and a browser check. CI runs these. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is UI-only and additive. It has no schema, API, or contract change. - Each routine-created task view sends one extra `GET /routines/:id` request. The routine page uses the same cache key, so the response is often cached already. - The row appears only after the routine request finishes. On a cold cache, it shows up a moment after the rest of the card. - If the routine is deleted or the user cannot read it, the task shows no Routine row. The task still records `originKind`/`originId`. > 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 edit, test execution). 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 - [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: Devin Foley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-10-23 10:20:58 -07:00
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	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
3 people	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>	2026-10-19 17:45:26 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	3dffd2197d	test: consolidate owner fixtures and retain real regression proof (#16047) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tests protect sandbox execution, run recovery, credentials and the board UI. > - Several owner suites repeat the same setup and prove the same result more than once. > - These copies add maintenance work and can hide weak assertions. > - Each cut needs a retained test that proves every distinct contract. > - This pull request consolidates repeated setup and removes twelve redundant executions. > - It also replaces two weak assertions with checks of real outputs. > - The benefit is 2,831 fewer test lines with clearer regression proof. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The maintenance and regression strength of the existing Vitest owner suites. **Subsystem affected** Sandbox adapter utilities, server heartbeat recovery and environment capabilities, and the board UI. **Current behavior** Tests copy database rows, query builders, render calls and runtime inputs. Some cases repeat an existing contract. One token test omits a real bridge credential. A PostHog host comparison can compare absent controls. **Proposed behavior** Use small local helpers with fresh values and the same action order. Keep each distinct contract in an owner test. Check real bridge credentials and fixed PostHog method states. Carry the exact persisted first-run success assertion into the stronger cancellation keeper. **Reason and benefit** The ten test files shrink by 2,831 net lines. Twelve redundant executions retire. All other case tables, inputs, security boundaries, timeouts and cleanup rules remain. **Breaking changes** None. This round changes tests and audit evidence only. **Additional context** Refs: #15978, the merged first cleanup. Refs: #16022, the merged prior cleanup. Its squash merge is `dabb8c5daf430a1987af611e2e7ca4c7b23ef7d4`. Related open work: #14634 repairs feedback fixture completion; #14477 supplies explicit sandbox fixture tools; #14198 changes cleanup retry behavior in another heartbeat file. This audit preserves those separate action and cleanup contracts. It does not apply their changes. This PR was first stacked on `codex/test-audit-followup`. After #16022 was squash merged, only the two Round 6 commits were replayed onto merged master `dabb8c5daf430a1987af611e2e7ca4c7b23ef7d4`. The original stack head is preserved in a local snapshot branch. The current diff contains only ten test files and two evidence files. No merge is requested. ## What Changed - Consolidate repeated setup in three sandbox adapter suites. Remove seven redundant executions and retain the real protocol, cleanup and scratch-file checks. Save 875 lines. - Consolidate heartbeat database fixtures and read queries. Retain exact wake cancellation, total run count and the actual first-run success receipt. Remove one duplicate execution. Save 1,372 lines. - Remove two repeated rejected-capability cases. Carry the absent snapshot assertion into the retained runner case. Save 22 lines. - Consolidate UI fixtures and render calls. Remove two repeated connection cases. Replace the weak PostHog comparison with fixed method and required-key checks in both real hosts. Save 562 lines. - Record audit scope, decision and expansion counts, all twelve keeper mappings and deliberate mutation results in the [audit report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/codex/test-audit-round-six-delivery/doc/plans/2026-10-12-test-audit-round6.md) and [controls evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/codex/test-audit-round-six-delivery/doc/plans/2026-10-12-test-audit-round6-controls.json). ## Verification Source baseline: `a090035cafb29c06f6fca2dbe43561ad866b7c1b`. All ten original test programs are byte-identical at the stacked base `58c5c4aa241c85f4665a3159c192888bbb2a5cfa`. - Baseline: 1,841/1,841 cases passed in the main thirty-file owner/sibling run. Another 219/219 cases passed in nine extra files. - Preservation: all four proposal packages passed independent review. Whole-program helper expansion retains ordered inputs, callbacks, awaits, queries, fresh allocations and hooks outside the declared assertion migrations and repairs. - Candidate: all 2,048 cases passed across 39 complete owner/sibling files. The main run passed 1,831 cases. The extra run passed 217 cases. Both runs had zero failures and zero skips. - PostHog control: the repaired positive case passed. The original weak case passed with authentication choices removed. The repaired case failed at its fixed OAuth aria-checked assertion under the same mutation. - Eight accepted mutations failed at their intended assertions. They cover bridge-token exclusion, fallback cleanup, READY bytes, real scratch-file preservation, exact wake cancellation, the persisted first-run success receipt, rejected capability snapshots and reachable PostHog method controls. Two original weak cases passed with the same defects. All production source bytes were restored. - Rejected control: changing run status before legacy release timed out before wake cancellation. This result is not counted as assertion proof. Its replacement changed only the persisted receipt after real drain in the existing transaction. It failed at the direct fixed succeeded-row assertion. - No new code comments or 1,000-line threshold crossings were introduced. No production, schema, lockfile or workflow changes are included. On the exact final test sources, later committed as `d8de9422f0703d4508a9dc880b67a07f13e0f110`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm check:token-gates` and `pnpm build` passed. The required full `pnpm test:run` completed with **exit 1** after **52.14 minutes** on clean, immutable `d8de9422f0703d4508a9dc880b67a07f13e0f110`. HEAD and tracked sources remained unchanged. The first general-server group ran 889 files: **882 passed, one failed and six skipped**. Its 18,032 cases were **17,925 passed, two failed and 105 skipped**. The only failing file was `server/src/__tests__/remove-test-home.test.ts`. On macOS, the read-only runtime bundle and symlink cleanup cases returned `ENOTEMPTY`. The permission-error case expects `EACCES` or `EPERM`. Four reported failure entries cover these two cases, including their cleanup errors. The test and helper are byte-identical to previous master `4b766b872993045a2e787404f0475503683e5ded` and audit master `e364b92c82`. The default wrapper stopped after that group failed. **Later local groups did not run.** The earlier public-MCP, HTTP log redaction and workspace snapshot failures did not recur. The 39 focused owner/sibling files and all 48 remote CI jobs completed independently. This result is an unresolved macOS cleanup limitation, not full local success. No test, skip, retry, timeout or cleanup rule was changed to hide it. The three adapter files received a whitespace tidy after focused execution. Full runtime AST and string/template/regex byte equality link those tested sources to the final sources. All 134 adapter helper calls were checked again. Replayed code commit `3d3defd2a60595a623045d9e2c6c586f4acb3452` has the exact final test bytes. Evidence commit `e868e6645ce0d598d756d3458f0b3d71afd6db4a` adds the report and controls JSON, with one historical ancestry clarification. All ten accepted test hashes and all seven production-owner source guards match. No package, lockfile, workspace, TypeScript, Rust or Vitest dependency manifest changed since the audit snapshot. The [original stack CI workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38312876910) passed all 48 jobs on head `c171d6c0d603d22bb997c1f9a9bdcd5bcc5d22aa`. Those results are historical stack proof. The [fresh master-context CI workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38318223856) completed successfully with **all 48 jobs passed** on current head `e868e6645ce0d598d756d3458f0b3d71afd6db4a`. Its tested merge commit was `41292af60c6eb60d477637d23822bb17b08dc07e`, combining workflow base `88bf4c6c1d222f818faa56257efe79207c892a6c` with that head. The delivery commits remain based on pinned master `dabb8c5daf430a1987af611e2e7ca4c7b23ef7d4`. Both required master checks, `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`, passed. Two separate optional Storybook checks were skipped by their scope gate. [Fresh Greptile review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16047#issuecomment-6133323165) gives the current head **5/5**, with no findings, inline comments or unresolved review threads. The [current-head commitperclip review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38318223666) also completed successfully. This PR remains open and draft; no merge is requested. The local macOS failure above remains unresolved. ## Risks - A helper could share a value or capture the wrong binding. Independent expansion and lexical binding checks guard the actual helper calls. - A retired case could contain a distinct assertion. Each cut has an exact keeper map and carried observations. - A mutation could fail before the intended assertion. Controls reject timeouts and earlier failures. The rejected receipt mutation remains in the evidence. - The delivery ancestry changed after the parent squash merge. Exact source hashes preserve the audited tests and producer receipts. Fresh CI and review passed in the current master context; the broad local run remains evidence from its immutable audit snapshot. - The complete local default failed in two unchanged macOS cleanup cases. Later local groups were not run. This limitation remains visible even though focused checks and remote CI passed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, assisted with this work. The exact served model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. It used repository tools, code execution, AST analysis and parallel audit agents. ## 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>	2026-10-14 21:43:12 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f329b24ee1	feat: give tasks durable project-optional workspaces (#15749) ... Give tasks durable company-scoped workspace bindings independent of project assignment, channel defaults and authorized repository preparation. Reuse verified input seeds and sparse output recovery while preserving trust, privacy and controller provisioning boundaries. Full CI and E2E, Superagent, legacy checks and Greptile Apex 5/5 passed on reviewed head 753680b61c. All review findings are resolved; the PR records focused verification and historical acceptance limits. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 20:45:18 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	dabb8c5daf	test: remove repeated setup and strengthen regression proof (#16022) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its tests protect company boundaries, approvals, durable tasks, credentials and the board UI. > - Several owner suites repeat large database fixtures and render frames. > - Some tests repeat stronger proof or pass when the behavior they describe is broken. > - This pull request shares exact setup, removes proven duplicate cases and repairs weak observations. > - It preserves distinct security, lifecycle, concurrency and user-facing contracts. > - The benefit is 5,027 fewer test lines and stronger regression checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15978. This continues the merged test-audit cleanup in [PR #15978](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15978), which removed 11,976 test/support lines. The savings in this pull request are additional. Related open work: [PR #13460](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13460) changes legacy OAuth parent/version lock ordering. This pull request retains those production paths and the existing lock-order test. Its secrets changes compact fixtures and repair the two AWS wrapper exclusion observations. Scoped title searches found no open duplicate audit or fixture-consolidation PR and no matching audit issue. The problem is described here using the enhancement template. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The maintenance and regression value of the existing server, UI, CLI, shared and wiki-plugin test suites. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting test code. Two UI modules also lose unused test inspection exports. **Current behavior** Owner tests repeat database rows, service inputs, HTTP setup and render frames. Some cases repeat stronger assertions. Two AWS lock tests record only cleanup events, so an AWS provider write can happen inside the held lock without failing those observations. Several other negative tests accept or do not observe the wrong result. Worktree fixtures also use a temporary path alias that conflicts with the existing canonical-path checks on macOS. **Proposed behavior** Use small local helpers that preserve exact inputs, fresh allocations, callbacks, query order and await positions. Remove only cases with named stronger keepers. Tighten negative assertions and observe actual AWS provider entry while a confirmed lock holder remains parked. Resolve temporary fixture roots to their canonical paths. **Reason and benefit** Remove 5,027 net test lines and 15 redundant registered executions. Remove 11 lines of unused UI inspection exports. Keep every distinct company, actor, approval, credential, persistence, stale-write and concurrency contract. No wall-time speedup is claimed for setup compaction. **Breaking changes** None for application behavior, APIs or stored data. The removed exports expose private UI test state and have no remaining callers. ## What Changed - Consolidate repeated runtime, workspace, portability, route, tool-access, policy, gateway and state-service fixtures. - Share repeated UI render frames and CLI/wiki-plugin setup while retaining the original actions and expected results. - Remove 15 repeated case executions only where the audit records an exact stronger keeper. - Repair weak HTTP/UI negative assertions and two AWS account-home lock observations. Keep the existing durable results and cleanup behavior. - Remove the unused `__inflightGetCount` and `__secondTickInternals` inspection exports. Keep observable request coalescing and ticker lifecycle checks. - Canonicalize temporary worktree fixture paths without weakening production path checks. - Record the owner decisions, savings, independent preservation reviews and validation in [the dated audit report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/58c5c4aa241c85f4665a3159c192888bbb2a5cfa/doc/plans/2026-10-12-test-audit-rounds.md) and [the compact control evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/58c5c4aa241c85f4665a3159c192888bbb2a5cfa/doc/plans/2026-10-12-test-audit-controls.json). ## Verification - Complete owner and retained-sibling baselines passed before each audit cutover. Independent reviewers checked the full original tests, actual helper bodies, exact inputs, receipt provenance, async order, fresh allocations and case registrations. - All 14 UI/route/wiki mutations failed at their intended assertions: ten UI/API/ticker controls, one route control and three wiki persistence/receipt controls. Each mutated production source was restored to its exact original bytes. - Both old AWS lock tests passed with their respective AWS-only lock bypass. Both repaired tests failed at the intended assertions with the same bypasses. These give 16 intended failures and two passing weak controls across 18 executions. Each source was restored exactly. - Final complete state-owner/sibling run: 329/329 passed at code revision `64370831ebe191e5ce092f85f79b6fb661df7e16`. - Final `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm check:token-gates` and `pnpm build`: passed at the same code revision. - Delivery head `58c5c4aa241c85f4665a3159c192888bbb2a5cfa` includes the evidence commit and master `4b766b872993045a2e787404f0475503683e5ded`. All 27 audited test files and both application files match the locally verified code revision byte-for-byte. Current-head CI validates the integrated branch, including the incoming master changes. - All eight production-owner SHA guards for the 16 deliberate failing mutation controls still match the integrated delivery checkout. The mutation receipts therefore apply to those current owners. - Full default `pnpm test:run`: **failed** with exit 1 at frozen code revision `64370831ebe191e5ce092f85f79b6fb661df7e16`; HEAD and tracked source bytes remained unchanged. The first general-server group reported 878 passing files, four failing files and six skipped files; 17,846 passing cases, 24 failing cases and 105 skipped cases. Later groups did not run. Failures were `http-log-redaction` (socket hangup), `public-mcp` (initial 15-second timeout followed by hosted token “Refresh before subscribing” failures), `remove-test-home` (macOS `ENOTEMPTY` where permission errors were expected, plus cleanup failure), and `workspace-git-snapshot-streaming` (300-second timeout). All four failing test files and the relevant cleanup/MCP production owners are unchanged by this audit. Full local success is not claimed. - Focused complete-owner diagnosis at the same frozen revision: 149/152 passed, three failed, zero skipped. `public-mcp` passed 82/82 and `http-log-redaction` passed 66/66 unchanged. The two `remove-test-home` cases reproduced macOS `ENOTEMPTY` against an expected `EACCES`/`EPERM` contract; the 32 MiB workspace snapshot case reproduced its existing 300,000 ms timeout. HEAD and tracked files stayed clean. Exact blob comparison confirmed all four test files and the relevant cleanup/MCP owners match both inspected master `4b766b872993045a2e787404f0475503683e5ded` and the frozen local revision. The three remaining local failures are unresolved; no timeout, retry or assertion was weakened. - Current-head CI: [workflow 38299262149](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38299262149) has passed runner selection and created all downstream test/typecheck/build gates; those gates are queued, with no failures reported. Greptile completed successfully at `58c5c4aa241c85f4665a3159c192888bbb2a5cfa` with [5/5 and zero comments](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16022#issuecomment-6131457592). All review threads are resolved or absent. This pull request will remain open after verification. Reviewers can reproduce the required workspace checks: ```sh pnpm -r typecheck pnpm check:token-gates pnpm test:run pnpm build ``` Browser suites were not run. Their sources and user journeys are unchanged by this audit. ## Risks - A fixture helper can hide a specialized input or change object freshness. Full-program expansion checks and independent reviews preserve the exact old inputs and execution order. - Removing duplicate proof can remove a distinct contract by mistake. The audit records the keeper for each deletion; all distinct security and lifecycle cases remain. - Concurrency checks can miss progress during a fixed delay. The AWS repairs record actual provider entry, confirm holder entry, use measured entry windows, require exact final event order and drain both operations in `finally`. - The full local default run failed. Focused diagnosis reproduced two macOS cleanup failures and one existing snapshot timeout in unchanged owners; these remain unresolved. Current-head CI is pending. No test deadline, retry policy, skip or CI shard was weakened to obtain a pass. