PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-21 08:22:20 +02:00

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	7c58ea07b2	fix(issues): guard prepared task promotion by status version (#16893 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Integrations can prepare a backlog task before its assigned agent starts. > - A person can change its status or assignment during preparation. > - An unconditional promotion can replace that newer decision. > - Safe promotion needs a saved revision that includes every assignment path. > - This pull request checks that revision under the task row lock and derives policy cleanup from the locked row. > - The benefit is safe initialization recovery with the existing company, task, and run authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Prerequisite #16896 has merged. This PR now targets master and contains only the conditional promotion API. The prerequisite fixed the confirmed baseline first-upload browser regression. What happened? A client that saves a task's initial documents and then sends an unconditional status update can override a concurrent status or assignment decision. The update validator previously dropped an expected version, so clients could not make this promotion conditional. Some direct assignment and release paths also did not advance the revision. Expected behavior A prepared task moves from backlog to todo only if its original status and assignment revision still matches. A stale request returns 409 before a task mutation, audit publication, or wake. Policy cleanup preserves unrelated saved settings. Steps to reproduce 1. Create a backlog task and save its statusVersion before preparing it. 2. Release its assignment, or change an assignee and then restore that assignee. 3. Send `{ "status": "todo", "expectedStatusVersion": <original revision> }` to its PATCH endpoint. 4. The stale promotion must return 409. A matching revision on an unchanged backlog task must succeed. Duplicate and related PR searches found no existing prepared-task promotion fix. ## What Changed - Accept an optional nonnegative expectedStatusVersion for exactly a status-only backlog-to-todo promotion. Reject extra public fields before parsing can discard them. - Check the current revision and backlog state under the issue row lock. Reject stale requests before checkout adoption or execution-control effects. - Add SQL migration 0358 to advance the revision for both assignee fields at the database boundary. Release, administrative release, direct writes, and assignment round trips now invalidate an old version. - Derive guarded policy cleanup from the locked row. Preserve review limits and protected authorization when removing a monitor. Reject derived ownership changes or review decisions. - Add schema, real HTTP/PostgreSQL, concurrency, migration replay, and policy regression coverage. Update the response type, OpenAPI, developer docs, and access map. ## Verification - Red before the initial fix: stale requests returned 200 instead of 409, validation removed the expected version, and a stale active task could adopt a checkout. - Review found two further defects. Four new release/direct-assignment tests showed unchanged revisions. The real HTTP/service test returned 422 for a valid two-field promotion after monitor cleanup. Helper tests also proved that cleanup lost valid review limits and protected authorization. All now pass after focused repairs. - Green: 124 route and policy tests, including 7 real Express/PostgreSQL cases, 37 existing route tests, and 80 policy/helper tests. The real row-lock race preserves a policy edit committed while promotion waits. - Green: all 23 database client tests, plus 9 focused assignment and replay checks. Historical migration 0227 receipt recovery cannot remove the new assignment trigger. Reapplying migration 0358 leaves existing rows unchanged and installs one trigger. Combined status/assignment writes increment once; unchanged assignees do not increment. - Earlier verification passed all 218 schema/route/service cases and the generated OpenAPI capability test. Rebased focused regressions passed all 27 selected cases. Final server TypeScript passed after all repairs; shared TypeScript passed. Migration safety/numbering, five-snapshot retention, map validation, and diff checks pass. - The baseline browser attachment case failed twice on the earlier head. Separate #16896 proved the lost-composer cause, passed 335 component tests and the real first-upload journey, and has green CI with a 5/5 review. No assertion or timeout was weakened. - Some early local checks were blocked by missing or stale sibling dependency artifacts. This worktree now has its own frozen offline install and standard SDK prerequisites. The failures and successful reruns remain in the task evidence. - Before rebasing, head `3304bb00de6ad6a248b5e046c008072ad20ac8f5` passed all CI (55 successful checks and one neutral), Greptile 5/5, and a secondary source review at 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The secondary reviewer did not execute project tests, inspect CI, or exercise a live agent journey. Earlier incomplete and must-fix assessments remain visible; both established findings are repaired above. - After #16896 merged, all five CAS commits were rebased onto master `87d9386ae637c652d1fed09d2046be1bcaeb413b`. Migration 0358 was regenerated because master added another 0357. Range comparison shows no other change to the CAS patches; inherited UI commits are absent. The original head is preserved locally. - Rebased head `1c0264e51a280b1dbf597725a7e42e72d4be1b1b` passes all 124 route/policy tests, 9 selected assignment/promotion tests, and all 24 database client/snapshot-drift tests. Database build, migration checks, generated snapshot linkage, five-snapshot retention (0354–0358), maps, and diff checks pass. Fresh-head CI and review are pending. No deployment or live agent journey was performed for this API. ## Risks - The guard supports prepared backlog promotion only. Other statuses or mixed public mutation fields return 422. A stale revision or non-backlog row returns 409. - Preserve the original version from a server that already advertises this guard before initialization. Older versions did not track every assignment path. Reconcile older or uncertain initialization instead of fetching a new revision and blindly retrying. - Migration 0358 is SQL-only and idempotent. It adds no table, column, or task backfill. Its separate trigger survives historical status-migration replay. - Existing authorization and unguarded updates remain in place. Guarded promotion does not provide a general lifecycle or review-stage control API. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this session. Used tool calls, code execution, and test-first regression verification. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 16:27:11 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	fa9f3f8a08	feat(runner): support preconfigured user homes for Codex and ACPX (#16486 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Runner launches the selected provider and keeps durable session state. > - Runner currently prepares private provider homes for each session. > - Operators can already have working login, skills, and MCP configuration on the execution machine. > - This PR adds an explicit mode that uses that existing setup. > - Runner keeps its task bridge and session ownership while leaving the user's configuration in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Problem or motivation: Rebuilding a provider home is unnecessary when the execution account is already configured. Proposed solution: Add `homeMode: "preconfigured"` to Runner adapter config and runnerd transport options. Keep `"isolated"` as the default. Initially support native Codex and ACPX Claude. Alternatives considered: Continue copying user configuration into a private home, or add an approval workflow. Both add work outside this feature's scope. Roadmap alignment: This extends the existing cross-provider Runner. It does not add another runtime. Related work: #14056 covers managed Codex credentials. #14474 covers command environment delivery. This mode uses user-owned credentials and retains the existing launch boundaries. ## What Changed - Add a closed v7 launch contract for the selected home mode. Existing contracts retain their behavior. - Keep homeMode under operator control. Reject task overrides and agent-authenticated changes, including removal through replacements, adapter changes, or rollback. Ignore stored task values and exclude it from automatic hire inheritance. - Skip managed AI login, assigned-skill materialization, and external MCP setup in preconfigured mode. Preserve the Runner task/completion bridge. - Keep protocol state and provider lifetime fences scoped to the Runner session. Different sessions can share a home. - Fail preconfigured ACPX planning/read-only launches before provider admission until a read-only user-home launch is qualified. Use isolated mode or native Codex for planning. - Reject ACPX approval requests. Keep native Codex on `never`. Local permission rules and hooks remain effective. Initially require the default Runner ACPX `approve-all` setting; other Runner policies are unqualified in this mode and fail before launch. - Keep the internal ACPX bridge in a stable session namespace, preserving an existing user MCP server named `paperclip`. - Reject preconfigured ACPX Codex before launch until a session permission profile can enforce Runner-state denial. Remove the unprotected full-access mode switch; use native Codex or isolated mode for that model family. - Bump Pi to profile 23 because its attestation covers shared Runner source changed here. Preserve profile 22 for historical recovery, and update Docker/package verification inputs. - Fence recovery on mode and home bindings. Fail missing provider-history recovery without starting a replacement session. Exclude the external Codex home from backups and credential cleanup. - Discover remote HOME on the execution machine. Do not project controller HOME or XDG paths onto it. - Separate task instructions from Codex ACP isolation and update the generated provider digest. - Keep remote configured-environment manifests consistent when dropping controller paths. Preserve exact Claude model IDs through per-launch environment settings, without editing the user home or patching the provider. ## Verification - Targeted local checks cover native contracts and launch allowlists, user-config preservation, provider admission, permissions, session