2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	e6dcd1e8e9	feat: add Commentary to Audit with filters and shareable messages (#16884) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents can submit suggestions and complaints while they work. > - Operators currently need database access to read those messages. > - That makes it hard to find feedback from one agent or share a specific message. > - This pull request adds a standard Commentary tab in Audit. > - Operators can filter messages, browse 50 at a time, and share links to full message dialogs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15367, which added feedback storage and agent submission. The duplicate search found no open PR for a commentary reader. **Subsystem affected** Server, shared API contracts, and the board UI. **Problem or motivation** Agent suggestions and complaints are stored but have no board reader. Operators must query the database to inspect feedback. **Proposed solution** Add Commentary to Audit without an experimental toggle. Show previews, agent and message-type filters, text search, and 50-message pages. Opening a row updates the URL. A copied URL opens the full message with its agent, task, and run context. **Alternatives considered** Direct database queries remain useful for operators, but do not provide a normal product workflow. An experimental setting would add setup to a read-only audit page. **Roadmap alignment** This completes the operator view for the existing feedback feature. It supports human oversight and does not change agent execution or task ownership. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped, board-only list and detail endpoints with audit permission and source-task privacy checks. - Return bounded previews and counts. Fetch full bodies only when a message opens. - Add the Commentary tab, search, filters, 50-row pagination, and URL-based selection. Audit tab destinations work in both layouts, with a classic sidebar entry for Commentary. - Add production Storybook examples for populated, filtered, linked, long, paginated, empty, loading, failed, denied, mobile, and light states. - Update API documentation and the feature and agent access maps. ## Verification - Final head `abc4a251c14cfbfec007542214beec528f2b18bf`: 55 checks pass; two conditional Storybook checks are skipped. The PR workflow is successful. Greptile is 5/5 with all findings resolved. - Focused database, HTTP, submission, OpenAPI, and UI regression tests cover company isolation, task privacy, filter bounds, 50-row pagination, and copied message links. - Browser Storybook journeys cover row opening, direct links, combined filters, search, and pagination. Storybook uses synthetic API fixtures; database authorization is tested separately. - Token gates, feature maps, and Storybook catalog validation pass. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm build-storybook` pass on the rebased branch. All 80 focused tests and all 37 Audit tests pass, including the real App route table in both layouts, task grant/revocation through HTTP, deleted-task privacy, and URL UI regressions. The full suite passes in the parallel PR CI matrix. The local serial full-suite run was stopped before completion after checking the recorded 94-minute serial duration. Local focused tests, workspace typecheck, production build, and final server/UI checks pass. - The linked-message Storybook test initially asserted against the loading dialog. It now waits for the message body; both direct-link and row-open journeys pass. - Native and legacy deleted-task privacy regressions failed before the fix and pass afterward. The reader checks the run task binding after the task foreign key clears. - A rapid search-then-agent-filter browser regression reproduced the search overwriting the selected agent. The pending search now restarts when URL filters change. The same browser test passes with both filters applied. - CI found two existing AuditHub assertions that still expected five tabs. They now assert the six-tab model and selected-company Commentary rendering. All 37 Audit tests pass. All other test and build jobs passed before this test-only correction. - The [agent-chat attachment browser test](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39307881171/job/118250189664) timed out waiting for an attachment preview. The [same shard passed on the prior head](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39306658703/job/118245498343) with identical application code; the intervening change only updates AuditHub unit tests. The single retry passed on the same head. The precise cause of the earlier failure remains unconfirmed. ## Risks - Commentary may contain sensitive task context. The reader requires board access and audit permission, and filters source-task visibility before returning previews, counts, or full bodies. - Text search scans stored message bodies. Pages are bounded and full bodies are fetched on demand. - Offset pagination can shift if new messages arrive while paging. Ordering uses timestamp and ID for stable ties. - No database migration or agent submission behavior changes are required. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use, browser interaction, and code execution. The exact backend model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 14:21:13 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	b508a05c43	feat: add internal agent complaints and suggestions (#15367) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents use legacy skills or native runner tools to work on tasks. > - Those agents can encounter friction that does not belong in the task thread. > - A complaint should preserve the raw reaction. A suggestion should describe an improvement. > - This pull request adds attributed local storage and both submission paths. > - Agents can submit feedback once and continue their primary work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Server, database, shared contracts, runtime skills, and native runner tools. **Problem or motivation** Agents have no default internal channel for incidental complaints and suggestions. Sending this feedback through task comments adds noise and can alter task workflows. **Proposed solution** Store free-form feedback in the current instance database. Derive agent, run, company, and task attribution from active authority. Provide default legacy skills and provider-neutral native actions. Keep the instructions close to Warp's MIT-licensed originals. **Alternatives considered** Task