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-6, reasoning, repository inspection, code execution and delegated audit/review. The runtime does not expose the exact served model identifier or context-window size; those values are unavailable and are not inferred from the model catalog. ## 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 - [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>	2026-10-12 22:23:11 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	0111689d0a	test(ui): cover monitor-only task policies (#15587) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators open tasks to read progress and edit reviewers and approvers. > - Stored execution policies can contain a monitor and omit the stages array. > - These policies previously crashed the task properties panel. > - The policy reader now applies schema defaults through the fix in #15593. > - This pull request adds regression coverage for monitor-only policies with external service metadata. > - The tests check that the panel renders and participant edits keep the existing monitor. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task with a monitor-only execution policy could crash with `Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'find')`. The stored policy omitted `stages`. **Expected behavior** The task shows no reviewers or approvers. Adding both kinds of participant keeps the monitor and its external service metadata. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Load a task whose execution policy contains an external service monitor and omits `stages`. 2. Render its properties panel and inspect both participant controls. 3. Add reviewers and approvers. Check that the resulting policy keeps the monitor. Refs #15593, which provides the policy normalization used by these tests. ## What Changed - Test that both stage types return empty participant lists for a monitor-only policy. - Test adding reviewers and approvers while keeping the external service monitor. - Test retaining a monitor when no review or approval stages exist. - Render the properties panel with omitted stages and check its participant and monitor controls. ## Verification - The helper and properties panel suites pass on current master with these tests: 108 tests. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes. - All CI gates pass on the updated PR commit, including build, types, Runner verification, full test suites, browser suites, security scans, and canary checks. - Greptile gives commit `2634bd1d` 5/5 with no actionable findings or unresolved review threads. - The full local workspace suite was not repeated for this test-only rebase. CI verifies the full suite, build, types, Runner checks, browser suites, security scans, and canary run. ## Risks - Low risk. This change adds tests against the existing policy behavior. - The fixture uses example external references and test participant IDs. - Existing documentation remains accurate for this regression coverage. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [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>	2026-10-08 14:36:46 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	317ed367d4	Handle incomplete task policies and preserve review limits (#15593) ... Apply the reviewed change for Handle incomplete task policies and preserve review limits. Validation: local typecheck/build and focused regression tests, passing exact-head CI, Greptile 5/5, and independent source review. The PR records full-suite evidence and any local environment limitations. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-08 10:20:32 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	b315580640	feat: add private task creation and sharing controls (#14718) ... Add private task creation and sharing controls, effective access explanations, private project management, and locked task references. Constrain the mobile composer plus menu to the viewport and explain named inherited privacy on hover, focus, or tap. Include 125 production-component Storybook stories and thirteen interactive user journeys. Final head passes all CI checks and Greptile Apex 5/5 with no findings. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-07 07:27:52 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	228f0e2807	fix(ui): make pull request review waits visible (#15375) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people supervise agent work and review its outputs. > - A task can wait for a human to review a pull request while an agent schedules checks. > - The PR work product and detected external links use separate display paths. > - A private PR can disappear from the useful sidebar view when its provider lookup fails. > - The monitor countdown says when the next check runs but omits the saved review request. > - This change shows the saved PR and requested review in the task's existing surfaces. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task kept checking whether a private GitHub PR had merged. Its work product requested board review, but the Properties sidebar used detected external objects instead. The PR URL was stored only in metadata, which the PR refresh path did not read. The composer showed a generic monitor countdown with no PR link or review action. **Expected behavior** Show saved PR links even if provider access fails. During a GitHub monitor wait, make outstanding review requests visible with the next check time and a status-check action. Stop requesting review when a PR merges or closes. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Register a PR work product with `reviewState: needs_board_review` and its URL in `metadata.url`. 2. Schedule an external-service monitor for GitHub. 3. Open the task with external-object lookup unavailable or unable to access the private repository. 4. Inspect Properties and the composer wait strip. Related work: #14469 added rich artifact cards. #8759 addresses attention on monitored task blockers. This change uses the existing work products and monitor action; it adds no blocker or approval mechanism. ## What Changed - Show saved PRs in Properties, including metadata-only links, independent of external-object availability. - Deduplicate equivalent GitHub PR URLs while preserving the saved navigation link, and put explicit review requests first. - Keep provider status and freshness on the combined PR row; keep private PR links usable when lookup fails. - Show the saved PR review request above the composer and in the existing monitor banner during a GitHub monitor wait. - Label the existing monitor action `Check status` and show check failures inline. - Suppress review prompts for merged, closed, or archived PRs even if their review flag is stale. - Refresh PR metadata using `metadata.url` and the existing `repository` alias. - Share saved work-product reads across the thread, Properties, and Artifacts. Refresh GitHub in a separate query and enrich only matching PR versions. - Start a fresh saved-row request on live invalidation so late provider responses cannot hide new artifacts or changed review requests. - Cover stalled GitHub lookups in both panels so refresh latency cannot hide saved work. - Scope monitor-check mutation state to the task so failures and late responses do not leak across navigation. - Refresh GitHub status when the displayed run finishes, including when saved PR rows have not changed. - Clarify that PR review and external release handoffs need a saved human-input interaction with an agent assigned for continuation; a flag, monitor, or handoff comment alone does not create that card. ## Verification - 386 tests pass across eleven affected UI and server suites on `184c7d8746`. Regressions cover saved links, provider status, cold-cache loading, panel reopening, monitor errors during navigation, and live updates during provider refresh. - Three live-update regressions and two run-completion regressions fail before their fixes and pass afterward. These tests use the real API client's GET coalescing and abort handling. - Full repository typecheck and build passed on the merged parent `1a49112dd2`. The latest UI changes pass UI typecheck and token gates; CI also verifies the latest build. Capability contract/inventory checks pass. - Storybook build and browser checks passed before the query race fix. Browser checks cover desktop and 390px mobile review waits, plus video, mixed-file, and empty artifact galleries after background refresh. - The earlier full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped under disk pressure. It reported failures outside the changed suites; an isolated skill-cache run reproduced three existing macOS permission failures. The full local suite was not rerun for this follow-up. - Latest-head CI passes on `184c7d8746`, including the browser shards and canary dry run. Apex is 5/5 with no actionable findings and no unresolved threads. All eight reported findings are addressed. ## Risks - This uses saved PR review state. When GitHub access fails, the saved state can remain stale until the agent updates it. The link remains visible and the status check remains available. - `Check status` wakes the existing monitor owner. It does not merge a PR, accept an approval, or mark the task done. - No schema, permissions, or scheduler behavior changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, repository analysis, code editing, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass — 277 affected tests - [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>	2026-10-06 16:03:13 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	2c43b39167	refactor(ui): share task composer and project/worktree controls (#15091) ... Use the shared composer for new tasks, including project and worktree selection, rich mentions and slash commands, and remembered task settings. Save project preferences after successful task updates. Show known agent models by name and use Default for unknown runtime defaults. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-05 18:06:40 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7e0f051d3b	Align task property icons with assignee avatars (#13319) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app that people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task properties panel helps operators inspect and update task data. > - The status, assignee, and project rows used different leading icon sizes. > - The mixed sizes made the rows look uneven. > - The assignee avatar already provides the correct 24px visual size. > - This pull request sets the status and project visuals to that same size. > - The benefit is a tidy and consistent properties panel. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The task properties panel showed a 12px status icon, a 24px assignee avatar, and a 16px project tile. **Expected behavior** The status, assignee, and project rows must use the same 24px leading visual size. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task. 2. Open the Properties panel. 3. Compare the Status, Assignee, and Project rows. ## What Changed - Keep the Status glyph at 16px and use spacing to give it the 24px avatar footprint. - Set the Project row tile to the 24px small tile size. - Add a regression check for the Status row size. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` (72 tests passed) - `pnpm check:token-gates` (all gates clean) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` (passed) - Full repository typecheck and build reached the Rust runner step, but this environment does not contain `cargo`. - The full test command was stopped after unrelated chat integration tests did not finish. The focused UI suite passed. ## Risks - Low risk. This change only changes visual sizes in three property rows. - The wider status footprint can use slightly more horizontal space in a narrow panel. > This fix does not overlap with planned core work in `ROADMAP.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, tool use and code execution enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] 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>	2026-09-27 11:35:39 +00:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	94a0aa7726	fix(ui): hide workspace isolation controls for managed hosts (#13907) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Workspace isolation keeps task checkouts separate. > - Managed hosts can enable isolation and hide its experimental toggles. > - Project, task, and routine forms still expose choices that override that policy. > - This pull request adds an operator visibility key for those controls. > - Workspace access stays available, and execution keeps its existing policy. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Operator control over workspace isolation settings in the UI. This follows the settings list cleanup in #13905. **Current behavior** Hiding the experimental isolation toggles leaves project policy editors, task selectors, routine and pipeline overrides, recovery actions, and workspace configuration visible. **Proposed behavior** Set `PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS=workspaces.isolation` to hide these controls. Keep workspace navigation, status, files, and runtime access. Hide experimental toggles separately. Instances that do not set this key keep their controls. **Reason and benefit** Users on managed hosts should use the host's isolation default. A hidden form must not submit a stale draft that overrides it. ## What Changed - Add the UI-only `workspaces.isolation` key to the shared visibility registry. - Hide project workspace policy, task and subtask selectors, routine and pipeline overrides, and isolated re-issue actions. - Hide the workspace Configuration tab and redirect direct links to workspace issues. - Omit hidden new-task and routine overrides. Keep explicit task/subtask workspace launch context, saved policies, and automatic branch values for workspace routine runs. - Wait for the health visibility policy before showing controls. Keep workspace access and all execution APIs available. - Document the key and test visibility, form payloads, deep links, and unchanged workspace access. ## Verification - All 52 CI checks pass on `50cc770d33` (two expected skips). The branch is mergeable. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved comments. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - Targeted UI checks passed: 346 tests across 14 suites, including hidden project/task controls, stale task drafts, routine branch defaults, recovery actions, configuration deep links, and workspace access. - Shared settings-visibility tests passed: 11 tests. - `pnpm test:run` was run and stopped after reproducing five failures in unchanged server tests: two `chat-channels.integration` cases (linked-request provenance and direct external-chat finals) and three `company-skills-service` cases (runtime refresh, concurrent download, and explicit update). The earlier local run for #13905 showed the same failures. The full local suite is not claimed green. Targeted UI/shared checks pass. All PR CI shards, including the affected chat and skills suites, pass. - Reviewed the diff for secrets, private links, and run artifacts. ## Risks This key changes UI visibility only. It does not reject API calls or change feature values. Operators must enable isolation and its default through their existing policy mechanism. Older app versions ignore the new key until upgraded. Removing the key restores the controls. No schema changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex), with reasoning, repository tools, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally; targeted checks pass (full-suite limitation documented 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>	2026-09-23 19:38:07 -07:00
4 people	1ef3b08714	feat(ui): integrate agent personas across the app (#13171) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A stable agent persona is useful only when the same identity appears across the app. > - Lists, task messages, selectors, and activity feeds need inexpensive static avatars. > - Onboarding and agent headers need a larger character with expressions and pointer tracking. > - This pull request connects the persona foundation to those existing views and preserves onboarding draft assignments. > - Full-page stories and Linux checks make the placements and performance contract reviewable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Agents need a stable visual identity in lists, tasks, onboarding, and configuration. External tools also need an image URL for that identity. **Proposed solution** Assign each agent a permanent palette from a fixed ClipLab character library. Store the assignment on the agent. Render and cache preset PNG URLs on demand. Use static images in dense views and one animated character in larger placements. **Alternatives considered** A generated image bundle requires a separate asset build. A live renderer in every avatar adds unnecessary work in large lists. Arbitrary uploaded images do not provide the requested shared character system. **Roadmap alignment** This improves agent identity across existing control-plane views. It preserves agent permissions, company boundaries, and status labels. ROADMAP.md has no separate ClipLab persona milestone. Related approaches: #2422 adds configurable image URLs and DiceBear generation; #5578 adds optional uploaded avatars. This work uses a fixed, versioned character library and preset URLs. ## What Changed - Replace agent icons with static persona images across lists, the sidebar, org charts, tasks, comments, selectors, activity, and dashboard views. - Put one animated character in the agent header. Let it follow the pointer across the page, with reduced-motion and touch fallbacks. - Add larger padded characters to agent creation. Keep the palette stable across draft refreshes and connection retries, then reveal it after success. - Pass appearance through shared projections rather than fetching each agent separately. - Add real full-page Storybook examples for the agent list, overview, task, dashboard, new-agent dialog, and connection page. - Add Linux screenshot, clipping, density, and 500-avatar performance checks. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and token gates pass on the rebased tree. Persona lifecycle tests pass. - The rebased feature passes 38 Linux screenshot/performance checks, including both display densities, corner pointer positions, and the no-WebGL/no-live-download contract for 500 avatars. - The final Linux persona suite passes all 38 visual, lifecycle, density, and full-page checks using the standard Storybook configuration and real on-demand avatar endpoint. - Final local focused verification: 45 avatar/native-recovery tests pass; UI identity/routine tests, typecheck/build, token gates, and Storybook build pass. - Current-head CI passes: full workspace/server tests, all serialized server groups, typecheck/release checks, build, canary validation, and end-to-end shards. The build passed after retrying a native-runner concurrency-test failure; its three targeted cases also pass locally. - Manual inspection covered stable identities in the app, header placement, full-page mouse tracking, onboarding size, and task/dashboard placements. ### Screenshots Linux captures use synthetic Storybook fixtures. Full-page captures use reduced motion. The live character, mouse tracking, and disposal are checked separately. <details> <summary>Agent overview with the character in its header</summary> <img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/8c68f42b268ada22b67d79d0fe1bb0a2f84ec25c/screenshots/full-page-agent-overview.png" width="900" alt="Agent overview with the character in its header" /> </details> <details> <summary>Task messages and assignee identity</summary> <img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/8c68f42b268ada22b67d79d0fe1bb0a2f84ec25c/screenshots/full-page-task.png" width="900" alt="Task messages and assignee identity" /> </details> <details> <summary>Larger onboarding character with room for expressions</summary> <img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/8c68f42b268ada22b67d79d0fe1bb0a2f84ec25c/screenshots/full-page-meet-your-next-agent.png" width="900" alt="Larger onboarding character with room for expressions" /> </details> <details> <summary>Dashboard agent activity</summary> <img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/8c68f42b268ada22b67d79d0fe1bb0a2f84ec25c/screenshots/full-page-company-dashboard.png" width="900" alt="Dashboard agent activity" /> </details> ## Risks - This PR depends on #13170, the persona foundation. Merge the foundation first, then retarget this PR to master. - Many placements change from icons to character silhouettes. Human avatars and authoritative agent status labels retain their existing behavior. - Only one character can render live per view. Reduced motion, hidden/offscreen content, touch input, and renderer failures use the defined fallbacks. - The full-page stories use fixture data. They do not contact a real company or complete real provider sign-in. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact model identifier and context window are not exposed in this session. Used code editing, shell execution, browser inspection, and Linux visual testing. ## 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: Tonio <tonework@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-09-19 07:57:53 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	e9a5a07ab4	feat(ui): add task status badges and inline blocker removal (#13097) ... Add navigable status badges to task relationships and a separate blocker remove button with stable hover geometry. Keep Storybook previews passive and cover navigation, removal, and query refresh rendering with regression tests. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-09 10:06:21 -05:00
Michael NguyenandPaperclip	77312ee2d9	feat(codex): add GPT-6 Astra support (#12851) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app that people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Codex local adapter supplies model metadata to the server and the user interface. > - OpenAI now lists `gpt-6-astra` as a supported Codex model. > - Paperclip did not list this model or its model-specific controls. > - This pull request adds the model through the existing adapter metadata path. > - The benefit is that agents and task overrides can use the exact model ID and supported controls. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** `packages/adapters` and `ui` **Problem or motivation** Paperclip does not expose `gpt-6-astra` in Codex model selectors. Operators cannot select and save the model through the normal agent and task forms. **Proposed solution** Register the exact model ID in the Codex local adapter. Use the adapter as the source for the model-specific reasoning options. Preserve the current default model. Forward the saved model, reasoning effort, and fast-mode controls through both Codex execution lanes. **Alternatives considered** A user-interface-only model list would duplicate adapter metadata. A model alias would not match the official model ID. Both options were rejected. **Roadmap alignment** This is a small adapter compatibility update. It does not duplicate a planned item in `ROADMAP.md`. ## What Changed - Added `gpt-6-astra` to the Codex local adapter model registry and fast-mode support list. - Added the official Astra reasoning efforts: `low`, `medium`, `high`, `xhigh`, `max`, and `ultra`. - Used the adapter metadata in agent and task model selectors. - Preserved supported effort choices when the model changes. Cleared an effort only when the new model does not support it. - Added tests for registration, user-interface selection, configuration persistence, and CLI and ACP forwarding. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapters/codex-local/src/index.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/acp.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/codex-args.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/ui/build-config.test.ts ui/src/lib/codex-reasoning-effort.test.ts ui/src/components/AgentConfigForm.render.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-assignee-overrides.test.ts` passed 245 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed all four gates across 939 files. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` passed and supplied isolated user-interface build proof. - `pnpm build` passed. - `pnpm test:run` passed 5,812 tests and failed 24 workspace-runtime tests in this isolated host. The failures use invalid generated ports above 65,535, incomplete nested-worktree fixture configuration, or `/tmp` path aliases. The focused tests for this change all pass. GitHub CI must pass before review handoff. - GitHub CI run `33918372718` passed all required checks and the aggregate verify gate on exact head `6ac6be2cee0a5996c82bdf674fcb7f46cb4c5fde`. - Independent engineering review approved the exact remediation head after 170/170 reviewer tests passed. - Greptile reported 5/5 with no open review threads on exact head `6ac6be2cee0a5996c82bdf674fcb7f46cb4c5fde`. - The model ID and capabilities were checked against the [official OpenAI Codex model list](https://developers.openai.com/codex/models). ## Risks - Low risk. The change adds one model and model-specific selector options. It does not change the default model. - OpenAI can change model capabilities later. The adapter metadata must stay aligned with the official Codex metadata. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with model ID `gpt-5.6-sol`, a 272,000-token context window, 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>	2026-09-04 11:50:04 -10:00
scotttong	4d30efa8e3	feat(ui): refine streamlined task experience (#12748)	2026-09-03 00:28:02 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	109d81db4f	Add task workspace picker to properties pane (#12693) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task properties pane lets an operator change the settings for one task. > - The pane did not let an operator select the execution workspace for the next run. > - The existing workspace card had selection rules that another control could copy by mistake. > - This pull request adds one shared selection module and one compact property picker. > - The picker keeps the current workspace active until the next run. > - The benefit is a clear workspace choice in the task properties pane without an API change. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** ui/ — React + Vite board UI **Problem or motivation** An operator cannot set the execution workspace from the new task properties pane. The existing task workspace card also owns selection rules that a second control could copy and change over time. **Proposed solution** Add a compact workspace property picker. Put the shared selection and update rules in one UI module. Show the picker only when isolated workspaces and the project workspace policy are enabled. **Alternatives considered** The existing workspace card could remain the only control. This would leave the new task interface incomplete. The picker could also copy the card logic, but that would create two sources of truth. **Roadmap alignment** This is a small UI improvement for existing workspace controls. It does not duplicate a planned item in `ROADMAP.md`. Related workspace work: Refs #12682. That pull request changes runner recovery and other workspace controls. It does not add this task property picker. ## What Changed - Added shared helpers for the current workspace selection and its issue update payload. - Updated the existing workspace card to use the shared helpers without changing its project-default behavior. - Added a gated workspace property picker with mode and workspace search steps. - Added unit and component tests for visibility, selection payloads, search, and workspace reuse. - Rebased onto the upstream native-run teardown fix so CI drains background heartbeat writes before PostgreSQL cleanup. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/issue-workspace-selection.test.ts src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/RoutineRunVariablesDialog.test.tsx` — 74 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/services/native-runtime/native-question-bridge.test.ts` — 8 tests passed on the rebased head. The upstream teardown drain prevents the prior PostgreSQL cleanup deadlock. ## Risks - Low risk. This is a gated UI-only change. - A wrong selection payload could change the next workspace mode. Exact payload tests cover every mode. - The old card must keep its existing project-default payload. A shared-helper test covers that payload. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The exact serving revision and context window are not exposed. The agent used 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>	2026-09-02 08:19:09 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4b6de5327e	Remove cheap model profiles (#12683) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents that use different model providers and adapters. > - Paperclip must keep agent execution rules clear and predictable. > - The cheap-model profile added a second execution mode across adapters, task recovery, APIs, and the UI. > - That mode increased configuration and recovery complexity. > - This pull request removes the cheap-model profile as a product feature. > - The benefit is one model-selection path for normal work and recovery work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This change simplifies model selection across agent configuration, task execution, recovery, and adapter capabilities. **Current behavior** Paperclip exposes cheap-model profiles in adapter metadata, agent runtime configuration, task overrides, recovery rules, APIs, and the board UI. Recovery work can select a different model profile from the agent's configured model. **Proposed behavior** Paperclip uses the agent's configured model for normal work and recovery work. Status-only recovery stays limited to coordination work. The API rejects legacy model-profile configuration. A migration removes stored model-profile values from existing agent, issue, and historical revision records. **Reason and benefit** One model path reduces configuration, API, UI, and recovery complexity. It also prevents status recovery from becoming a separate product-level model-routing feature. **Breaking changes** This change removes model-profile fields and adapter capability metadata. Existing stored model-profile values are removed by an idempotent migration. The validators reject new legacy profile values with clear errors. ## What Changed - Removed model-profile types, adapter capabilities, API fields, and model selection logic. - Removed cheap-model controls from agent and task UI surfaces. - Kept status-only recovery limited to coordination context while normal continuations use the configured agent model. - Added an idempotent migration that removes stored model-profile values from agents, issues, and configuration revisions without changing issue update timestamps. - Updated tests and product documentation for the single-model behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - `pnpm test:run` completed with 5,607 passing tests and 8 environment-sensitive failures in unrelated fixed-port and database-deadlock suites. The same failures repeated in an isolated rerun. CI is the final clean-room result. ## Risks - This is an intentional breaking change for clients that send model-profile fields. - The migration changes legacy agent, issue, and configuration-revision JSON. It is idempotent and preserves unrelated fields and issue update timestamps. - The change is cross-cutting because the removed feature existed in adapters, shared contracts, the server, plugins, and the UI. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with `gpt-5`. Reasoning and tool use were enabled. The runtime did not expose the context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] 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>	2026-09-01 14:57:38 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	141f202e40	Clean up experimental settings features (#12681) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app that people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Instance settings control optional product features and developer tools. > - The experimental settings page mixed active experiments, internal tools, and old recovery controls. > - Some workspace links also used the selected company instead of the workspace owner. > - These problems made settings hard to scan and could send users to the wrong company route. > - This pull request removes old controls, groups developer settings, and resolves workspace links from workspace data. > - The benefit is a smaller settings surface and correct workspace navigation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves the instance experimental settings page, task watchdog controls, dependency wake recovery, and execution workspace routes. **Current behavior** The settings page shows old recovery controls and mixes product experiments with internal developer settings. Task watchdogs require an extra feature flag. Some direct workspace links use the current company prefix instead of the company that owns the workspace. **Proposed behavior** Remove the old task recovery experiment and its unused API surface. Make task watchdog controls available without the removed flag. Put worktree execution and managed environment controls in the developer section. Resolve direct workspace links from the workspace owner and reject a company prefix that does not own the workspace. **Reason and benefit** The smaller settings page is easier to understand. The server keeps only the dependency wake backstop that it still uses. Workspace links open under the correct company route. **Breaking changes** This removes the experimental issue graph recovery preview and run endpoints. It also removes the task watchdog feature flag. Task watchdog data and dependency wake behavior remain available. ## What Changed - Removed the old task watchdog and issue graph recovery feature flags. - Removed the old issue graph recovery preview, run controls, API contracts, and unused recovery implementation. - Kept resolved dependency wakes as the scheduler backstop. - Grouped product experiments and Paperclip developer settings on the instance settings page. - Made task watchdog controls available without an extra experimental flag. - Added owner-aware redirects and company checks for execution workspace routes. - Hid the false stopped-state badge while a workspace has no active runtime state. - Updated focused server and UI tests for the new behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm test:run` completed with 5,620 passing tests and four failures in unchanged workspace runtime port tests. The same four failures repeat when the two files run alone. - The complete GitHub CI matrix passed, including all server, serialized server, build, canary, and end-to-end jobs. ## Risks - Clients that call the removed experimental recovery endpoints must stop calling them. - The route checks depend on workspace detail access. An unknown or cross-company workspace returns the global not-found page. - There are no database migrations, lockfile changes, workflow changes, or design image changes. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context window are not exposed. Reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-01 14:23:05 -05:00
Dotta	39206c0096	feat(ui): complete the task workspace (#12640) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task page is the main place where people guide and review agent work. > - Native runner events already project into the existing task chat on the lower stack. > - The larger task workspace must support those events without breaking direct adapters. > - Legacy questions, final replies, empty transcripts, and classic controls must keep their behavior. > - This pull request completes the provider-neutral task workspace experience. > - The benefit is one coherent task surface for native and direct execution paths. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12639. Refs #12617. Refs #12352. **Subsystem affected** Task chat, task detail, side panels, interaction forms, and transcript presentation. **Problem or motivation** The task page does not provide one complete workspace for live activity, plans, questions, queued guidance, files, and documents. Earlier native UI work also exposed compatibility risks in legacy question and reply paths. **Proposed solution** Add the task workspace components and provider-neutral protocol presentation. Keep runner-only controls behind runtime facts. Preserve all direct-adapter composer, transcript, interaction, and finalization behavior. **Alternatives considered** A separate runner page would duplicate task behavior. Replacing legacy transcript logic would create unnecessary adapter regressions. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports the unified task experience and the Cloud and Sandbox agents milestone. ## Stack - Base PR: #12639. - Lower PR: #12638. - This PR contains only its 119-file UI delta against `runner/remote-wss-transport`. - The next stack PR adds administrator and observability controls. ## What Changed - Added a reusable task workspace side panel for files and documents. - Added provider-neutral cards for tools, plans, questions, protocol activity, and progress. - Added queued guidance and richer composer state. - Added compact and expanded interaction presentation. - Added live activity, thinking, usage, recovery, and final reply presentation. - Added document annotations and task deep links. - Added bounded question validation and response handling. - Preserved native runner event projection from master. - Preserved legacy channel-less replies and explicit final reply precedence. - Preserved direct-adapter and classic-interface controls. - Did not change server execution selection, Rust code, migrations, workflows, or `pnpm-lock.yaml`. ## Verification - GitHub Actions will run UI tests, repository tests, typecheck, build, browser tests, security, and policy gates. - Tests cover active, settled, empty-transcript, interaction, queued-message, plan, question, file, document, and classic-interface states. - Compatibility tests cover direct adapters and native runner projection together. - Local tests were not run. The requested verification policy uses GitHub Actions for this series. - `git diff --check runner/remote-wss-transport...HEAD` passes. - The delta contains 119 UI-only files. ## Risks - This is a large task-page change. - Most files are new focused components and tests. - Shared transcript code keeps the lower native projection and legacy direct-adapter fallbacks. - Runner-only controls use adapter and runtime facts. - No execution path or rollout flag changes in this PR. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6. The work used high-reasoning agent mode, repository tools, GitHub tools, and parallel code-audit agents. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with Fixes: / Closes / Refs OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] 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 risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-09-01 02:44:19 -05:00