comments and external Slack delivery add unwanted side effects. Mandatory suggestion fields and short editorial limits would discard useful feedback. This release has no listing API, UI, read tool, automatic triage, or external forwarding. **Roadmap alignment** This is a maintainer-requested addition to the existing runtime skills and runner tool paths. It does not duplicate a listed roadmap milestone. Searches for complaint tooling, suggestion-box, and agent commentary found no overlapping public PR or issue. ## What Changed - Add the company-scoped `agent_commentary` table, shared validation, and idempotent migration `0310`. - Add one transactional service and the agent-only POST route. Validate active authority before writes or replay. Redact known credentials. Commit a content-free audit with each new record. - Add `submit_complaint` and `submit_suggestion` to standard, ask, and planning modes. Keep review, revocation, and completion restrictions. Store replay identity on the commentary row. - Mount `complain` and `suggestion-box` by default for legacy agents. Bundle a dependency-free Node.js stdin helper in the operational skill and allow its POST through the sandbox bridge. - Preserve Warp's complaint voice and suggestion guidance, with attribution and local transport adaptations. Keep source attribution and MIT notices in each skill's LICENSE, outside runtime instructions. - Document custom-runtime HTTP use and database inspection. Add real-database tests and a repeatable live Codex smoke for local and Daytona execution. - Pin the lagging-source migration fixture before the identity-repair migration so later migrations preserve its regression coverage. ## Verification - Personally ran real Codex submissions in all four environments on 2026-10-06. Local runs passed at 20:35 UTC. Daytona native passed at 20:31 UTC; Daytona legacy passed at 20:33 UTC. Each stored exactly two rows with company, agent, run, and task attribution, wrote the continuation marker, exited zero, created no task comments, and left task status unchanged. Each recorded two content-free activity entries. - Daytona used production provider hooks, real remote execution and file transfer, the legacy queue callback bridge, and native private WebSocket ingress. The current Linux runner was built from `abf47b595`, staged, and verified against controller contracts. Both sandboxes were confirmed deleted. This is a focused feedback transport smoke; it does not claim full Runner E2E catalog or browser qualification. - The immutable base image and Linux binary digest are recorded in [the verification documentation](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/codex/agent-commentary/doc/agent-commentary.md#verification). The smoke script can save content-free JSON evidence. No credentials or feedback bodies are in these reports. | Environment | Runner | Complaint row | Suggestion row | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | local | legacy Codex | `59413a00-1de2-4bb1-bcc6-9c4b54c64aa6` | `3db2364d-3e15-4f47-846f-875d3902999d` | | local | native Codex | `5da22b5f-41df-4de5-8ba0-d9345ab01267` | `2d5abe17-dd41-403c-a5ee-4729f2d58921` | | daytona | legacy Codex | `27c9d0aa-8477-409f-9da0-e8ffa48dee50` | `209681c9-d1e9-4ce1-999e-48fa07692389` | | daytona | native Codex | `6eb001bb-4bcf-43f7-8717-f662f53dc7c3` | `77c383d8-a997-49e5-a33e-25c70e15c0b2` | - Run the local check with `node cli/node_modules/tsx/dist/cli.mjs server/scripts/verify-agent-commentary-live.ts`. The documentation gives the Daytona invocation. Both use disposable instance databases and normal Codex provider usage. - Repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed after the test extension. The build includes runner generation, contracts, and replay checks. The smoke scripts also passed a separate TypeScript check. The lagging-source migration regression passed. All equivalent current-head Vitest CI shards passed. The local monolithic `pnpm test:run` invocation was stopped after CI supplied that coverage; it did not complete locally. - Focused tests cover company isolation, spoofing, revoked credentials, stale ownership, post-finish rejection, concurrent replay, conflicting keys, atomic rollback, and deletion through existing services. Boundary tests cover empty text, Unicode, text beyond 8,000 characters, and the 524,288-character ceiling without truncation. Mounting tests cover Codex, Claude, and sandbox staging. Helper tests cover standalone Node execution, stdin, invalid UTF-8, redirects, HTTP failure, and its deadline. Privacy and bridge tests cover successful and rejected requests. - Instructions were compared with Warp's originals. MIT notices and source credits live only in LICENSE files. Native tools preserve truthful disclosure when asked, without routine announcements. - [Full CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37508559190) and Greptile 5/5 passed on the earlier feature commit `5209c3501`. The later head found the migration-fixture assumption fixed in this update. On `8a4965164`, all 55 check contexts passed after one browser shard rerun. Its initial reviewer signoff failure also passed an isolated local browser run (1 test). Greptile scored that head 5/5 and identified one smoke cleanup gap. `6ecbafb0b` fixes failed-acquisition cleanup with four passing tests and a passing smoke-script typecheck. Fresh CI is pending for this final test-only fix. No commentary production code changed during verification. ## Risks - Feedback is internally attributed. It is not anonymous. Existing redaction removes known credentials, but agents must still omit sensitive content. Normal provider transcripts can include their submitted arguments. - Default skill availability changes for existing legacy agents. Runtime policy filtering still applies. The helper uses the existing Node.js runtime with no extra dependencies; custom runtimes can call the HTTP endpoint. - Feedback is removed with its run, agent, or company. Task deletion clears only the issue pointer. Normal database backups include the table. - The migration is additive and has no backfill. Writes serialize on the active run for replay consistency. No server suggestion quota is imposed. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6-astra` through Codex, with `xhigh` reasoning effort and a reported 258,400-token context window. Capabilities used: repository inspection, code execution, and live runtime verification. No subagents were used. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-06 16:14:06 -05:00