Michael Nguyen	d2fb05d225	Fix issue document deep-link routing (#11551)	2026-08-17 10:53:46 -07:00
TonioandClaude Opus 5	40e7add71c	test(ui): make the suite independent of the machine timezone (#11478) ... Several suites asserted local-time renders from UTC instants, or built date fixtures from the real clock, so they only held where local time happened to match. CI runs in UTC and never reported it; a contributor anywhere else saw failures on a clean checkout. Seven files, anchored to the clock under test rather than to the machine's. The set grew twice while being fixed: the two tests the issue named surfaced three more at UTC+9, and those surfaced two more at UTC+14. `StatusCards/format` is the interesting one. `rollupUpdatesToday` filters on the UTC calendar day to match the server token cap, while the fixtures were built on the local day. West of UTC that lands `iso(0)` in the previous UTC day for the stretch between UTC midnight and local midnight - about seven hours a day at UTC-7 - and east of UTC+12 "today at local noon" is already yesterday in UTC outright. Either way the rows it means to count drop out. A run crossing midnight UTC splits the same way. Fixes #11476. Deliberately left: IssueProperties.test.tsx:1515-1517 still pin the minute of three timestamps against a UTC fixture. They pass at every offset tried, including UTC+5:45, and the minute there is load-bearing - it distinguishes Created from Started from Completed - so it wants more care than mechanical anchoring. Full ui suite 4113 pass. The TZ pin added by #11480 is still in place here and is now redundant; #11508 removes it, stacked on this branch so it cannot land without the anchoring it depends on. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-16 22:22:45 -07:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5	8ee1fb21a6	feat(ui): badge the review policy when it constrains approval (#10938) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents move their work into review, and a reviewer must then give a verdict on it > - By default anyone with write access can give that verdict, including the agent that did the work > - The server can constrain that default per issue with a `reviewPolicy` column, but no screen showed the value > - A reviewer could therefore press Approve on a review that the server refuses, and get a 403 > - This pull request shows the policy as a badge on the two surfaces where a person gives a verdict > - It also makes an agent verdict read as a verdict in the activity timeline > - The benefit is that a reviewer sees who can approve before they try ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. The description below follows `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml`. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The issue review flow. A reviewer cannot see the approval constraint on an issue before they give a verdict. **Subsystem affected** Web UI (`ui/`), with one supporting change in the server attention service. **Current behavior** The server stores an optional approval constraint for each issue in a `reviewPolicy` column. The column has three meaningful states: the default (`NULL` or `anyone`), `not_creator`, and `human_only`. The server enforces the constraint when it receives a verdict. No screen shows the value. Two problems follow: 1. A reviewer presses Approve on a review that the server refuses. The server answers 403, and the reason is not visible on the card. 2. An agent that accepts or rejects a review renders in the activity timeline as the raw action id, for example "issue thread interaction accepted". A person who reads the timeline cannot tell that a verdict was given. **Proposed behavior** Show the constraint as a read-only badge on the two surfaces where a person gives a verdict. Show no pixels for the default state, because the default is what every issue already does. Make an agent verdict read as a verdict in the timeline. Only agents set the column today, so this change adds no control to set it. **Reason and benefit** A reviewer sees the constraint before they act. This prevents the 403, and it removes the need to explain the 403 afterwards. The timeline also becomes complete, because it now shows agent verdicts and human verdicts in the same way. **Breaking changes** None. The change adds a badge and changes copy. It adds no column, no endpoint, and no request. **Additional context** The server-side column and the verdict enforcement landed earlier in #10931. This pull request is the user interface for that column. The default state stays unchanged on screen, so the badge appears on a small number of issues. ## What Changed - **A read-only "Approvals" row** in the issue Execution properties. The row renders *only* for a constrained policy: "Anyone else" (`not_creator`) or "Human only" (`human_only`). A `NULL` or `anyone` column adds no row, so the panel is untouched on the overwhelming majority of issues. - **The same badge on the stalled-review card** in `/decisions`, above the three review verbs. A reviewer now sees the constraint before they press Approve. The condition is the same, so the default card is unchanged. - **Agent verdicts read as verdicts in the activity timeline.** An agent that accepted or rejected a review request previously rendered the raw action id ("issue thread interaction accepted"). It now reads "approved the request". A stalled-review decision names the verb that the actor chose. - **A cleared policy reports as "anyone", not "none",** in the field-change receipt. The `reviewPolicy` column is nullable by default, so an absent value is a real setting rather than a missing one. - **All copy comes from `ui/src/lib/review-policy.ts`.** Its badge lookup returns `null` for the default. This makes "no pixels for the default" one enforced decision instead of a condition repeated at each call site. It also keeps the badge, the activity line, and the receipt reading alike. - **The server attention service carries the policy** on the review attention subject, so the stalled-review card can read it. ## Verification Automated tests: - `ui/src/lib/review-policy.test.ts` — the default returns no badge, however the column spells it (`null`, `undefined`, `"anyone"`). An unrecognised policy from the wire shows nothing rather than leaking an enum value. - `ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx` — no badge on the default card, and the verbs still render. Suppression of the badge must not suppress the card. - `ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — no Approvals row on the default. The constrained row contains no `button`, so nothing there can PATCH. - `server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts` — the review attention subject carries the policy, and subjects built from narrower selects do not claim one. Run them with: ```sh pnpm vitest run ui/src/lib/review-policy.test.ts \ ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx \ ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx \ server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts ``` Manual steps: 1. Open an issue that has no `reviewPolicy`. Confirm that the Execution properties panel shows no Approvals row. 2. Set the column to `not_creator`. Reload the issue. Confirm that the Approvals row reads "Anyone else", and that the row has no control. 3. Move that issue into review. Open `/decisions`. Confirm that the stalled review card shows the same badge above the review verbs. 4. Let an agent approve the review. Confirm that the activity timeline reads "approved the request" and not "issue thread interaction accepted". Screenshots were captured at 1440x900 and 390x844, in light mode and dark mode, with the three policy states side by side. The leftmost column in each capture is the default. It carries no badge and no extra row. ## Risks Low risk. - The change is additive on screen. Every new surface is behind a constrained policy, so the default path renders exactly as before. - The badge is read-only. It has no control and sends no request, and a test asserts that the row contains no `button`. - An unknown policy value from the wire renders nothing. It does not render the raw enum. - No migration, no schema change, and no endpoint change. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-5[1m]`, 1M context window, with extended thinking and tool use enabled. Used through Claude Code for the implementation, the tests, and this description. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-14 20:29:36 -04:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	031003c5e1	fix(ui): search parent-issue picker on the server (#11334) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The board UI lets an operator choose a parent issue for an issue > - The parent picker loads a priority-first page and filters that page in the browser > - A medium-priority or low-priority issue past the page limit never enters the picker > - This pull request sends typed parent-picker text to the server and keeps the picker exclusions > - The benefit is that the operator can select valid parent issues beyond the default page ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request supersedes [#6193](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/6193), whose old file path no longer matches the current component tree. **What happened?** The parent picker fetched one default issue page and filtered it in the browser. The default page sorts by priority and caps the result at 500 issues. Valid medium-priority and low-priority parent issues beyond that page stayed hidden. **Expected behavior** The parent picker must search the server when the operator types text. It must show matching issues beyond the default page while it keeps the current issue and descendant exclusions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open an issue in a company with more than 500 issues. 2. Open the parent picker and type the name of a medium-priority or low-priority issue beyond the default page. 3. Observe that the picker does not show the matching issue. **Paperclip version or commit** Commit `c6965bd0237fd9536b41f1495e2a4bb252afcde7`. **Deployment mode** Local dev (`pnpm dev`). ## What Changed - Send parent-picker searches to the issue list endpoint with `q` and a bounded `limit` of 50. - Keep the empty-search list, cycle exclusions, and current sort behavior. - Add a component test for a low-priority match hidden by the default page. ## Verification - Run `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx`. - Confirm that all 53 tests pass. - Confirm that the new test checks `{ q, limit: 50 }` and the matching issue. ## Risks - Low risk. The change affects only parent-picker search requests. - The server search uses the existing issue list query and does not change stored data. ## Model Used Codex, GPT-5, with tool use and code execution. The model assisted with the change and test. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-13 12:18:49 -07:00
3 people	0ee0543e5b	feat(ui): refine the chat-style task workflow (#11263) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue detail view is the main place where people read work and guide agents. > - The chat-style task view needs clear messages, controls, properties, and document feedback. > - Dense metadata and disconnected controls make active work harder to scan. > - This pull request refines the existing chat-style task workflow across desktop and mobile layouts. > - The benefit is a clearer issue thread with faster access to the controls that guide work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The change improves the chat-style issue detail view that was introduced in [#10606](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10606) and expanded in [#10707](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10707). **Current behavior** The issue thread spreads task controls across the page. Agent-turn metadata competes with the message content. Document annotation comments use inline placement that limits the document reading area. The mobile composer can overlap the bottom navigation. **Proposed behavior** The issue view keeps the thread focused on message content. It moves supporting controls into the properties area, adds searchable assignment, restores the sub-task tree, docks document comments in a side gutter, and keeps the mobile composer clear of navigation. **Reason and benefit** People can scan active work faster and find task controls without leaving the issue. The layout also gives documents and mobile conversations more usable space. **Breaking changes** None. The change updates presentation and interaction behavior in the existing issue UI. ## What Changed - Refined task-chat message spacing, metadata, agent bubbles, and composer alignment. - Added searchable assignment and restored sub-task navigation in the properties pane. - Moved document annotation comments into a right-side gutter. - Kept the mobile composer above the auto-hiding bottom navigation. - Added and updated focused component tests for the changed interactions. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `TZ=UTC pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/InlineEntitySelector.test.tsx src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - The token gates report 3/3 clean. - The focused test run passes 124 tests in 5 files. - Visual snapshot baselines were not updated. This follows the `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` entry "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)." ## Risks - The changes affect several related issue-detail layouts. A browser review should cover desktop and mobile widths before merge. - The monitor-row test formats time in the host timezone. The verification command sets `TZ=UTC` to match CI. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The context-window size is not exposed in this environment. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub tools. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-12 11:41:40 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	1a377424db	fix(ui): add mobile blocker actions (#11282) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators use task properties to inspect and change task relationships. > - A blocked-by chip linked directly to the blocking task. > - Its remove control appeared only on hover, so touch users could not reach it. > - This pull request opens a small action menu when a user taps the chip on mobile. > - The menu lets the user visit the task or start the existing blocker-removal confirmation. > - The benefit is that touch users can manage blockers without changing the fast desktop flow. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** On a phone-width layout, a tap on a blocked-by chip opened the blocking task immediately. The remove control appeared only on hover, so a touch user could not remove the blocker. **Expected behavior** A tap on a blocked-by chip on mobile opens a menu. The menu offers `Visit task` and `Remove blocker` actions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task that has a blocker. 2. Use a viewport below the mobile breakpoint. 3. Open the task properties. 4. Tap the blocked-by chip. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `e5a7fd7038` from `master`. **Deployment mode** Built from source with the local development workflow. ## What Changed - Added a mobile-only action menu to blocked-by chips. - Kept the direct task link and hover/focus remove control on desktop. - Reused the existing removal confirmation before the relation update. - Added focused regression coverage for the mobile visit and remove choices. - Added a phone-width Storybook state with the action menu open. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build-storybook` - Opened the new Storybook state in Playwright Chromium with a Pixel 5 viewport. Confirmed that both actions are visible and fit in the viewport. ## Risks - Low risk. The behavior change is limited to the existing mobile breakpoint. - Desktop navigation and blocker removal keep their current behavior. - The menu uses the shared dropdown and dialog primitives. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex `gpt-5.6-sol`, xhigh reasoning. The Codex CLI managed the context window for this run. The model used repository tools, code execution, tests, and browser automation. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-12 12:12:55 -04:00
scotttong	815e49bb7c	feat: make chat-style tasks the default experience (#11101)	2026-08-11 09:06:21 -07:00
3 people	d84c5eae7a	feat(ui): hide task priority from the UI (keep data model) (#11024) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks and issues carry a `priority` field that renders across many product surfaces: the detail header, the Triage properties panel, Kanban and thread cards, the New Task composer, list Sort/Group/Filter menus, search filters, and the dashboard chart. > - Product feedback found the priority level adds visual noise and decision cost without clear value in day-to-day task flow. > - We want to remove priority from the interface, but keep the data model, API, validation, and search DSL fully intact so the choice is reversible with no migration. > - This pull request hides every priority indicator and control behind one compile-time flag, `SHOW_TASK_PRIORITY_UI`, set to `false`. > - The benefit is a calmer, simpler UI now, with a single-boolean revive path and zero data loss. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description <!-- No public GitHub issue exists. Describing in-PR per the feature template. --> **Subsystem affected** The web UI (`ui/src`): issue detail, properties panel, Kanban/thread cards, New Task dialog, issues list Sort/Group/Filter menus, search filter bar/sheet, dashboard charts, and the design-guide showcase. **Problem or motivation** The task/issue priority level appears across many surfaces and adds visual clutter and decision overhead without pulling its weight in normal task flow. We want it gone from the interface without discarding the underlying data or breaking anything that depends on it. **Proposed solution** Add a single compile-time UI flag, `SHOW_TASK_PRIORITY_UI` (default `false`), and gate every priority indicator and control behind it. Leave the data model, API params, Zod validation (including the `"medium"` default), and the search filter DSL untouched. Reviving priority is a one-line flip of the flag back to `true`. **Alternatives considered** Deleting the priority code and schema outright. Rejected: it is irreversible, needs a data migration, and throws away a field the API and search still support. A gated flag keeps the change reversible and low risk. **Roadmap alignment** UI simplification. This is a presentation-only change; it does not alter core agent or data behavior. ## What Changed - Added `ui/src/lib/ui-flags.ts` exporting `SHOW_TASK_PRIORITY_UI: boolean = false` (typed `boolean` so gated branches are not flagged as dead code). - Gated the priority row in the Triage properties panel and the editable priority control in the issue detail header (plus its skeleton seed). - Gated the per-card priority icon in `KanbanBoard` and in `IssueThreadInteractionCard`. - Hid the priority chip and the mobile "more" menu priority section in the New Task dialog. The submit path still sends the `"medium"` default. - Removed the Priority options from the issues list Sort and Group-by menus; the comparator and grouping logic stay dormant. - Hid the Priority sections in the issue filters popover and in the search filter bar and sheet. The `priority:` search DSL and filter state stay functional at the data layer. - Suppressed active-filter priority pills for consistency. - Gated the "Tasks by Priority" dashboard chart and the design-guide priority showcase subsection. - Left activity-feed "changed priority" history text intact as a historical record. - Updated call-site tests to assert priority UI is absent while the flag is off, added focused hidden-surface tests, and added a test that proves creating a task still persists `priority: "medium"`. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all 3 gates clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run` on the touched surfaces (IssueProperties, IssueFiltersPopover, IssuesList, NewIssueDialog, IssueDetail, PriorityIcon and its interaction test) — all green under `TZ=UTC`. - Manual: with the flag off, priority does not appear in the detail header, Triage panel, New Task composer, Sort/Group/Filter menus, or the dashboard chart. Creating a task still persists `priority: "medium"`, and the `priority:` search token still filters at the data layer. ## Risks Low risk. The change is presentation-only and additive: no data model, API, validation, or search-DSL changes. The priority code paths remain compiled and tested; flipping `SHOW_TASK_PRIORITY_UI` to `true` restores the full UI. Visual snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated per the `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` entry "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, with tool use / code execution in an agentic coding harness. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-06 16:19:22 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	f554d67377	fix(server): add explicit review verdict policies (#10931) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issues use `in_review` to request a final decision from an authorized writer > - The server rejected an assignee agent that tried to close its own review, even when the issue had no independent-review rule > - This rejection stopped the default agent workflow and did not represent the configured execution-stage rules > - Paperclip needs an open default and explicit issue-level constraints for teams that require an independent or human verdict > - This pull request removes the unconditional rejection and adds `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only` review policies > - The benefit is a working default path with opt-in, authenticated verdict controls ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10635, #4429, and #10671. The related public work covers execution-stage independence, self-approval fallback behavior, and durable review paths. This change is distinct. It controls who can resolve an issue review verdict. It keeps configured execution stages active. ## What Changed - Added a nullable `review_policy` issue column. Null has the same meaning as `anyone`. The migration does not backfill existing issues. - Added shared create, update, response, and compact issue contracts for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Removed the unconditional agent self-approval rejection for `in_review` issues. - Added one reusable verdict-actor check for terminal status changes and pending interaction accept or reject actions. - Used the authenticated principal type for `human_only`. Agent keys and run tokens remain agent principals. - Used the latest transition into `in_review` to identify the requester for `not_creator`. - Added actionable 403 responses that name the policy, the allowed actor, and the next step. - Kept the configured execution-stage transition and signoff behavior. - Added focused contract, helper, status-route, interaction-route, and execution-stage regression tests. - Updated the implementation specification for the new issue field. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 42 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed across server, CLI, plugin SDK/examples, plugin wiki, and UI. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - SecurityEngineer review approved the authenticated-principal checks and accepted policy-relaxation tradeoff with no required changes. - Greptile reviewed the latest head at 5/5 with zero inline comments or follow-ups. - The latest-head GitHub rollup passed build, typecheck, server/workspace tests, serialized suites, canary, e2e, and external security checks. ## Risks - The migration adds one nullable text column. It has no default and no backfill. - `not_creator` reads the latest recorded transition into `in_review`. It denies the verdict when it cannot identify the requester. - Agents can change or relax `reviewPolicy` when they have issue write access. This is intentional for this issue-level control. - Null and `anyone` do not add a database query to the verdict path. - Configured execution-stage checks still run after the issue-level policy check. > This work aligns with the completed "Agent Reviews and Approvals" and "Enforced Outcomes" roadmap items. It does not add a new roadmap capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed to the agent. The run used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub CLI access. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-05 23:12:41 -05:00
scotttongandClaude Opus 4.8	f950952de7	fix: reliably show plans in the Plan pane and restore sticky plan confirmation CTAs (#10930) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Chat-style tasks show an agent's plan in a dedicated "Plan" pane, and a plan confirmation lets the user accept or request changes to that plan > - When an agent asked for confirmation but never actually published the plan document (it only wrote the plan in a comment or a question), the Plan pane rendered empty, and the confirmation call-to-action that used to sit pinned at the bottom of the pane had disappeared > - A user asked to confirm a plan they cannot see, with no visible CTA, is stuck — the feature silently fails > - This pull request closes the gap on both sides: it prevents plan confirmations that don't point at a real, latest plan revision, it teaches agents to publish the plan document before confirming, and it restores the sticky confirmation action bar and an explanatory empty state so the pane never goes silently blank > - The benefit is that when a plan is expected, it reliably shows up in the right pane with reachable accept/revise actions ## Linked Issues or Issue Description <!-- No public GitHub issue exists; describing in-PR per the bug template. --> **Bug report** - **What happened:** A task in planning mode could present a plan confirmation while the Plan pane stayed empty (no plan document rendered), and the plan-card confirmation CTAs that were previously pinned to the bottom of the Plan pane no longer appeared. - **Expected behavior:** When a plan is expected, the plan document appears in the Plan pane; when a plan is genuinely missing, the pane explains why rather than showing nothing; and the accept/request-changes CTAs stay visible and reachable while the plan scrolls. - **Steps to reproduce:** Put a task in planning mode with the chat-style task view enabled, have an agent create a plan confirmation without first publishing the `plan` document, and open the Plan tab — the pane is blank and the confirmation actions are missing. - **Deployment mode:** Local dev and self-hosted; UI + server. Related PR (not a duplicate): #9609 "Pin pending confirmations by composer" pins confirmations in a different surface (the composer); this PR restores the Plans-pane action bar and the server/agent guarantees behind it. ## What Changed - **Server:** Reject a `request_confirmation` whose target is a plan document unless a plan document exists and the target points at its *latest* revision, so a confirmation can never reference a plan the pane cannot render (`readPlanTarget` is now exported for reuse). - **Agent instructions:** The CEO and default agent instruction bundles now spell out a plan-publish contract — publish the `plan` document, re-`GET` it and capture `latestRevisionId`, then create the confirmation targeting that revision; never present a plan only in a thread comment or via `ask_user_questions`. - **UI — sticky CTAs:** Restore the plan confirmation action bar pinned to the bottom of the Plans tab so accept/revise stay reachable while the plan scrolls. - **UI — diagnostics:** Keep the Plan tab visible whenever an issue is in planning mode (even before a plan document exists) and show an empty state explaining why the pane is empty instead of rendering nothing. - **UI — annotations:** Add a `panelPlacement="inline"` mode so the plan-document annotation panel renders in document flow instead of as a floating side panel when hosted in the narrow task properties pane. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 CLEAN - `pnpm typecheck` → clean (all packages) - UI: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/issue-properties/IssuePlanConfirmationActionBar.test.tsx src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx` → 69 passed - Server: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts` → 60 passed - Manual: with a planning-mode task, the Plan tab stays visible, shows the plan document (or a diagnostic empty state), and the confirmation CTAs stay pinned at the bottom. Visual note: snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated — per `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". The `storybook-visual` label is intentionally not added. ## Risks Low-to-moderate. The server change adds a validation gate on plan-document confirmations: an interaction that targets a stale or nonexistent plan revision is now rejected with a 422 instead of being created. This is the intended guarantee, but any caller that relied on creating such confirmations will now need to publish the plan document first (which the updated agent instructions cover). UI changes are additive to the Plans tab and gated by the existing chat-style-task experimental flag. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, with tool use (file editing, shell, test execution). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-05 19:32:07 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	72b509c895	Recognize delivered workspaces and reap terminal worktrees (#10908) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip separates workspace provisioning lifecycle from whether the work was actually delivered. > - Git ancestry alone cannot recognize squash merges or deliveries into a branch other than the workspace base. > - A merged pull request linked from a terminal issue is stronger delivery evidence for those cases. > - The read contract should expose that evidence without changing persisted workspace schema. > - Cleanup must remain conservative: terminal descendants, delivered work, and no active run checkout are all required. > - Reusing the existing cleanup primitives keeps service shutdown, lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival behavior consistent. > - Focused regression coverage locks in both the honest read signal and the fail-closed reaper guards. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Execution workspace close-readiness payloads and terminal workspace cleanup. **Current behavior** Delivered squash-merged or cross-branch workspaces can remain `active` and report a permanent “not merged” warning because git ancestry does not contain their original commits. **Proposed behavior** Read payloads distinguish PR-confirmed delivery, ancestry delivery, unmerged work, and unknown state. Fully terminal delivered workspace trees are archived only when no active run holds the checkout. **Reason and benefit** Operators and automation receive an honest delivery signal, while shipped worktrees stop looking active forever and genuinely unmerged work retains its warning. **Breaking changes** The workspace payload gains a derived field. Existing fields and persistence remain unchanged; no database migration is required. **What happened?** A delivered workspace can remain `active` and warn that it is not merged forever after its issue ships through a squash or cross-branch pull request. **Expected behavior** Pull-request delivery should be represented honestly, and a fully terminal delivered workspace should become cleanup-eligible when no run holds its checkout. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an issue workspace with commits ahead of its configured base. 2. Deliver those commits with a squash merge or into a different target branch. 3. Mark the source issue and descendants done, then read workspace close readiness. Before this change, the workspace remains active with a “not merged” warning indefinitely. ## What Changed - Added the derived `deliveryState` workspace contract: `merged_via_pr`, `merged_by_ancestry`, `unmerged`, or `unknown`. - Extracted a shared GitHub pull-request merge classifier and reused it for merge confirmations and workspace delivery checks. - Suppressed false ancestry warnings when a terminal issue has ground-truth merged-PR evidence. - Added an idempotent terminality reaper with descendant-terminal, active-run, and delivered-work guards. - Restricted PR delivery evidence to the source issue, then required live merged state plus matching GitHub repository, head branch, and current workspace HEAD; persisted status, stale PRs, lexical mentions, inbound references, and descendant PRs cannot authorize cleanup. - Preserved workspaces with modified or untracked files even when their committed HEAD was delivered. - Bounded both long-lived pull-request state caches to 1,000 entries with oldest-entry eviction. - Routed eligible workspaces through existing runtime shutdown, lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival machinery with exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks plus non-forced removal. - Added regression coverage for delivery derivation, warning behavior, reaper guards, scheduler wiring, and squash/cross-branch delivery. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 63 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts --reporter=verbose` after review hardening — 43 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts --reporter=dot` on the final local head — 73 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 15 passed - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` — server 3,662 passed (4 skipped), UI 3,599 passed, CLI 327 passed, shared 415 passed, and skills catalog 20 passed; the aggregate DB stage ran both source and built copies of one unrelated embedded-Postgres migration test and both reached its 5-second timeout - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/status-card-migrations.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — isolated aggregate-timeout verification passed in 3.99 seconds - `NODE_ENV=production pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks The reaper intentionally fails closed when issue terminality, pull-request state, git ancestry, or checkout ownership cannot be proven. GitHub lookups can delay classification and cleanup but cannot cause an unproven workspace to be archived. Automated terminal archival holds exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks across validation and removal, skips configured destructive hooks, and uses non-forced removal so dirty writes fail closed. Reopening a source issue does not restore an archived workspace; it emits an audit event so a human or agent can re-provision explicitly. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. Reasoning, tool use, repository editing, test execution, and GitHub CLI access were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-05 16:34:04 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	185515c97b	fix(external-objects): refresh PR status labels (#10704) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue properties panel can show external objects such as GitHub pull requests. > - Those objects are resolved by external-object providers and then displayed as compact status labels. > - A GitHub pull request could remain in the fallback `unknown` state and appear as `Not yet resolved`. > - That label is confusing when the object is known but has not been refreshed yet. > - This pull request refreshes due external objects from the heartbeat scheduler and improves the unknown-status copy. > - The benefit is a properties panel that moves from pending refresh to the real pull request state without a manual refresh. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. I searched for related public issues and pull requests using the terms `Not yet refreshed`, `external objects refresh`, and `external PR status`, and did not find a duplicate implementation. **What happened?** The issue properties panel could show a GitHub pull request as `Not yet resolved` even when the referenced pull request was valid. The object stayed stale unless a manual refresh path ran. **Expected behavior** A known external object should show pending-refresh copy while it waits for provider data. When the scheduler refreshes it, the properties panel should show the provider status such as open, merged, or closed. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create or view an issue that references a GitHub pull request. 2. Open the issue properties panel. 3. Observe the external object row before a manual refresh has run. **Paperclip version or commit** Current `master` before this pull request. **Deployment mode** Local dev and self-hosted server. **Installation method** Built from source. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. **Database mode** Not database-related. **Access context** Board view. **Privacy checklist** I reviewed this description and did not include logs, credentials, private URLs, internal issue IDs, or PII. ## What Changed - Added a heartbeat scheduler tick that refreshes due external objects for active companies. - Kept manual external-object refresh behavior on the same service path. - Changed display copy so known provider objects use liveness labels such as `Not yet refreshed`, while fresh unknown provider statuses show `Status unavailable`. - Added server and UI tests for scheduled refresh and label behavior. ## Verification - `corepack pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts ui/src/components/ExternalObjectPill.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` - GitHub PR checks passed on head `0e7fcd30` - Greptile reported 5/5 on head `0e7fcd30` with no unresolved review threads Notes: - I ran recursive typecheck and build first. Both hit container resource limits with exit 137 during concurrent package work, so I reran the affected server and UI targets separately. - An unrelated workspace-runtime auto-port test fails in this container with a PID ownership mismatch. It is outside the files changed here. ## Risks Low to medium risk. The scheduler does more periodic external-object work, so the main risk is extra provider refresh load. The implementation bounds the work to active companies, due non-terminal objects, and 50 objects per company per tick. The path also stays behind the external-objects experimental setting. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex in the Codex execution environment, with shell and GitHub CLI tool use. The runtime did not expose a more specific internal model ID or context window. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-02 20:24:52 -07:00
Nicky Leach	564870020b	Exclude archived projects from the default project list route (#10146)	2026-07-24 07:19:58 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	53d6297f75	fix(ui): simplify external object labels and star controls (#9929) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI agents and their work > - Operators rely on task detail properties and header actions to scan linked resources and make quick decisions > - External GitHub objects used a long pull-request label and repeated mention counts that added visual noise without adding state > - The task-detail star action also rendered as a labelled outline button, unlike the compact star controls used elsewhere > - These inconsistencies made dense task-detail surfaces slower to scan and broke Paperclip's content-first visual language > - This pull request shortens the GitHub pull-request label, removes duplicate mention-count decoration, and aligns the detail star action with the icon-only control pattern > - The benefit is a calmer, more consistent task-detail experience with accessible labels preserved for assistive technology ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue or open pull request was found. **What happened?** On the task detail surface, linked GitHub pull requests were labelled `Github Pull Request` and could show a repeated `×N` mention count. The detail-header star control used a labelled outline button rather than the compact icon-only star pattern. **Expected behavior** Linked pull requests should use the concise `Github PR` label without duplicate mention-count decoration, and the detail star action should render as an accessible icon-only ghost button consistent with neighboring controls. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task with a linked GitHub pull request mentioned more than once. 2. Inspect the external-object property label and value row. 3. Inspect the star action in the task detail header. **Paperclip version or commit:** `230126d80b` (`master` at preparation time) **Deployment / installation:** Local development, built from source. **Scope:** Core UI; not adapter-specific, database-related, or configuration-related. ## What Changed - Render GitHub pull-request property labels as `Github PR`. - Remove repeated external-object mention-count decoration from property values. - Render detail-header star controls as icon-only ghost buttons while preserving `aria-label`, pressed, busy, error, and tooltip states. - Expand component coverage for concise labels, duplicate-count suppression, visual variants, and accessible star actions. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/StarToggle.test.tsx` — 54 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Visual review (before/after plus normal, starred, pending, and error states): https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://gist.githubusercontent.com/cryppadotta/9688862a8826c1134aa2b2e8c16509d8/raw/45cb4921851f8968b21e7490e0d705161a9e165d/star-toggle-review.html - `pnpm check:token-gates` — reports five existing `#9627` violations in files unchanged by this PR; the same values are present on `master`. ## Risks - Low risk: changes are limited to task-detail presentation and tests. - The star action remains fully accessible through its existing ARIA label and tooltip, but it no longer displays visible text. - External-object mention counts remain available in data; only the redundant property-row decoration is removed. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.3 Codex, tool-enabled coding agent with repository and shell access. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-21 09:14:29 -05:00
3 people	f12bb27bcd	feat: make issue monitors visible across task surfaces (#9783) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to supervise AI-agent companies. > - Operators need task execution state to be visible where they read, reply to, and manage an issue. > - Scheduled monitor state was easy to miss because it lived in a description-area card and used inconsistent, mostly static time copy. > - The task page, composer, retry card, and properties panel therefore needed one shared monitor-state and countdown language. > - This pull request adds shared live-ticking time utilities, moves monitor status into a top-of-page banner and composer strip, and redesigns the properties row with complete read-only details. > - The benefit is that operators can immediately understand when an agent resumes, why it is waiting, and how to act without hunting across the page. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Issue monitors can schedule a future agent check, retry, or wake, but the UI did not present that state consistently or prominently. The existing description-area activity card competed with issue content, the composer did not explain that replying wakes the agent early, compact properties copy truncated important details, and relative times did not share a live two-unit formatter. This change makes scheduled monitor state visible and consistent across the issue header, reply composer, properties panel, and scheduled-retry card. Related prior server-side recovery visibility work: #9629 (distinct scope). ## What Changed - Added shared two-unit monitor ETA/offset formatters and a live-ticking countdown hook, including compact absolute-time rules for Today, weekday, and cross-year dates. - Replaced the description-area monitor activity card with a top-of-page status banner and added an inline composer strip that explains replies wake the agent before the scheduled check. - Redesigned the properties Monitor row as readable two-line copy with attempt state, due/overdue/cleared wording, click-to-edit behavior, and a hover/tap details tooltip. - Adopted the shared two-unit formatting in the scheduled-retry card and added focused coverage for monitor formatting, state transitions, visibility, and controls. - Added the approved wireframe package and published reference: https://pages.paperclip.ing/pap-14557-monitor-visibility/ ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-monitor.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueMonitorBanner.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 3 files, 74 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed with existing Vite optimization/chunk-size warnings. - UX review approved the rendered real components across desktop/mobile, light/dark, and the scheduled/retrying/due/overdue/cleared/none state matrix. - QA passed 6/6 criteria in Chromium, including a live countdown transition without refresh. Review evidence included the P2 banner state-matrix screenshot and the P3 properties-row and details-tooltip screenshots, plus a dark-mode capture. - `pnpm check:token-gates` currently reports five pre-existing `#9627` comment literals on `origin/master`; this branch introduces none of those literals or any new token violation. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate UI behavior risk: monitor copy and placement change across several issue surfaces, but all derive from one shared state builder and focused tests cover the state matrix. - Countdown rendering wakes once per minute while a visible monitor is scheduled; the hook is limited to active monitor surfaces and stops when hidden. - No database, API contract, migration, telemetry, or authorization behavior changes. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5.6-sol`; context-window metadata was unavailable in this runtime; reasoning, repository tool use, command execution, and test execution enabled. Earlier implementation commits were assisted by Claude Fable 5 and Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context), as credited in their commit trailers. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-18 14:39:37 -05:00
3 people	59fb27ff79	feat(inbox): let agents safely tidy user inboxes (#9724) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work > - The inbox is a per-user attention view, so archiving an item must not alter the underlying issue, assignment, or status > - Agents can help responsible users tidy resolved work only when the action is company-scoped, reversible, policy-controlled, and fully attributable > - The database and authorization foundations landed in #9654 and #9658, but the end-to-end archive routes, audit details, agent workflow guidance, and operator UI still need to ship together > - Separate stacked PRs #9659 and #9661 made the complete behavior harder to review and land as one coherent capability > - This pull request consolidates the remaining server, shared-contract, documentation, skill, and UI work on top of current master > - The benefit is a single reviewable change that lets agents safely archive responsible-user inbox items and lets users control or undo that behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting inbox management across shared contracts, server authorization/routes/services, shipped agent skills, and the board UI. ### Problem or motivation Agents may complete work whose issue remains in the responsible user's Mine inbox. Existing board-user archive behavior does not provide the agent-facing policy endpoints, target resolution, heartbeat-run attribution, typed denials, conservative workflow guidance, or UI needed for safe agent-managed cleanup. ### Proposed solution Allow authorized agents to archive or unarchive responsible-user inbox items under the user's open, allowlist, or disabled policy; preserve actor/agent/run attribution in issue detail and activity records; expose policy controls and agent archive attribution in the UI; and document conservative cleanup rules for agents and PR gardening. ### Alternatives considered - Reuse generic issue mutation permissions: rejected because inbox state belongs to a target user and requires user-scoped authorization. - Automatically archive every completed or closed item: rejected because completion signals can still require human review or a decision. - Keep the backend and UI as separate stacked PRs: superseded by this consolidated PR so the complete user-visible behavior can be reviewed and verified together. ### Related work - Builds on merged foundations #9654 and #9658. - Supersedes the remaining stacked changes in #9659 and #9661. - `ROADMAP.md` has no overlapping inbox archive or inbox authorization initiative. ## What Changed - Added shared inbox-agent policy types and validators plus company-scoped self-service policy routes and OpenAPI coverage. - Enabled agent archive/unarchive mutations with responsible-user targeting, policy enforcement, typed failures, attribution, idempotency, and detailed activity auditing. - Returned agent archive attribution in issue detail and documented reversible inbox cleanup semantics in the implementation spec and Paperclip skill. - Added conservative PR-gardening inbox tidy guidance that keeps GitHub access read-only and avoids archiving work that still needs human action. - Added the Profile settings policy control and Issue Properties attribution/unarchive UI with focused component coverage and narrow-pane handling. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-agent-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/InboxAgentPolicyControl.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 110 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/inbox-archive-agent-policies-migration.test.ts` — 1 passed. - `node --test .agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` — 9 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — changed files are clean; the repository-wide command currently reports nine unrelated pre-existing `#9627` literals outside this PR's diff. ## Risks - Agent inbox mutations broaden an existing endpoint path, so authorization and target resolution must remain fail-closed; focused route and authorization tests cover allowed and denied paths. - Archive state affects only the responsible user's inbox presentation and remains reversible; it does not mutate issue status, assignment, or visibility. - The UI policy defaults to the existing open behavior, while allowlist and disabled modes can reduce agent access. - This PR intentionally builds on #9654 and #9658 and contains no new migration number or modification to an already-applied migration. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using GPT-5.4, medium reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, code review, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (`feat/inbox-agent-archive-complete`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-16 16:49:18 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	89af58b6dc	Clarify task-level model overrides in issue properties (#9710) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane where operators configure and inspect AI-agent work. > - An issue can override the assigned agent's primary model for that task. > - The issue-properties UI labeled that per-task setting as `Custom · <model>`, which could be read as a property of the model rather than a replacement of the agent default. > - Operators need the UI to distinguish the agent's primary model from an issue-specific override at both the collapsed summary and selection point. > - This pull request renames the lane presentation to `Override` and adds concise provenance text without changing the stored lane value or adapter configuration behavior. > - The benefit is that operators can immediately understand which model will run and why it differs from the agent default. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue was found. Related implementation work: #9700 moved Codex ACPX model configuration to startup and is already on `master`; #9355 also addresses ACP session-config rejection behavior. Those PRs concern execution behavior, while this PR is limited to clarifying the issue-level override UI. Bug report details: - **What happened?** The issue-properties Model row displayed `Custom · <model>` for a task-level `assigneeAdapterOverrides.adapterConfig.model`. Operators could misread `Custom` as describing the model itself and could not see that the value replaced the agent's primary model for this issue. - **Expected behavior:** The UI should explicitly identify a task-level model as an override and explain that it replaces the agent's primary model for the issue. - **Steps to reproduce:** Configure an agent with a primary model, set a different model on an issue, and inspect the Model row and model picker in Issue Properties. - **Paperclip version or commit:** Reproduced on the pre-change branch derived from current `master`. - **Deployment mode:** Local development or any deployment using the board UI. - **Installation method:** Built from source. - **Agent adapters involved:** Adapter-agnostic; any adapter exposing model selection. - **Database mode:** Not database-related. - **Access context:** Board operator viewing issue properties. - **Relevant logs or output:** Not applicable; this is a presentation ambiguity. - **Relevant config:** An issue-level `assigneeAdapterOverrides.adapterConfig.model` differing from the assigned agent's primary model. - **Additional context:** The internal lane identifier remains `custom`; only user-facing copy and explanatory text change. - **Privacy checklist:** No private instance links, internal ticket IDs, secrets, usernames, or local paths are included. ## What Changed - Renamed the collapsed issue model label from `Custom · <model>` to `Override · <model>` and added a provenance tooltip. - Renamed the model-picker lane from `Custom` to `Override` and added explanatory subtext at the selection point. - Updated the Issue Properties component test to assert the new label. - Added an isolated Storybook fixture for the task model override state so visual review has a stable target. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 43 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — the changed files are clean, but the repo-wide command currently reports nine unrelated `#9627` comment references already present on `master` as color literals. ## Risks - Low risk: this changes display strings and explanatory copy only; override storage, lane identifiers, API contracts, and execution behavior are unchanged. - The global token-gate false positive may also appear in CI until the unrelated `#9627` references on `master` are allowlisted or the scanner ignores issue-number comments. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent assisted this PR preparation using medium reasoning, repository-aware shell execution, Git/GitHub tooling, and local test/typecheck execution. The hosted runtime did not expose an exact model ID or context-window size 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>	2026-07-16 15:53:03 -05:00
3 people	5c85ae64a0	Cases: experimental first-class case object (#9198) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board currently uses issues for execution, but longer-lived content work needs a separate object that can survive beyond a single task thread. > - The Cases subsystem adds an experimental, company-scoped record for content artifacts and their supporting metadata. > - The backend needs durable storage, API routes, revision history, issue linkage, and company-boundary enforcement before the UI can depend on Cases. > - The UI needs an opt-in navigation surface, list/detail views, reference chips, and issue-page context so operators can inspect Cases without making them the default workflow. > - The agent-facing skills need a contract for creating and updating Cases so automated content workflows can dogfood the feature. > - This pull request ships that experimental end-to-end path behind the `enableCases` flag. > - The benefit is a first-class place to collect content work, references, attachments, revisions, and related execution threads without polluting the core issue model. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this experimental feature. Feature request fields: ### Problem Content-oriented work such as release notes, announcements, docs, and campaigns can span many execution issues, which makes the final artifact hard to find and reason about after the execution thread moves on. ### Proposed solution Add an experimental Cases object that is company-scoped, linked to issues, queryable through the API, inspectable in the board UI, and writable by agent workflows through documented conventions. ### Alternatives considered Continue encoding content artifacts directly in issues or documents only. That keeps the data model smaller, but it does not give operators a stable artifact-centric view or a clean way to link related execution history. ### Roadmap alignment Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned core roadmap item. ## What Changed - Added the `cases` data model, migration, schema exports, and experimental `enableCases` instance setting. - Added company-scoped Cases API routes for list/detail/update, issue links, revisions, children, activity events, annotations, attachments, and idempotent agent-oriented upserts. - Scoped case and issue lookup helpers before access checks so inaccessible cross-company identifiers resolve as not found rather than leaking existence. - Fixed case PATCH timestamp handling so non-status updates cannot overwrite `completedAt` from a stale pre-transaction row snapshot. - Moved Cases list type/status/project filters into the server request before the server-side limit is applied, including multi-select filters and no-project filtering. - Added backend route coverage for creation, updates, idempotency, issue linking, attribution, company-boundary enforcement, OpenAPI registration, list filtering, timestamp patch behavior, and inaccessible lookup regressions. - Added the experimental Cases UI surface: sidebar entry, gated routes, list filters/grouping, detail overview, activity, revisions, children, attachments, and issue-page case rail. - Added case reference rendering and company-prefixed case href generation so case links resolve directly inside the active company route. - Added Paperclip skill documentation for agent workflows that create or update Cases. - Wired release-content skills to emit Cases for dogfooding. - Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the Cases migrations to `0143`/`0144` after the latest upstream migration sequence. ## Verification - Current PR head: `ecc13be0d`. - Rebased on current `master` (`606aa4f266`) and pushed to the existing PR branch. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed before the first update push; subsequent committed diffs were also checked with `git diff --check` before commit. - Guardrails checked: no `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes, no `.github/workflows` changes, and changed-file count is below the Greptile 100-file limit. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed, 3 files / 26 tests before review-fix commits. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts` — passed after each server-side Greptile fix, latest 1 file / 15 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed after the timestamp and lookup fixes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Cases.test.tsx src/pages/CaseDetail.test.tsx src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx src/App.cases-routing.test.tsx` — passed, 4 files / 30 tests before review-fix commits. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Cases.test.tsx` — passed after the list-filter fix, 1 file / 12 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after the list-filter fix. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed after UI changes. - Remote PR checks on head `ecc13be0d` are green: Paperclip CI, build, typecheck, test matrix, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, commit review, Superagent Security Scan, Socket, Snyk, and Greptile passed; Storybook visual regression is skipped and security-review is neutral. - Greptile Review: 5/5 confidence, zero unresolved Greptile threads. ## Risks - Medium feature risk because this introduces a new experimental domain object across database, server, shared contracts, skills, and UI. - The feature is gated behind `enableCases`, which limits default operator exposure while the model is exercised. - Case links now prefer company-prefixed hrefs; the unprefixed redirect remains for externally entered URLs. - Cases list filtering now sends multi-select filters to the server before limiting; the UI still applies the same local filters as a second pass for ancestor/context rows. - Migrations were renumbered on top of current master; the SQL uses guarded `IF NOT EXISTS` / `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` patterns where relevant for safer replay. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex in the Paperclip local coding environment was used for this PR curation, rebase verification, review-fix implementation, push, and PR description update. The runtime exposes tool use and shell execution; context-window size is not exposed by this Paperclip adapter. Several implementation commits also include AI co-author trailers recorded in git history. ## 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 searched the GitHub PR list for similar PRs and confirmed this is not a duplicate - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-09 22:11:03 -05:00
3 people	ad961227f5	feat(secrets): add user-specific runtime secrets (#8825) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other environment-bound secrets. > - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not model values that should differ by human operator. > - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value. > - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped runtime checks deterministic and auditable. > - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime resolution gates. > - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required user secrets or active definitions are unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #224 Refs #6057 This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time. Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as #1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here. ## What Changed - Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values, keeping stored values out of access metadata. - Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to pick them alongside existing secret refs. - Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve against the human responsible for the run. - Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are inactive. - Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access. - Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be resolved. - Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures. - Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes. - Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127` migrations. - Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR contains code/docs/tests only. ## Verification - PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on `paperclipai/paperclip:master`. - PASS: `git diff --check` - PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg '^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true` produced no files. - PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130` with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`, `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`, `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`. - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests) - PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final Greptile cleanup fixes) - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests after the final rebase CI fix) - PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery, project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors, watchdog, and stale queue paths. - PASS: GitHub checks are green on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review. - PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5, and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated threads. ## Risks - Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs before adapter dispatch. - `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind explicitly. - External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side access for non-local vaults. - The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge. - The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream migrations; the branch migrations use guarded column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-05 05:58:20 -05:00
3 people	47448721e1	[codex] Clean up issue properties pane (#8941) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue details sidebar is a high-traffic operator surface for scanning task state, ownership, policy, relationships, and external references. > - The previous properties pane mixed too much behavior in one large component and several rows could overflow or become hard to scan with long labels and relation lists. > - The UI needed a narrower, more reusable structure so compact property rows, relation pills, external URL rows, and picker triggers behave consistently. > - This pull request splits the properties pane into focused helper modules and tightens the pane's layout, truncation, popover, and overflow behavior. > - The benefit is a denser, more stable properties pane that stays usable when issues have long titles, many relationships, external URLs, or execution policy IDs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this work. I searched GitHub issues and PRs for `IssueProperties properties pane`; there was no duplicate issue and the matching PRs were unrelated test stabilization or other work. ### Problem or motivation The board issue details properties pane is a frequent operator workflow surface, but it was implemented as one large component and several rows could become hard to scan with long labels, many relationships, external URLs, or execution policy IDs. ### Proposed solution Split the properties pane into focused modules, tighten compact row layout and truncation behavior, add bounded previews with explicit expansion controls for long relation and URL lists, and make execution policy ID generation work on insecure origins as well as normal browser origins. ### Alternatives considered A smaller patch inside the existing monolithic component would fix individual overflow symptoms, but it would keep related primitives, picker behavior, relation controls, and external URL rendering tangled in one file. The split keeps the behavior easier to test and review without changing public APIs. ### Roadmap alignment This is an incremental UI quality improvement to the existing board task details surface. I checked `ROADMAP.md` and did not find overlapping planned core feature work. ## What Changed - Split the issue properties pane into focused modules for helpers, primitives, relation controls, property pickers, and external object rows. - Cleaned up row spacing, truncation, picker trigger alignment, scroll behavior, status color coverage, and long-value titles. - Added bounded previews and expand/collapse controls for blocking, sub-task, related-task, and external URL lists. - Fixed execution policy ID generation so insecure origins fall back to a stable base URL instead of throwing. - Updated Storybook issue-management stories and expanded unit coverage for the new properties pane behavior. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 38 tests passed ## Risks Low to moderate risk. The changes are UI-only, but they touch a frequently used task details surface. The main risk is a subtle layout regression in an untested viewport or issue shape; the branch adds targeted coverage for long relation and external URL lists. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with repository tool use, shell execution, GitHub CLI access, and local test execution. Context window size was not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-03 14:40:50 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	37c097a474	[codex] Update watchdog properties pane cache (#8786) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue detail surface includes an Issue Properties pane that shows live metadata for a selected issue. > - Watchdog configuration can be changed from that pane, but cached issue detail data also feeds the pane key and rerender behavior. > - If the cache does not reflect watchdog changes immediately, the properties pane can keep stale watchdog state until a later refetch completes. > - This pull request updates the watchdog save/delete paths to write the returned watchdog state into cached issue detail data. > - It also includes watchdog fields in the issue properties panel key so watchdog configuration changes invalidate the memoized panel state. > - The benefit is a properties pane that updates consistently after operators set or remove a watchdog. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #8789 This PR fixes stale watchdog state in the Issue Properties pane after watchdog save/delete mutations. ## What Changed - Write the saved watchdog summary into cached issue detail data after a successful watchdog upsert using the exact `queryKeys.issues.detail(issue.id)` key. - Clear cached issue detail watchdog data after a successful watchdog delete using the exact `queryKeys.issues.detail(issue.id)` key. - Include stable watchdog fields in `buildIssuePropertiesPanelKey` so watchdog configuration changes produce a new panel key. - Add focused tests for watchdog cache updates and panel-key invalidation, including save and delete cache assertions. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/lib/issue-properties-panel-key.test.ts` - Result: 2 files passed, 40 tests passed. ## Risks Low risk. The change is scoped to UI cache handling for issue detail watchdog state and panel-key generation. The main risk is an unexpected query-cache shape, covered by focused tests around the existing issue detail query key. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent running GPT-5-class model with repository tool use and local command execution. The exact backend model identifier and context window are not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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>	2026-06-30 07:54:25 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	ccfd52bd24	Fix generic URL rich object labels (#8662) ... Reviewed by CTO for PAP-12039. Scope is limited to external object URL/link label fallback and focused UI regression coverage; CI and Greptile are green. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-26 13:45:21 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	8e21e31a1a	Fix UI detail regressions (#8613) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI needs to render issue details, comments, properties, and rich external object labels clearly during normal operator workflows. > - Three small UI regressions made those workflows harder to scan: rich object URLs could show weak labels, interrupting comments could briefly flash in the wrong state, and watchdog labels could overflow the properties panel. > - These are related quality fixes in the same UI surface, with focused regression coverage for each behavior. > - This pull request groups the fixes so they go through normal review instead of bypassing CI. > - The benefit is a quieter, more predictable issue detail experience for board operators. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for these regressions after searching related PRs and issues. ### Pre-submission checklist - Existing open and closed GitHub issues and PRs were searched for duplicates. - The fixes are based on current `master` behavior. - The regressions originate in Paperclip board UI code, not an adapter, API provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? In the board UI, three issue-detail regressions made normal review workflows harder to scan: - URL-rich external objects could fall back to a weak generic label instead of showing a useful URL label. - An interrupting issue comment could briefly flash through the wrong state while issue run data refreshed. - Long watchdog property instructions could truncate or overflow instead of wrapping inside the properties panel. ### Expected behavior - URL-rich external objects should surface a clear URL label. - Interrupting comments should stay visually stable while live run state refreshes. - Long watchdog property values should wrap within the available properties panel width. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Open an issue detail view that includes URL-rich external object metadata, an interrupting run/comment state, or long watchdog instructions. 2. Observe the rendered issue detail thread and properties panel. 3. Compare the rendered label, comment state, and watchdog row wrapping against the expected stable/readable behavior above. ### Paperclip version or commit Current `master`, fixed by this PR branch at `1c763001c9a16fa6cf3faad6f58a83c4b202c928`. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`) / board UI. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific (core board UI bug). ### Database mode Not database-related. ### Access context Board operator UI. ### Relevant logs or output Not applicable. ### Relevant config Not applicable. ### Additional context The PR includes focused regression tests for all three behaviors. Browser-visible before/after evidence for the watchdog wrapping change was posted in https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/8613#issuecomment-4794863305. ### Privacy checklist - All pasted output was reviewed for sensitive data; this PR body contains no private config, logs, or internal instance links. ## What Changed - Prefer direct URLs as rich object labels when rendering external object metadata. - Keep interrupting issue comments from flashing through the wrong thread state while issue chat data is refreshing. - Allow watchdog property labels to wrap cleanly inside the issue properties panel. - Added focused regression coverage for the external object helper, issue detail interrupt behavior, and watchdog property wrapping. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` ## Risks Low risk. The changes are scoped to UI rendering/state handling and add regression coverage for the touched behavior. No database, API, workflow, lockfile, or migration changes are included. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex using GPT-5 (`gpt-5`) with repository shell/tool access. The changes were prepared by an AI coding agent with local command execution for git inspection and focused Vitest 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>	2026-06-25 21:55:03 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	e68188c438	fix: upstream deployed document-comment, routine-annotation, workspace & board-polling fixes (#8536) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - This change touches several already-shipped subsystems — document-comment annotations, the selected-agent Conference Room chat surface, routine description annotations, workspace-operation tracking, and the board polling/inbox UI > - A batch of incremental fixes and two small backend additions had accumulated on a local mainline and were deployed to a live instance, but never landed upstream — so each `origin/master` sync kept re-diverging > - Leaving them un-upstreamed means the same delta has to be re-merged on every sync and risks being lost or silently reverted > - This pull request rebases that delta cleanly on top of current `origin/master` (preserving recent upstream work such as reusable sandbox leases and the relation-list collapse controls) and brings it up for review > - The benefit is that mainline and the deployed instance converge, and these fixes/additions get normal review + CI + Greptile coverage ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No single GitHub issue tracks this; it is a bundle of bug fixes and two small feature additions. Following the issue-template fields: **Bug fixes (what was wrong → what this does):** - Document comments rendered out of document order, didn't live-update across clients, swallowed save failures, and lost the markdown text selection on re-render. Now: doc-order sort, live updates, surfaced save-failure state, stable selection across re-renders. - The board polling hot path returned oversized payloads on every poll. Now: an opt-in `summary` projection trims the heartbeat-run list payload. - Assorted UI fixes: sidebar nav peek/streamlining edge cases, markdown file-viewer re-mount/line-height issues on iOS Safari, inbox badge/skill deep-link tab selection, and `⌘.` work-mode cycling on iOS. **Feature additions:** - `workspace_operations.issue_id` — associate a workspace operation with the issue that triggered it (new migration `0106`, schema, service, shared type). - Routine **description annotations** — comment threads on a routine's description document, mirroring issue document annotations (new migration `0107`, `routine_documents` schema, routes/service, editable-sections UI). - Selected-agent **Conference Room chat** surface wiring and live issue-thread updates. **Related PR:** #8229 (`feat(control-plane): add annotation and workspace controls`, draft) covers overlapping annotation/workspace-control territory — flagging it so a reviewer can reconcile the two rather than double-merging. ## What Changed - `feat(workspace)`: `workspace_operations.issue_id` migration + schema/service/type; issue workspace property controls reconciled with upstream's evolved "Service" row. - `feat(routines)`: routine description annotations — `routine_documents` schema, migration `0107`, routes/service, `editable-sections` UI. - `fix(document-comments)`: doc-order sort, live updates, save-failure surfacing, stable markdown selection (+ storybook story, rerender test). - `feat(chat)`: selected-agent Conference Room chat surface and live issue-thread updates (`LiveUpdatesProvider`, `issue-chat-messages`, interactions service). - `perf(board)`: opt-in `summary` projection for the board polling/heartbeat-run list payload, plus assorted sidebar / file-viewer / inbox / IssueProperties UI fixes. Organized into 5 logical commits. Migrations are numbered incrementally after upstream's latest (`0105`) — `0106` then `0107`, no journal collision. ## Verification - Built by 3-way merging the deployed delta onto current `origin/master`; the only merge conflict (`IssueProperties.test.tsx`, two adjacent test blocks) was resolved in favor of upstream's evolved "green service link above the workspace row" layout, which matches the merged component's rendered output. - Confirmed recent upstream work is preserved post-merge: reusable sandbox lease teardown (`#8513`), the IssueProperties relation-list collapse controls, and the sidebar streamlined-nav default. - Confirmed the net diff vs `origin/master` is exactly the intended feature delta (65 files) and that overlapping server files (`issues.ts`, `agents.ts`, `heartbeat.ts`) only add feature code without disturbing upstream logic. - This delta is already running on a live deployed instance. - Full typecheck/test suite + Greptile to run in CI (see checklist). ## Risks - Two new migrations (`0106`, `0107`). Both are additive (new table / new nullable column) and ordered after upstream's `0105`; no data backfill, low risk. If another migration-bearing PR merges first, renumber before merge. - Largest blast radius is in the merged overlapping UI/service files; covered by the existing test suites for those files plus CI. - Overlaps thematically with draft PR #8229 — reviewers should reconcile rather than merge both blindly. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, with tool use (git, shell). Agentic coding workflow. ## 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) - [ ] 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>	2026-06-23 09:00:14 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2dbaf4a7fa	External object references across issue surfaces (#8512) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI agents, issues, approvals, comments, and work products. > - The involved subsystem is issue context: markdown links, issue properties, related work, lists, filters, inbox/sidebar status, and plugin-provided external context. > - The gap is that URLs to external systems currently remain mostly plain links, so humans and agents must manually open them to understand status, identity, and liveness. > - This matters because external work objects such as GitHub issues and pull requests are part of the operational state of a Paperclip company. > - The implementation keeps core provider-neutral: shared contracts, storage, sync, routes, and UI surfaces live in core while providers can contribute detection and status resolution. > - This pull request adds the external object reference foundation, GitHub provider support, issue-surface rendering, filters, sidebar/list/inbox signals, and test/story coverage. > - The benefit is that linked external work becomes inspectable Paperclip context without hardcoding every provider directly into the UI. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work. Feature request: - Problem: URLs in Paperclip issues, comments, documents, and related surfaces do not expose provider status or object identity inline. - Proposed behavior: detect supported external object URLs, persist normalized references, refresh provider status, and render concise status-aware links across issue surfaces. - Users affected: board users, agents, and maintainers who triage issues containing external work links. - Acceptance: external object references are company-scoped, provider-extensible, visible in key issue surfaces, filterable where relevant, and covered by focused shared/server/UI tests. Related PR search: - No open duplicate PRs found for `external object references`. - Closed related prior attempt: #4556. ## What Changed - Added shared external-object contracts, validators, status/liveness helpers, and plugin protocol declarations. - Added database schema and additive migrations for external objects, source mentions, and display metadata. - Added server services/routes for detecting, syncing, summarizing, refreshing, and resolving external objects across issues, documents, comments, projects, and plugins. - Added a GitHub external-object provider plus plugin SDK authoring docs. - Wired UI presentation across markdown links, comments, issue chat, documents, properties, related work, issue rows, filters, inbox/sidebar badges, and Storybook stories. - Rebasing cleanup: moved the branch onto current `master`, repaired stale worktree provision config, hardened environment-sensitive tests/mocks, and removed committed screenshot artifacts from the PR branch to keep the reviewable file set below tool limits. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/external-objects.test.ts server/src/__tests__/external-object-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts ui/src/components/ExternalObjectPill.test.tsx ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts` passed after rebasing: 5 files, 56 tests. - Historical branch verification before this PR creation included `pnpm test:run`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`; this PR body does not claim those were rerun after the final rebase. ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new cross-surface sync path on issue/document/comment writes. The implementation uses safe sync wrappers so external-object failures warn instead of blocking core mutations. - Medium: the migrations introduce new tables and indexes. They are additive and company-scoped. - Medium: provider-specific URL parsing can miss or misclassify edge cases. Shared canonicalization tests and provider tests cover current GitHub shapes. - Low: UI badge/filter behavior could add visual noise for object-heavy issues; component tests and Storybook stories cover the intended surfaces. > Roadmap checked: `ROADMAP.md` references the plugin system as the current extension path and does not list a duplicate core feature. Related long-range docs discuss external references, work products, preview URLs, and plugin extension points; this PR implements the scoped external-object reference foundation. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding-agent runtime, with shell and GitHub CLI tool use. Reasoning mode: medium. Exact deployed runtime model ID and context window were not exposed in the environment. ## 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>	2026-06-23 08:27:19 -05:00
Dotta	1ca3331c33	[codex] Fix mobile issue chat spacing (#8493) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue page is one of the main surfaces where operators read agent updates and manage task relationships. > - On narrow mobile viewports, agent chat bubbles kept the desktop `max-w-[85%]` cap, leaving the right side overly indented. > - The same issue sidebar can also become noisy when many blockers or sub-tasks are attached to a task. > - This pull request adjusts the mobile chat bubble width while preserving the existing desktop cap. > - It also limits long issue-relation previews until the operator expands them, then allows collapsing them again. > - The benefit is a denser, more readable mobile issue page without changing the underlying issue data model. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this internal report. Bug report: - On mobile issue pages, agent chat bubbles are unnecessarily narrow because the desktop max-width applies at all breakpoints. - Long blocked-by and sub-task relation lists can dominate the issue properties area before the operator needs the full list. - Related prior work: #4861 improved issue-thread scale and markdown polish, but did not address this mobile bubble width regression. ## What Changed - Added a responsive agent-comment bubble width class so mobile bubbles use `max-w-[calc(100%-0.5rem)]` and desktop keeps `sm:max-w-[85%]`. - Added test coverage for the responsive agent bubble classes. - Added a five-item preview limit for blocked-by and sub-task relation pills in issue properties. - Added an inline `and N more...` / `show less` toggle for long blocked-by and sub-task relation lists. - Reset relation preview expansion when the `IssueProperties` panel receives a different `issue.id`. - Added component test coverage for collapsed, expanded, re-collapsed, and issue-switch reset states. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` (`27 passed`). - Attempted: `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx`. - Result: failed before reaching the changed assertion because the existing suite imports `act` from `react`, which resolves to a non-function in this local Vitest environment. - Scope: 50 render tests fail with `TypeError: act is not a function`; 8 non-render tests pass. - Attempted: `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx` with the same `act is not a function` result. - Passed: Greptile rerun reported Confidence Score 5/5 on commit `e0f9c40b7faedcfb877d4f4b0e9f2c77a6593c16`. - Passed: all latest-head PR checks/statuses are green, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary dry run, policy, security review, Socket, Snyk, and Greptile. ## Risks Low risk: - The chat change only alters max-width classes on agent comment bubbles and preserves the desktop cap. - The relation-list change is presentational; hidden blockers and sub-tasks remain in memory and can expand/collapse in place. - Expansion state now resets when navigating between issues in a reused panel instance. - Main residual risk is visual polish on real mobile devices because local browser screenshot verification was not run in this heartbeat; screenshots were not added because the source task explicitly requested not adding screenshots/images unless specifically part of the work. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use, shell execution, GitHub connector access, local Vitest verification, Greptile follow-up, and PR check monitoring. ## 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) - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-06-22 15:57:03 -05:00
3 people	a71c4b6782	[codex] feat(watchdog): add task watchdog control plane (#8339) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task lifecycle and recovery subsystems decide when agent work is still productive, stalled, or ready for review. > - Existing recovery paths can observe stopped or incomplete work, but there was no first-class per-task watchdog model with scoped review permissions. > - Watchdog follow-ups also need strict boundaries so recovery/status-only runs cannot mutate approvals or perform deliverable work. > - This pull request adds the task watchdog data model, API/service layer, scheduler/review flow, adapter wake context, UI configuration surfaces, and docs. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master`; the watchdog migration is now ordered after master's latest migrations as `0104_issue_watchdogs`. > - The benefit is a more explicit task-review loop that preserves Paperclip's single-assignee and governance invariants while making stalled work easier to route. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No linked GitHub issue. Paperclip task: [PAP-11275](/PAP/issues/PAP-11275). ## Problem or motivation Task recovery needs a first-class watchdog path that can inspect stopped work and create scoped follow-ups without bypassing normal task ownership. Board/UI users need a way to configure watchdogs on tasks and see watchdog-related live work. Recovery/status-only runs must remain limited to status reporting and must not create approvals, link approvals, or submit approval comments. ## Proposed solution Add a task-watchdog data model, scheduler/classifier, scoped mutation guard, adapter wake context, API/UI configuration surfaces, and documentation so watchdog agents can review stopped task subtrees under explicit boundaries. ## Alternatives considered Reuse the existing recovery-action flow only. That would keep stopped-work detection implicit, make per-task watchdog assignment harder to expose in the UI, and would not provide a durable scoped-review issue for stalled task trees. ## Roadmap alignment This is Paperclip control-plane lifecycle infrastructure for task execution and recovery. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned core item. ## What Changed - Added issue watchdog schema, migration, shared contracts, validators, CRUD API, and service support. - Added task watchdog scheduler/classifier behavior, scoped mutation enforcement, adapter wake context, and default watchdog mandate guidance. - Added UI surfaces for configuring watchdogs on new/existing tasks, viewing watchdog activity, and exposing the experimental setting. - Added docs for the user-facing task watchdog workflow and implementation semantics. - Gated new-task watchdog setup behind `enableTaskWatchdogs` and blocked cheap status-only recovery runs from approval mutations. - Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the idempotent watchdog migration from the branch-local `0102_issue_watchdogs` slot to `0104_issue_watchdogs`. - Addressed Greptile feedback by loading watchdog classifier input with a recursive subtree query and centralizing the watchdog origin-kind constant. - Added and updated focused server/UI tests for watchdog routes, scheduler/classifier behavior, scope boundaries, live task visibility, settings, and new issue dialog behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check` - Verified the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows`. ## Risks - Medium risk: this introduces a new task lifecycle surface touching DB schema, server routes/services, adapter wake context, and UI task configuration. - Watchdog scheduling behavior depends on the new experimental setting and runtime context checks behaving consistently across local and production agents. - The watchdog migration is idempotent (`IF NOT EXISTS` / duplicate-object guards) so users who tried the previous branch-local migration number should not get duplicate-object failures. - CI and the second Greptile pass are pending after the latest review-fix push. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent in the Paperclip workspace. Exact runtime model id and context window were not exposed to the agent; tool use and local command execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots — N/A per Paperclip task instruction: do not add screenshots/images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the work. - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-19 15:38:52 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	7a311ca16f	test(ui): stabilize IssueProperties model-options assertion (#8299) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI test suite protects issue editing behavior, including assignee model options in `IssueProperties`. > - A Storybook-related dependency bump exposed a brittle async wait in one `IssueProperties` test. > - The test was waiting for model options with a fixed number of flush ticks instead of waiting for the React Query-backed options to render. > - This pull request makes that lookup use the existing polling assertion helper used elsewhere in the same file. > - The benefit is that the test now tracks the UI state it actually needs, without changing product behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #7746 Bug fix: - What happened: after the `@storybook/react-vite` 10.4.2 update path, the `IssueProperties` test `edits existing custom assignee model options from the properties pane` could fail while looking for the `GPT-5.5` model option. - Expected behavior: the test should wait for the async adapter-model options to render before interacting with them. - Steps to reproduce: run `cd ui && pnpm vitest run src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` against the affected dependency state. - Paperclip version/commit: based on `0936990a58ce819da8fd5e8ceb2e9a5b4d4a70ad`. - Deployment mode: local development test run; no runtime deployment mode involved. ## What Changed - Replaced the fixed-tick model-button lookup in `IssueProperties.test.tsx` with the existing `waitForAssertion` helper. - Left application code unchanged; this is a test-only stabilization. ## Verification - `cd ui && pnpm vitest run src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` -> 1 test file passed, 25 tests passed. ## Risks Low risk. The change only affects a test wait path and uses an existing helper already used elsewhere in the same test file. The main risk is masking a real missing-option regression, but the assertion still requires the `GPT-5.5` button to render before the test can continue. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5, with code editing, terminal command execution, Git/GitHub CLI operation, and repository context inspection capabilities. ## 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] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [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>	2026-06-18 15:49:50 -07:00