recovery, remote environment projection, heartbeat preparation, and operator-only configuration. Runner, shared, and server TypeScript checks and the Rust binary build pass; generated ACPX profiles are current. - Following the latest master integration, all 757 server configuration/executor tests and 115 Runner admission/recovery tests passed. Additional review-fix checks passed: 103 planning contract/host tests, 78 provider-backend tests, 95 route/preparation/inheritance tests, 43 task-validator tests, and 43 workspace-policy tests. Counts describe separate runs and can overlap. - The real pinned Claude ACP/SDK regression reproduces exact-model aliasing without the fix (`claude-sonnet-5-5` becomes `sonnet`) and passes with the fix. All 89 adapter tests pass. User settings remain byte-for-byte unchanged. - Localhost-only Claude SDK probes with synthetic credentials verify the private bridge runs, local `ask` reaches the existing reject callback, local `deny` blocks without a callback, and a user MCP server named `paperclip` remains available. No user model allowlist is required. - Review regressions cover fail-closed provider admission, saved-mode recovery before routing, controller-home path removal without configured-environment manifest drift, pre-launch rejection of unqualified read-only ACPX launches, and denial of task/agent changes to the operator-owned home mode. - Before rebase, `d4d4ee2aebe4cb88c4f4d9ef8e22fed4b36b87be` received standard Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved threads. Prior Apex findings are fixed and covered by regressions. No manual Greptile retrigger is requested for this rebase, per reviewer direction. - The prior PR head and master hit the same GitHub runner encoding crash in workspace-b on three PR attempts, including diagnostic logging ([prior PR CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38818474563/job/116714538405), [prior master CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38819528748/job/116712423193)). Rebased onto `origin/master` at `c3ffa3f0dd` to pull in its bridge-test index correction. The rebased head `edd153db410bea063b645e0000aa68649f287b00` passes all CI checks ([CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38824676914)), including workspace-b. Greptile's automatic standard review is 5/5 on this exact head, with no unresolved threads; no manual review was requested. - Local workspace-b investigation passed 911 shared tests and 3,868 tests across the remaining 15 workspace projects. The catalog run separately hit an existing ignored `.agents/skills/design-guide/SKILL.md` description-budget violation in this checkout; that file is untracked, outside the PR, and left untouched. Repeating shared tests with CI reporting enabled also passed. - Rebase verification: the final Git tree exactly matches the previously reviewed branch combined with current master. All 192 Runner admission/contract tests, 61 server preparation/provider tests, and 68 bridge tests pass, as do Runner/server TypeScript and generated-profile checks. The real Claude adapter fixture hit an `ENOTEMPTY` cleanup race on its initial run; all 89 adapter tests passed on retry. - Apex on rebased head `edd153db` returned 2/5: ACPX Codex selected full access without enforcing Runner-state denial, and agent configuration replacement could remove the operator mode. Both are fixed in `26e14dbbf`. Preconfigured ACPX Codex is temporarily unqualified; re-enabling it requires session permission enforcement on thread/turn operations and a real filesystem-denial probe. The config guard covers effective replacements, adapter changes, and rollback while allowing ordinary agent merges and operator removal. All 190 focused Runner tests, 103 server tests, both typechecks, and generated-profile checks pass. Standard review and CI passed before the next Apex request. - CI on `26e14dbbf` passed 1,967 Runner-shard tests but hit the previously observed `ENOTEMPTY` fixture cleanup race after successful Claude model admission. `eb83284fb` adds bounded filesystem retries to that fixture's teardown; all 87 adapter tests pass. Assertions and production cleanup behavior are unchanged. Head `eb83284fb42ee19a15d9a93b106c1bbb07e1695e` passes all 59 CI checks ([CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38829500857)) and standard Greptile at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. Apex also completed at 5/5 on that exact head ([Apex result](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16486#issuecomment-6201559527)). All review threads are resolved, the branch has no merge conflicts, and the PR remains unmerged. - No live paid-provider or remote-machine smoke was performed. The lockfile remains unchanged under the repository's refresh-bot policy; local dependency installation resolved the changed patch hash. ## Risks This explicit opt-in grants Codex tools access to the execution home (read-only in planning), including credentials. Native Codex separately denies Runner-owned protocol state. ACPX Claude retains its existing provider trust boundary, and the isolated default is unchanged. Providers may refresh credentials and update their own metadata. User configuration can block tools or the completion reporter. Existing blocked results and failure diagnostics remain the recovery path. Edit the local settings and retry; no new approval workflow is added. External provider history remains on the execution machine and is not backed up by Runner. Remote HOME discovery requires `getent` and fails explicitly when unavailable. Other harnesses need separate qualification. The Codex ACP bundle digest changes. Existing sessions tied to the old bundle may need a fresh session. No database migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning and code execution. The exact runtime model ID was not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the feature 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 targeted 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-15 17:57:58 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	5cf90417d6	fix(ui): confirm cancellation from monitor cards (#15735 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their tasks. > - A task monitor schedules a later agent check. > - The monitor card shows when that check will run. > - The card has no direct control to cancel the monitor. > - This change adds an X button and a confirmation dialog. > - The operator can stop the scheduled check from the card. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The monitor card on the task page. Current behavior The operator must open task properties to clear a monitor. Proposed behavior Select the X in the top right of the card. Select Keep monitor to leave the schedule in place. Select Cancel monitor to remove the scheduled check. Reason and benefit The operator can cancel the monitor where its schedule is shown. Confirmation helps prevent an accidental cancellation. Breaking changes None. The change uses the existing task update API. ## What Changed - Add an accessible X button at the top right of the monitor card. - Confirm cancellation before the task update. - Keep the dialog open with an error if the update fails. - Preserve the other execution policy settings and refresh the task after success. - Reject stale policy writes under the task row lock with an optional expectedExecutionPolicy snapshot. - Document the snapshot field and add a database test for stale cancellation. - Restrict snapshot requests to policy-only edits before execution-control actions. - Add seven route tests for rejected mixed requests and absent policy updates. - Keep automatic retry waits separate from monitor cancellation. - Add component and task page tests. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - Monitor banner and task page tests passed: 199 tests. A targeted database test and seven route tests also passed. - UI typecheck and production build passed. - Open a task with a scheduled monitor. Select X, then Keep monitor. The schedule must remain. - Select X, then Cancel monitor. The card must disappear after the update. - Local full build reached the Rust runner build but could not complete because Cargo is absent. CI must verify the full build. - Full repository typecheck, build, test suites, and E2E checks passed in CI for the final commit. Local full checks were limited by missing Cargo and workspace memory. ## Risks - Low risk. Cancellation uses the existing company access checks and activity log. - A cancelled monitor no longer wakes the agent. The dialog explains this effect. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context window size. Used code editing, shell commands, and tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 16:38:04 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	57e977be72	feat: integrate Pi 1.0 into the experimental Runner (#14921 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - The experimental Runner owns provider processes and durable sessions. > - Pi needs working task execution and human controls. > - The five-PR stack must preserve changes already on master. > - Each layer now carries the complete integrated source for a safe sequential fallback. > - This PR belongs to native GitHub stack #15602, ending at #14956. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #14436, #14631, #14743 and #14956. Ship Pi 1.0 through the experimental Paperclip Runner. The five PRs are #14921, #14922, #14923, #14924 and #14956. The user authorized the complete merge after checks pass. Existing `pi_local` execution is unchanged. Accounting and wider provider/platform qualification remain deferred. ## What Changed - Recover missing final replies after workspace finalization changes owners, using accepted-turn evidence without rerunning work or granting external-chat publication. - Preserve the admitted Pi instruction root across warm runs, while retaining changed-root rejection. - Give Pi a bounded 15-second default shutdown grace so stop, drain acknowledgement and durable suspension can complete. Explicit deadlines and other providers retain their existing behavior. - Integrate the Pi 1.0 runtime and master contracts. - Use Pi profile 22. Preserve explicit caller-selected models and exact native thinking levels. Keep Pi's wrapper, helper, extension and question/control behavior unchanged from the qualified profile-19 runtime. - Preserve master's Dot lifecycle and consent fields, configured task environment, status guards and current Codex/Claude dependency versions. Cursor stays qualified. Copilot stays pending; profile 17 binds the changed shared protocol validation sources. - Exclude general AWS IAM credentials from Pi static/custom provider bindings and selected task projections; preserve the provider-scoped Bedrock bearer key. Profile 21 is retained as historical provenance. Rust and cloud install probes use the current declaration. - Patch bundled brace-expansion 5.0.9 to the exact official 5.0.12 payload. Pin the patch and complete runtime closures. Include the patch in normal installed setup tooling. Keep the upstream Pi shrinkwrap as provenance and permit only this exact security correction. - Include current attestation files in the Docker build context. Keep the repository lockfile unchanged from master. CI and private image builds resolve manifest changes before their frozen installation. ## Verification - Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` passes, including Runner Rust, server and UI. Focused integration checks pass: 194 Runner admission/environment tests, 63 profile/credential tests with one expected skip, 152 Dot/UI configuration tests, and Pi transcript/notice tests. - Full local `pnpm build` passes on the final source. - Fresh final-source checks pass: all 698 Rust workspace tests (32 binaries), 156 credential/profile/controller tests with one expected skip, Runner TypeScript typecheck, and 20 package/setup/sandbox tests. - The profile-21 Pi materializer passes on the native host with the official pinned Node 24.21.0 and its npm. It verifies all 150 locked packages, the patched dependency and the exact closure. Setup/package bundle tests and UI token gates pass. - The old hashes were reproduced for all three supported targets before calculating the patched graph. New closure hashes are darwin-arm64 `282022db10150c6632b3444df421342e7d534bdf5d5fb1097a2e79d0625a2bcf`, darwin-x64 `64e251e19009f755c0b04f73ce2138246faab71a961b0f13d75ebfcc34bef12e`, and linux-x64 `713b1fdff42fb56a1518bdc084f181d70bee8ebadc3e4b1d76321ed9108c8410`. Independent native platform execution is separate from graph identity reproduction. - Historical cloud qualification remains unchanged: all seven core cases pass on shipping source `10dc43c9ec65d88c2f782d62afb296d09494f215`, harness `1a4408a48cfb5a1f094a311141c257c92cd7a893`, image `sha256:5b3a775b383591bda1b0c1889e509acc70ce7f37c53f09733c81d59037f02280`, and accepted Sonnet 4.6/low fixture. All 215 canonical files and all seven cleanup checks pass independent verification. These are profile-19 results and are not relabeled as fresh profile-22 runs. - Current Pi digest: `sha256:e92078bee3c23bec4100aa589013a44613d054cd686826534025d8019e9f39a9`. [The readiness plan](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/codex/pi-production-readiness/doc/plans/2026-10-02-pi-production-readiness.md) preserves campaign and failed-attempt provenance. - Merge only after every PR's current-head CI and fresh review pass. Linux CI covers the full suites, build and browser tests. The local embedded Postgres API-authority suite cannot start on this macOS/Node 26 host, so Linux CI must confirm that suite. ### Fresh profile-22 core qualification — 2026-10-08 All seven accepted core cases pass canonically on Pi profile 22, with `openrouter/anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.6` and native-confirmed low thinking. This model is a fixture; production accepts the caller's explicit Pi provider/model. Runtime/install source: `3241a992f2a7703e59e97ed0fd3e5d6405de4401`. Frozen accepted harness: `1a4408a48cfb5a1f094a311141c257c92cd7a893`. Immutable cloud image: `ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip-daytona-runner@sha256:506f22db7edd78f37c0c40bec1cc084af1850455026dbf467194bfbb8fcef141`. Pi digest: `sha256:e92078bee3c23bec4100aa589013a44613d054cd686826534025d8019e9f39a9`. [Hosted Linux image and clean-install verification](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37868328023) passes, including all 20 source-bound archives, normal CLI/Pi setup, companion import and the production pack reader. This exact installation source includes the latest master integration and the corrected Pi warm instruction-root fence. Full local typecheck/build and current-head hosted CI verify the final stack. All 13 focused real-root regressions pass. The full local executor suite passed 662 tests; 15 database tests could not start the Mac embedded PostgreSQL service. Hosted Linux CI passes the full required verification and E2E checks. These fresh results keep their own source identity; profile-19 results remain historical. \| Core path \| Canonical campaign \| Retained archive SHA-256 \| \| --- \| --- \| --- \| \| File edit, validation, download and Done \| `pi-core22-replyfix-0-1791511228` \| 23 files; `a473e8603a3dd4737863291f8d3d1e392391f0b16d433c3e0e0e9d8baf7a97b0` \| \| Pending question and controller restart \| `pi-core22-replyfix-1-1791511376` \| 33 files; `6b829c4eb74e1f32a89c692a4ae7130dbfc1c6d3cf13915effe2103d9e242c8e` \| \| Three-turn session/process/workspace continuity \| `pi-core22-replyfix-2-1791511587` \| 23 files; `7a87021f8f9a3fdd3c58bb4467f8d82c635e3ea4795d6e75f144d9aa14818df8` \| \| Four typed questions and browser reconnects \| `pi-core22-replyfix-3-1791511881` \| 42 files; `9e31755252be1f4f9cb0626c984c142d4d1ae5f5bee3a7af08444db8d12c280a` \| \| Plan approval and completion \| `pi-core22-replyfix-4-1791512031` \| 22 files; `a0383ce1aab38e7b5a25ce0e9dd3bebea5c037ebd96ae6b29dae19015da2ae2c` \| \| Same-turn steering and permission denial \| `pi-core22-replyfix-5-1791512261` \| 39 files; `c929b8c7070f0b66aedc17e65ca46e6beab1e363926ac9f7e2a75fb250f05949` \| \| Stop during pending permission \| `pi-core22-replyfix-6-1791512390` \| 33 files; `7f0a58ae0f4d5bfc76149435f4e322537089c5bd16e7ffe9b5ad71f10a621a07` \| All 215 canonical files (28714587 bytes) are independently hash-verified. All seven cleanup grades pass, with no owned runtime process or temporary root after each case. Automatic retries are zero. The owned cloud host stopped normally after retention. The prior profile-22 warm attempt remains failed and separately retained: archive SHA-256 `1e54eba5ec72b50cee1534b23d1d1d4f21a090006b8a64501ba70db972abfde5`. Its original canonical classification is preserved. Diagnosis reproduced a product bug comparing an agent-files root against an unset checkpoint-only field. The fix stores the admitted physical root separately from the adopted per-run collection capability. The real-root regression fails before the fix and passes afterward, including rejection of a changed physical root. Fixture, grader, model and all seven accepted case IDs are unchanged; this fresh campaign tests final-reply publication after file registration first. The intermediate restart attempt also remains failed and retained: archive SHA-256 `5dcaefdf1d17cf4cd54fd4cf810f45e736667392339b8ce7caf08bb4e225277f`. Its original canonical classification is preserved. Pi resumed, wrote the verified answer and completed its task; exact runner suspension was proven, but idle stop consumed about 5.2s and left under 3s for the drain acknowledgement. The Pi-only default shutdown grace is now 15s, preserving a full 5s drain round trip and a finite suspension reserve. Explicit caller deadlines, other provider defaults, literal drain receipts and exact suspension identity checks remain unchanged. The timing regression fails before this correction and passes afterward; all 18 focused settlement tests and Runner typecheck pass. The final-source file attempt is also preserved as failed (`candidate_failure`), archive SHA-256 `db6767b6773ea618997927ac77bdb005a5ac81492c7b9c0ffbc900449f829bc9`. Native edit, validation, exact downloadable artifact and Done/succeeded all passed, and the exact final reply was durably recorded. A workspace recovery owner completed before the live heartbeat reached presentation, leaving that reply absent from task chat. Recovery now materializes only a completed final reply from the accepted turn of an ordinary internal Done task, preserving issue/run/contract binding, suppression, external-chat authorization and same-run deduplication. The database regression covers the generated file-preparation receipt, suppression, unapproved external continuation and replay. Server typecheck and all 49 response-selection tests pass; hosted Linux verifies the database regression because embedded PostgreSQL cannot start on this Mac. The delayed-final-answer database regression passes on [the final root-source Linux server shard](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37868262553/job/113628594152), alongside 1,108 passing tests. The first root Runner shard had one unchanged durable-resume test exceed its 5-second timeout; the identical top-source shard and the isolated exact test passed. One rerun of that failed job and its required aggregate passed without source or test changes. The original failed job log and the single-rerun receipt remain retained. ### October 9 merge verification Current merge head: `5a8fe63512a7166aaef5cf50065a25008aa8b44b`. All current-head checks pass, including `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`; exact-head Greptile review is 5/5 with no unresolved threads. Current master conflicts are resolved. The user authorized the maintainer override of the code-owner review gate after these checks. The seven retained live core cases remain bound to source `3241a992f2a7703e59e97ed0fd3e5d6405de4401` and its recorded cloud image. ## Risks - The security correction changes the dependency closure and profile identity. Old sessions must reopen on the new profile. Exact identities and credential bindings fail closed. - The runner remains experimental and requires explicit selection. Legacy Pi Local is unchanged. Caller model IDs pass through; the E2E model is a fixture. - Accounting and the broad platform/provider matrix remain deferred. This merge does not publish a release or deploy a service. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with reasoning, repository inspection, editing and tool use. The exact serving ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Final live qualification uses Pi 1.0.0 with `openrouter/anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.6` and native-confirmed low thinking. ## 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 #` 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>	2026-10-09 08:56:41 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	f1c44b7b56	Preserve remote work when required workspace restore fails (#15479 ) Persist exact source-retention obligations before run finalization and protect them across cancellation, restart and task changes. Require board-authorized repair evidence without replaying old work or changing current task ownership, state or locks. Hide an unavailable retry action and document operator recovery and retention costs. Validated with 674 scoped regressions, 224 combined integration tests, full typecheck/build, independent safety reviews and green CI with Greptile 5/5. No historical file recovery is claimed. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-07 13:29:44 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	3a726e676f	feat: enforce private task permissions across execution and data (#10633 ) Enforce private task and project access across direct reads, search, execution, files, plugins, live delivery, and sharing mutations. Preserve downward-only sharing, current responsible-user authorization, and audited emergency access. Bind historical draft assets with migration 0314. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-07 07:06:40 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	96bf004a79	fix: use persisted state for lifecycle continuation and retry budgets (#13888 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its control plane decides when a task can continue, wait, stop, or complete. > - Legacy continuation could change when an agent changed its wording without changing task state. > - Shared attempt counts also let repair and infrastructure retries affect each other's limits. > - This pull request uses persisted state and separate, bounded allowances for these decisions. > - If automatic repair stops, the task explains what happened and offers a guarded retry. > - Paired tests and real-provider evaluations verify that Stop, approvals, ownership, and spending limits remain authoritative. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: Refs #13761, Refs #11126, Refs #13610. These cover obsolete continuation dispatch and retry storms. Open and closed issues and PRs were searched for related lifecycle, continuation, and retry work. What happened? Legacy continuation depended on English wording and progress heuristics. Repair, failure retry, and productive continuation could consume shared counts. When bounded repair stopped, the task showed a technical recovery message without a clear next action. Expected behavior Persisted disposition and owned execution paths determine the next action. Missing disposition prompts bounded agent repair. Explicit work mode determines planning mode. Narrative changes and raw activity counts cannot replenish allowances. An exhausted repair shows a readable notice. An explicit retry checks current controls and preserves the assigned agent. Steps to reproduce Run `pnpm test:lifecycle-baseline`. The paired probes keep structured state constant while varying completion, planning, blocker, and progress prose. Run the explicit `lifecycle-baseline` and `continuation-accounting` Product E2E suites for real-provider coverage. In Storybook, open Design previews / Recovery notice to inspect the production component's normal, pending, acknowledged, unavailable, failure, and mobile states. ## What Changed - Hide the image attachment button, icon, and drop/paste hint in answer composers. Image paste and drop support remains available. - Merge current master and retain both browser regression sets. Use a production-stamped service worker in the offline recovery browser fixture. - Share one state-based legacy continuation decision across immediate, delayed, and recovered dispatch. Bind bounded repairs to their source run and episode. - Remove title and description wording from work-mode authority. Agents can still write requested plans in execution mode. - Persist separate failure-retry and productive-continuation counters. Disposition repair and resource waits cannot consume or reset those allowances. - Validate delayed repair identity, then recheck current gates before provider dispatch. Fence native startup cancellation. - Show Agent needs attention, a plain-language explanation, Retry agent, and expandable details in both task interfaces. Report request progress, acknowledgement, and errors inline. - Store typed recovery notice metadata. Recognize older active notices only through exact stored action and run IDs. Notice text never grants retry authority. - Use the existing recovery-action endpoint for retry. Recheck current action, status, owner, agent availability, dependencies, active runs, pending questions and confirmations, approvals, pause controls, and budget. Duplicate requests do not wake twice. - Add component, page, route, database, contract, and Storybook coverage. Keep the scenario inventory and executable evals here. Historical reports and snapshots live in the [commit-pinned paperclip-evals archive](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/blob/ce3e5afcd4a1184650f586a2b5b8be5874c66c8b/experiments/2026-09-lifecycle-authority/README.md). - Preserve unsaved project fields while the same project URL changes to its canonical alias. Do not reuse data across projects or companies. This separate fix addresses the repeated repository-editor browser failure without changing the browser test. - Keep the development service worker from intercepting Vite module reloads. Update the connection-intent browser fixture to record progress and completion through the agent API. ## Verification Merge preparation on September 25, commit `c1e8e4b7ddd9fbc4913ed55ce21b8e12906c2f97`: - Merged master `bd2030932` and resolved the browser test-list conflict by keeping both sets of regressions. - Deterministic lifecycle baseline: 1,090/1,090 assertions passed; no failures, skips, or missing selected evidence. Unit 423, runner 184, database integration 397, grading 86. - Browser support: 17/17 passed. The offline recovery test first failed with an unstamped development worker, then passed with the production stamp. Its assertions are unchanged. - Focused interaction UI and offline fallback tests: 19/19 passed. Verified the custom-answer composer in Storybook: no attachment controls or hint; entering an answer enables Next. - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. The worktree is clean. No new real-provider campaign was run. - Current CI and review: [Current PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36166011243): 55 successful checks and two optional Storybook skips. Greptile scored this exact commit 5/5. Hiding the question attachment controls is an intentional UI change; paste/drop remains available. Earlier recovery UI verification, commit `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. - Focused UI coverage: 338 tests passed across six suites (336 before the interaction guard, with the two affected suites rerun at 149 passed after it). Covers both task interfaces, the real page mutation, pending/error acknowledgement, stale state, and unavailable controls. - Recovery database integration: 352 tests passed before the interaction guard. The complete recovery-action and mutation-route suites passed 181 tests after it. The two new pending question/confirmation regressions failed before the fix and passed afterward, including resolved-interaction controls. Shared validator suite: 31 passed. E2E catalog suites: 34 passed. - Browser inspection passed for light/dark themes, mobile layout, expandable details, pending retry, acknowledgement, failure, and disabled retry. Storybook renders the production component; its request is simulated. - The broad local run hit two chat callback-order wait failures and was stopped after all CI unit/database/runner shards passed. Both local failures passed when rerun without the competing full-suite process. - CI exposed a repeated project-repository draft-loss race during canonical redirects. A new unit regression failed before the fix; all nine project-page tests now pass, including controls for other projects and companies. Both unchanged repository browser tests passed against a fresh local server. UI typecheck, production UI build, and token gates passed after this fix. - [Earlier PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36072486798) on `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: 55 successful checks, two optional Storybook skips, and no failed or pending checks. The repository browser shard passed with the production fix. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit with no unresolved review threads. The PR is mergeable. Historical, source-qualified lifecycle evidence: - Lifecycle baseline: 1,074 assertions. Native session coverage: 447 tests. Product E2E support: 515 tests. Browser support: 11 tests. Full earlier verification is retained in the archive. - [Real-provider campaign: 8/8 passed, zero retries](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35881382080-1/index.html), source `e88d210417280140b44a36449027290adcb1aeaa`. Evidence and cleanup checks passed. This includes deliberately exhausted repair cases that correctly remain blocked; it does not mean every task finished Done. This campaign predates the recovery UI change. - Archive migration verified all 16 original JSON files byte-for-byte and all 24 checksum entries. App tests do not need private archive access. [Archive PR #27](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/27) is merged. ## Risks - Agents that omit durable disposition receive at most two repair attempts by default. Prose-only completion exposes missing state rather than silently changing scheduling. - A retry is an explicit board action. The server rechecks current controls. A successful response confirms the task returned to To do; it does not claim that the provider has already started. - Existing notice metadata remains valid. Only older active notices with matching structured evidence receive the new UI. Historical notices without that evidence keep their existing rendering. No schema migration is required. - Old run records require conservative retry accounting. Tests cover old counters, alternating retry lanes, restarts, and exhausted repairs. - Historical snapshots require private `paperclip-evals` access. The app index retains public campaign links. Live campaigns qualify specific sources and scenarios; no new real-provider campaign has run for the recovery UI commit. > This fixes existing lifecycle and recovery behavior and does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted implementation, reasoning, code execution, and review. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. Historical real-provider evaluations used Codex model `gpt-5.6-sol`, separately from the implementation assistant. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-25 15:28:11 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	889947c238	feat: add experimental native chat connectors (#13038 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People also ask agents for work in their existing chat tools. > - Each external conversation needs one task and a current authorized source. > - Retries, Stop, and provider failures must not duplicate work or expose private data. > - The first chat PR establishes the opt-in provider and data contracts. > - This PR adds experimental channel integration and its durable control plane. > - Users can request work from connected channels and inspect delivery in Paperclip. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13100 and #13092. This is the second of exactly two chat PRs. Foundation #13100 is merged and changed 143 files. Runner prerequisite #13092 is also merged. This PR changes 400 files against master, below the 500-file review limit. It contains no wireframe images or HTML galleries. ## What Changed - Add native Slack, GitHub, Microsoft Teams, Telegram, and Discord chat connections. Keep chat disabled unless the operator enables experimental chat connectors. Preserve the production GitHub tool connection and its normal setup path. - Bind each provider bot identity to one immutable Paperclip agent. Bind each admitted external conversation to one task. Paperclip owns tasks, runs, permissions, and audit records. - Add durable admission, per-conversation queues, questions, task controls, progress, final replies, images, files, and delivery receipts. Board comments remain internal unless explicitly sent to the channel. - Check current identity, provider reach, resource access, credentials, runtime generation, and exact source before provider effects. Keep private responses private. Never send raw reasoning, private logs, credentials, or tool arguments. - Hold uncertain sends for explicit audited resolution. Make Board Send-to-channel atomic and idempotent. Keep reconnect and setup credentials in Paperclip secret storage. - Preserve current native-runner authority across retries, lost acknowledgements, and recovery. Keep immutable input and completion contracts separate from newer user input. Receipt reconciliation cannot launch a provider. - Reconcile chat close/new ordering and provider-effect lock order. Audit resource access changes in the same transaction. Submit only the selected resource from each UI toggle so stale pages cannot undo unrelated access changes. - Drain Codex stdout before certifying process exit. Bound the drain with the existing shutdown grace. Preserve observed terminal authority without treating an undrained process as successful or reusable. - Incorporate master `018ca5da` with its ACP Stop, mobile task layout, runner packaging, and official lock changes. Preserve dedicated chat-answer continuations in both directions when ordinary queued comments are adopted after Stop. - Fence late adapter readiness behind an earlier Stop for the same run. Preserve verified cleanup for registered adapters. Handle single Stop, agent pause, duplicate Stops, and failure release without creating a false cancellation receipt. - Incorporate master's `6dd48cad4` wake-queue extraction. Preserve exact failed-chat retry authorization and lineage, retired question-source suppression, and the block on generic recovery that would discard the admitted source. Fresh deferred input retains its separate promotion path. - Incorporate master `2a05b5ed3` and its queue-admission extraction, simplified transaction ports, and separate runner CI job. Preserve exact durable receipts, actor separation, and dedicated-answer isolation through the new module. A failed receipt insert rolls back the accompanying deferred-wake merge. ## Verification Current head: `afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a`, incorporating master `2a05b5ed3457ea33efd6895520447d1d97fe98d8`. The conflicts are resolved. This successor fixes two test-harness boundaries exposed by CI: per-case route-module preparation and actual durable-save completion before intentional runner termination. Production code and all existing test/turn deadlines are unchanged. [Exact-head Greptile review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13038#issuecomment-5587250594) is 5/5, completed September 10 at 13:20:55 UTC, with no actionable findings or open review threads. [Fresh exact-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34481724341) passes all 24 jobs, including Build and both required aggregates. Normal exact-head guarded merge was attempted and rejected by the remaining branch approval policy: CODEOWNER review is required and no human approval is present. Normal squash auto-merge is enabled as of September 10 at 13:36:26 UTC. Requested CODEOWNERS have been notified; no approval bypass or self-approval was used. Earlier-head results below remain historical evidence, not qualification of this successor. - Final exact-head Linux evidence: 995/995 chat integration cases; 36/36 agent-skills routes; 35/35 runner live-session cases, including real process kill/resume; 1948 runner Vitest cases with three existing benchmark/platform guards; 870/870 API-authority cases; and 104 browser cases with four existing optional skips. Rust, conformance/replay, full repository build, typecheck, canary, all server/workspace shards, and both required aggregates pass with normal CI concurrency. Earlier failed attempts remain recorded below. - Latest test-only qualification: 141/141 route/permissions/authentication cases pass in separate cold forks, with plain server types and independent review clear. The real-runner suite passes 35/35, with plain runner types and independent review clear. A controlled premature-save acknowledgement fails as expected; matching ownership/effect/process evidence, rejected saves, real turn outcome, test abort, and pre-kill liveness are covered. No local reproduction of the original CI scheduling failure is claimed. The preceding [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34479680858) passes 21/24 jobs, including all 995 Linux chat cases and browser aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional skips); only Build, the skills serialized shard, and the required verification aggregate fail. Its exact-head Greptile review was 5/5. Both failed job logs are retained. - Final fixture qualification: all eight focused Discord cases and all 995 chat integration cases pass. The exact modal statement/PID is observed before taking the real connection lock; the test then proves its actual blocking relationship before mutation. Original SQL execution, provider behavior, negative assertions, and 1s/15s timeouts remain unchanged. Independent review is clear and test/production hashes remain frozen. The preceding [CI attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34477184777) passed 22 jobs, including Build/runner, typecheck, canary, all other test shards, and browser aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional skips); the two fixture failures and failed verification aggregate remain recorded, not relabeled as a pass. - Current queue-module composition: 308/308 recovery/batching/queue/Stop tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 89/89 module tests, including real PostgreSQL receipt-insert rollback; 24/24 workflow/module-boundary tests; plain server and UI types. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass in 1.4 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries, stable reviewed source hashes. The initial boundary failure is retained; its no-op service wrapper was removed without changing recovery context or weakening the check. An exploratory standalone test-directory typecheck fails because its new upstream transformation config is not a standalone typechecking project; standard CI/build does not invoke it, and no configuration was weakened to suppress those diagnostics. - The preceding head `e02a63d462ce5d47433b0aeb632bb6fd20aab1ba` passed [all 24 CI jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34436462958) and exact-head Greptile review at 5/5. Required CODEOWNER review prevented its normal merge before master advanced again. - Final extracted-module composition: 307/307 recovery, batching, queue and Stop-control tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 49/49 module tests including eight PostgreSQL adapter cases; and 19/19 issue-update tests. Plain server types pass. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass in 1.3 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries in these cohorts, frozen source hashes, and independent review clear. - The preceding head `3e4e1c1c` passes [all PR CI jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34415826820), including Build and required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`. Both the original Rust failure and the previously load-sensitive lineage fixture pass with unchanged Linux concurrency. Master advanced afterward and required this reconciliation. - Final master composition: 448/448 focused UI tests, 186/186 adapter tests, 24/24 queue/control tests, and 11/11 packaging tests. Plain UI, server, shared, and adapter types pass. Token gates and diff checks pass. Independent server and UI reviews are clear. - Stop-registration regression: both real-service cases fail against exact `a95` source and pass with the fix. The full corrected recovery/control suite passes 265/265. Duplicate-owner and failed-Stop controls also pass. Plain server types pass. The readiness barrier prevents provider startup without adding an acknowledgment to an already terminal run. - Final qualification strengthens terminal-field equality and repeats both affected cases successfully on a fresh database. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass again in 1.3 minutes, without skips or retries. The final screenshot shows Cancelled, a paused subtree, retained input, and no error toast. - Two new actual-service regressions fail before the merge fix. They prove that queued-comment adoption could consume a dedicated chat answer or add unrelated input to that answer. The fixed four-case cohort passes, including ordinary upstream continuation and adapter Stop controls. Full recovery passes 257/257. All four actual local process/ACP Stop browser flows pass in 1.4 minutes, without skips or retries, on a fresh database. - The unchanged runner artifact was qualified with 171/171 transport tests, 870/870 API-authority tests, conformance 1/1, and replay 11/11. Six controlled reader tests prove the exit/drain repair. Its local serial Rust workspace passed 546 top-level cases plus two invoked helpers; the later passing Linux CI supplies default-concurrency evidence. - Prior exact-source full chat integration passes 995/995. Settings regressions cover concurrent stale pages, 501 destinations, pending state, rejected updates, and explicit retry. These deterministic tests do not prove live provider behavior. - Retained failed attempts and their causes are in the [qualification log](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-chat-queue-and-webhook-repair.md). The first merge adapter run timed out while macOS slept for 290 seconds. Its unchanged repeat passed with a temporary sleep guard. No assertion, deadline, or CI gate was weakened. Review commands include `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts` and `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. Database suites require fresh disposable databases. See the [browser runbook](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-04-chat-adapters-browser-e2e-runbook.md) for provider setup and separate live acceptance steps. ## Risks - This remains experimental. Deterministic tests and bounded live evidence do not establish every provider feature, tenant, permission layout, or media shape. Teams work-tenant qualification is still open. - Failed and uncertain provider effects remain visible and can require operator action. A transport receipt does not prove recipient visibility. - Native controller and runner artifacts must remain compatible. Preserve lease ownership, terminal authority, source binding, and quarantine during future changes. - Access and audit rows commit together, but activity notifications remain best-effort. This is not a new durable event outbox. - The PR operation does not deploy a live server, replace its runner, or change provider permissions. Remaining live qualification is documented in the [temporary handoff](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-open-qualification-followups.md). ## Model Used OpenAI Codex assisted with implementation, tool execution, testing, and review. The work records `gpt-6-astra` assistance. The environment does not report a context-window size. No private reasoning traces are included. ## 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>	2026-09-10 10:06:45 -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
scotttongandPaperclip	cc35c3c395	feat: structure and humanize recovery notices (#11075 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip posts system comments when automatic run recovery cannot continue > - These comments currently mix the main event with recovery identifiers and routing details > - The task chat shell also renders these comments as large raw text blocks > - Operators need a short explanation first and inspectable evidence on demand > - This pull request emits structured recovery notices and renders them as compact humanized rows > - The benefit is a quieter task thread that keeps the full recovery evidence available ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related prior extraction source: #11070. This pull request replaces only its structured recovery notice slice with a focused branch based on current master. What existing behavior does this improve? Paperclip recovery escalations and the experimental task chat system-comment renderer. Current behavior Recovery escalation comments put action identifiers, owner details, run details, and failure codes into the visible markdown body. The task chat shell renders the complete system comment as a large text block. Proposed behavior The server emits a short system notice with typed metadata sections. The task chat shell classifies known recovery families and renders one compact row. An operator can expand the row to inspect the full body and metadata. Reason and benefit The main thread stays readable during repeated recovery activity. Typed links and evidence remain available without exposing raw failure text in the default view. Breaking changes The visible recovery comment body is shorter. Recovery action deduplication now reads the structured metadata and still recognizes legacy body markers. No API schema or database migration changes. ## What Changed - Emit stranded recovery escalations with `system_notice` presentation and typed recovery, owner, run, and failure-code metadata. - Share bounded metadata row builders across recovery notice producers and preserve legacy deduplication compatibility. - Humanize known recovery notice families and render compact expandable task-chat rows. - Route system-authored comments ahead of derived agent authorship so recovery notices do not appear as agent bubbles. - Add focused server and UI regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run src/validators/issue.test.ts` — 32 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/services/recovery/stranded-notice.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts` — 57 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts src/services/recovery/stranded-notice.test.ts` — 39 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t 'escalates an exhausted failed successful-run handoff without using generic continuation recovery first\|escalates an exhausted successful handoff run that still leaves no disposition'` — 2 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t 'blocks assigned todo work after the one automatic dispatch recovery was already used'` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/system-notice-humanizer.test.ts src/components/task-chat/TaskChatSystemNotice.test.tsx src/components/task-chat/task-chat-adapter.test.ts` — 15 tests passed. - Storybook visual baselines were not updated because this chat-shell path has no affected snapshot baseline. Focused rendering tests and token gates cover this change. ## Risks - Consumers that parse recovery action identifiers from comment markdown must move to structured metadata. Server deduplication remains backward compatible with legacy comments. - The humanizer uses stable recovery-family phrases. Unknown notices use a generic truncated first-sentence fallback. - The UI changes only the experimental task chat presentation. The stored comment body and expanded metadata remain available. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, reasoning mode, repository tools, shell execution, and GitHub integration. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-07 18:41:52 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	814cb33676	feat(server): allow agents to resolve review confirmations (#10939 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue reviews use thread confirmations to record explicit verdicts > - The server allowed users to resolve review confirmations but rejected all agent actors > - This one-way rule prevented an eligible agent reviewer from completing a review > - The existing review policy already defines which actor can submit a verdict > - This pull request applies that policy to agent confirmation verdicts on writable issues > - The benefit is a consistent review gate for users and agents with preserved audit attribution ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Builds on: #10931 (merged into master before this PR) - Refs #8617 ## What Changed - Allow eligible agents to accept or reject pending review confirmations on issues they can write. - Allow a creator agent to withdraw its own pending review confirmation when the review policy permits it. - Reuse the review verdict policy check for users and agents. - Require an explicit, same-run review-confirmation binding so unrelated board-only confirmations stay protected. - Preserve board-only tool action confirmations and existing user attribution. - Add route and service tests for agent accept, reject, withdrawal, human-only denial, and user attribution. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts` (256 passed after rebasing onto master and the atomic binding fix) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - The change expands who can resolve pending review confirmations. The existing issue write checks and review policy limit this access. - Tool action confirmations remain board-only. - The pull request depends on the review policy helper from #10931, which is now merged into master. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. The roadmap marks Agent Reviews and Approvals as shipped. This pull request fixes a narrow server behavior gap in that shipped capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-5.6-sol`, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose the context window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-05 23:40:05 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f554d67377	fix(server): add explicit review verdict policies (#10931 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issues use `in_review` to request a final decision from an authorized writer > - The server rejected an assignee agent that tried to close its own review, even when the issue had no independent-review rule > - This rejection stopped the default agent workflow and did not represent the configured execution-stage rules > - Paperclip needs an open default and explicit issue-level constraints for teams that require an independent or human verdict > - This pull request removes the unconditional rejection and adds `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only` review policies > - The benefit is a working default path with opt-in, authenticated verdict controls ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10635, #4429, and #10671. The related public work covers execution-stage independence, self-approval fallback behavior, and durable review paths. This change is distinct. It controls who can resolve an issue review verdict. It keeps configured execution stages active. ## What Changed - Added a nullable `review_policy` issue column. Null has the same meaning as `anyone`. The migration does not backfill existing issues. - Added shared create, update, response, and compact issue contracts for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Removed the unconditional agent self-approval rejection for `in_review` issues. - Added one reusable verdict-actor check for terminal status changes and pending interaction accept or reject actions. - Used the authenticated principal type for `human_only`. Agent keys and run tokens remain agent principals. - Used the latest transition into `in_review` to identify the requester for `not_creator`. - Added actionable 403 responses that name the policy, the allowed actor, and the next step. - Kept the configured execution-stage transition and signoff behavior. - Added focused contract, helper, status-route, interaction-route, and execution-stage regression tests. - Updated the implementation specification for the new issue field. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 42 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed across server, CLI, plugin SDK/examples, plugin wiki, and UI. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - SecurityEngineer review approved the authenticated-principal checks and accepted policy-relaxation tradeoff with no required changes. - Greptile reviewed the latest head at 5/5 with zero inline comments or follow-ups. - The latest-head GitHub rollup passed build, typecheck, server/workspace tests, serialized suites, canary, e2e, and external security checks. ## Risks - The migration adds one nullable text column. It has no default and no backfill. - `not_creator` reads the latest recorded transition into `in_review`. It denies the verdict when it cannot identify the requester. - Agents can change or relax `reviewPolicy` when they have issue write access. This is intentional for this issue-level control. - Null and `anyone` do not add a database query to the verdict path. - Configured execution-stage checks still run after the issue-level policy check. > This work aligns with the completed "Agent Reviews and Approvals" and "Enforced Outcomes" roadmap items. It does not add a new roadmap capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed to the agent. The run used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub CLI access. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-05 23:12:41 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	678728f650	feat: maintained in_review review-path contract + stalled-review actions (#10675 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents move issues to `in_review` and rely on a "review path" (an interaction, an approval, a monitor, or a named reviewer) to tell them who decides next. > - That review path can silently disappear. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction, a monitor is exhausted, or a run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with nobody reviewing it and no visible action. > - Such issues become invisible zombies. Nobody knows a decision is owed, so the work stalls forever. > - This pull request makes the review path a maintained invariant, exposes a `reviewAttention` surface, and gives every stalled review three inline actions in the UI. > - The benefit is that an `in_review` issue always shows who reviews it, or shows an amber "nobody is reviewing this" notice with one-click Approve, Request changes, and Send back to work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request describes the problem inline. The tracking issue is internal. Subsystem affected The review and attention loop that agents and humans share: the `in_review` status, the `reviewAttention` surface, the /decisions attention feed, and the issue-page review panel. Problem or motivation Agent-owned issues in `in_review` can lose their last review path. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction. A monitor is exhausted. A run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with no reviewer and no visible action. It becomes an invisible zombie and the work never progresses. Proposed solution Maintain the review path as a server invariant. Expose a `reviewAttention` field that says what is under review, who decides, and since when. Render a persistent review panel on the issue page and inline actions on the /decisions feed. Keep human PATCHes into `in_review` ungated, but record the requesting user so the panel never renders empty. Alternatives considered A pure background auto-recovery sweep. This stays opt-in and is not enough on its own, because it is invisible to the human. A bare status banner. This is rejected, because it gives no action to resolve the stall. Roadmap alignment This improves the core review and attention loop that both agents and humans use every day. ## What Changed - Server — maintained review-path invariant: when an issue enters or sits in `in_review`, the server derives and persists a review path (interaction, approval, monitor, or the requesting user) and recovers a stale path with one bounded wake instead of leaving the issue pathless. - Server — `reviewAttention` surface: a new field describes what is under review (bound target with links), who decides, since when, and whether the review is stalled. Stalled agent-assigned reviews are now included in the attention feed. - Server — inline stalled-review decisions: secured routes let a permitted responder Approve (→ `done`), Request changes (→ `todo` + wake carrying the note), or Send back to work (→ `todo` + wake) directly from the attention feed. - Server — resume-intent wake: an `in_review -> todo` transition now wakes the assigned agent so a resumed review is not dropped. - Server — user-entry symmetry: user PATCHes into `in_review` stay ungated (no 422 for humans) and record the requesting user, who becomes the named responder when no other path exists. - UI — review panel: a persistent `IssueReviewPanel` renders above the thread whenever status is `in_review`. The covered state shows the bound target, responder, and outcomes and hoists the pending interaction/approval card. The stalled state shows the amber notice plus the three actions. - UI — decisions card actions: the same three actions render inline on the /decisions `AttentionQueueRow`. - UI — responsive fix: the stalled action row stacks to full-width buttons at phone width and returns to a horizontal row at `sm` and up. New 390px stories capture the phone layout. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueReviewPanel.test.tsx src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx src/lib/attention.test.ts src/api/issues.test.ts` — 91 tests pass. - Server suites added and updated: `issue-review-attention`, `issue-stalled-review-decision-routes`, `review-path-recovery`, `recovery-observability`, and related route/liveness tests (run by CI). - A designer reviewed the UI at 390px and desktop in light and dark themes on both the issue-page panel and the /decisions card. The stalled action row stacks cleanly at phone width with no overlap and keeps the horizontal row on desktop. ## Risks - Migration: adds migration `0200` (next after master `0199`, no renumber). It extends the agent-wakeup-requests schema and is additive. - Behavioral shift: `in_review -> todo` now dispatches a wake. This is intended (resume intent) and covered by tests. - Authz: the inline decision routes are permission-gated. Only a permitted responder sees and can trigger the actions. - Overall risk is moderate and contained to the review and attention loop. ## Model Used - Claude, Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-04 13:54:40 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	dcac49a4fd	feat(workspaces): defer isolated setup until runtime start (#10653 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Isolated workspaces give each task a safe and reproducible checkout. > - The existing setup cloned the development database before an agent needed to run the app. > - This made worktree creation slower and heavier for tasks that never start a service. > - Runtime services already use one server start path for heartbeat, operator, and startup recovery flows. > - This pull request moves heavy setup to that start path and keeps worktree creation lean. > - The benefit is faster isolated workspace creation with the same reliable runtime setup when a service starts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related pull request: #10652 covers the initial deferred database-seeding slice. This pull request supersedes it with end-to-end runtime provisioning and safe cleanup. What existing behavior does this improve? This improves isolated worktree creation, runtime service startup, and isolated instance cleanup. Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: CLI worktree setup, server runtime orchestration, shared workspace contracts, and development scripts. Current behavior Paperclip seeds an isolated development database during worktree creation. It can also leave an isolated instance directory after workspace teardown. This work happens even when no runtime service starts. Proposed behavior Paperclip creates the worktree with a lean eager setup. It runs an idempotent runtime provision command before the first managed service spawn. Concurrent starts share one provision attempt. Teardown removes the isolated instance safely. Reason and benefit Many agent tasks only edit and test code. They do not need a running Paperclip instance. Deferring the database seed reduces workspace startup cost while preserving automatic setup for tasks that start the app. Breaking changes None. The new runtime provision command is optional. Existing workspace behavior is unchanged when it is absent. ## What Changed - Split Paperclip worktree setup into a lean eager script and an idempotent runtime provision script. - Added `runtimeProvisionCommand` to project, issue, realized workspace, and persisted workspace contracts. - Added a per-workspace provision mutex before local service spawn for heartbeat, operator, and startup recovery flows. - Added a persisted `provisioning` service state and the `workspace_runtime_provision` operation phase. - Kept provision time outside the service readiness timeout and made failed attempts visible and retryable. - Reclaimed isolated instance data during safe workspace teardown. - Serialized deferred database seeding across processes and bound teardown to the instance root captured in persisted workspace metadata. - Added tests for config flow, concurrency, retry, no-op behavior, readiness timing, scripts, CLI commands, and cleanup. - Documented the eager and runtime provisioning contracts. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm test:run` (server: 3,201 passed; UI: 3,345 passed; the CLI phase exposed one environment-sensitive AWS doctor assertion because the agent runtime injects static AWS credentials) - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts -t 'passes AWS doctor checks when non-secret provider config is present'` - Focused runtime tests cover serialized provisioning, retry after stderr failure, absent-command no-op behavior, operation logging, persisted state order, and readiness timeout exclusion. - Focused CLI and cleanup tests cover concurrent seed serialization, stale-lock fail-closed behavior, persisted instance ownership, and rewritten sibling pointers. ## Risks - A faulty runtime provision script blocks service startup. Paperclip records stderr, marks the service failed, and retries on the next start. - Concurrent service requests share an in-process provision attempt, while the seed command uses an atomic filesystem lock across processes. A stale lock fails closed and requires an operator to verify no seed is running before removing it. - Isolated instance cleanup is destructive. The cleanup service validates ownership and path containment before removal. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5.6-sol`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The service does not expose the context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-02 10:37:10 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	b4a7a12985	feat: make recovery updates quieter (#10542 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The recovery subsystem restores work after an agent run stops or loses state > - Recovery notices currently use the same visual weight as normal work comments > - Recovery agents can also post long narratives that obscure the useful hand-off > - The server must identify recovery output because agents cannot set presentation controls > - This pull request adds compact recovery notices, structured action references, and brief recovery prompts > - The benefit is a quieter issue thread that still keeps recovery state inspectable ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and `packages/adapter-utils`. Problem or motivation Recovery notices and recovery-run comments can dominate an issue thread. Operators must scan routine recovery narration before they find the work hand-off. Proposed solution Give routine recovery output a compact system-notice presentation. Derive the presentation on the server so agents cannot hide arbitrary comments. Keep the successful missing-state summary fully visible because that comment is the recovery deliverable. Alternatives considered The UI could detect recovery text. That approach is fragile and does not provide structured action references. Agents could also set presentation directly, but that would weaken the current board-only security boundary. Roadmap alignment This change refines the completed “Self-healing runs & automatic recovery” and “Enforced Outcomes” roadmap areas. It does not add a competing roadmap capability. Additional context The scope covers shared comment validation, server recovery notices, agent-comment derivation, and recovery prompt text. No database migration is needed because presentation data already uses JSON. ## What Changed - Add the `compact` issue-comment presentation density to shared constants, types, and validation. - Give recovery escalation, waiting, and in-place notices compact titles and structured recovery-action metadata. - Use recovery-action metadata for notice deduplication, with the legacy text marker as a compatibility fallback. - Derive compact presentation for comments from recovery-scoped runs while preserving the board-only presentation boundary. - Keep successful missing-state recovery summaries fully visible. - Ask recovery participants to record outcomes in `resolutionNote` and keep source-issue comments brief. - Add shared, route, service, and prompt tests for the new behavior and exceptions. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - Focused Vitest coverage: 320 tests passed across shared validators, adapter prompts, issue comments, recovery actions, and heartbeat recovery. - Full server phase: 292 files passed, 3,094 tests passed, and 2 tests skipped. - Full UI phase: 386 files passed and 3,182 tests passed. - `pnpm build` - Known master baseline: `cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` expects `pass`, but the current implementation returns `warn` when strict secret mode is disabled for Postgres. This branch does not change CLI secrets code. ## Risks - Low migration risk. The presentation column is JSON and needs no database migration. - Recovery-run detection depends on the persisted run context snapshot. - Structured metadata becomes the primary deduplication key. The existing body marker remains as a fallback for older 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 with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The runtime did not expose the context-window size. The model used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-31 09:55:01 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	7f766526a6	feat(sandbox): add task-scoped egress grants (#10155 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Confinement providers protect agent runs with default-deny network policies > - Kubernetes environments currently apply only provider-level, namespace-wide egress allowances > - Tasks that legitimately need GitHub or package registries therefore cannot request narrow access, while network failures do not explain the governing policy or how to request a grant > - This pull request adds issue-scoped egress grants that become workload-owned, run-label-selected policies and carries the effective grant through lease audit metadata > - The benefit is that internet-dependent work can run without enabling broad egress for every concurrent task, and denied requests point operators to the exact grant path ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. Related but distinct: Refs #9944, which adds a provider-wide open-internet posture; this PR keeps provider defaults narrow and adds per-task grants. Problem / motivation Kubernetes sandbox egress is configured at the provider/tenant level. A task that needs to clone from GitHub or install from PyPI cannot request those destinations without changing the policy for every run in the tenant namespace. DNS/connectivity failures also surface as generic tool errors with no policy name or remediation path. Proposed solution Accept `executionWorkspaceSettings.networkEgress.allowFqdns` and `allowCidrs`, forward the setting through heartbeat environment acquisition, and create a workload-owned NetworkPolicy or CiliumNetworkPolicy selected by `paperclip.io/run-id`. Record the effective grant in lease activity/metadata, expose policy context through `PAPERCLIP_NETWORK_EGRESS_`, and append the grant path to likely policy-related stderr failures. Alternatives considered* A provider-wide open-internet switch is broader than required and is already covered by #9944. Mutating the existing namespace policy would leak each task's destinations to other concurrent runs. Standard Kubernetes NetworkPolicy cannot enforce FQDNs exactly, so standard mode uses the existing hardened public-IPv4 TCP 80/443 fallback only for the selected run; Cilium mode remains exact. Roadmap alignment This extends the existing cloud/sandbox agent roadmap capability with task-level control-plane policy and does not duplicate a planned roadmap item. ## What Changed - Added validated `networkEgress` grants to issue execution workspace settings and forwarded them through environment lease acquisition. - Added workload-owned, run-label-scoped NetworkPolicy/CiliumNetworkPolicy resources for task FQDN/CIDR grants. - Added lease audit metadata, sandbox policy environment variables, and actionable network-denial stderr guidance. - Added focused parser, manifest, policy creation, and denial-message tests plus Kubernetes provider documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm -C packages/shared exec vitest run src/validators/issue.test.ts` — 27 passed. - `pnpm -C packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/kubernetes test -- --run test/unit/network-policy.test.ts test/unit/cilium-network-policy.test.ts test/unit/scoped-network-egress.test.ts` — 21 passed. - `pnpm -C server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts` — 15 passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts` — 26 passed. - `pnpm --dir packages/db build && pnpm --dir packages/shared build && pnpm --dir packages/plugins/sdk build` — passed, including migration safety checks. - `pnpm --dir packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/kubernetes typecheck && pnpm --dir server typecheck` — passed after refreshing the worktree's frozen offline dependencies. - End-to-end cluster validation of the `build-cython-ext` benchmark remains for CI/maintainer Kubernetes infrastructure; the focused tests assert `github.com` and `pypi.org` produce a policy selected only by the granted run. ## Risks - Standard NetworkPolicy cannot express FQDNs, so an FQDN grant allows hardened public IPv4 TCP 80/443 for that run; use Cilium mode for exact hostname enforcement. - The new field is additive and absent by default, so existing runs keep the current provider-level policy. - Workload owner references garbage-collect scoped policies with the Job/Sandbox; a cluster/controller that ignores owner references could temporarily strand a policy that still selects no future run ID. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning mode, tool use and code execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-24 09:58:58 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	148a5b11f5	Route blocked transitions to explicit unblock owners (#10112 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies. > - Issue status transitions determine whether work keeps moving or silently stalls. > - A blocked issue previously could rely on prose alone, leaving the intended unblock owner unstructured and unnotified. > - Existing blocker-attention classification could identify stalled chains, but the signal was not delivered to the board attention feed. > - Blocked transitions also need rollout-safe deduplication so upgrades do not notify for historical issues and repeated processing does not create notification storms. > - This pull request adds structured unblock descriptors, prospective transition timestamps, owner delivery, and board attention routing with focused authorization controls. > - The benefit is that newly blocked work has an explicit, routable next action without weakening company boundaries or allowing agents to inject arbitrary human attention items. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related documentation PR: #10094. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/db`, and `packages/shared`. ### Problem or motivation An issue can enter `blocked` without a machine-readable unblock path. Prose-only ownership does not reliably wake the responsible agent or surface human-owned work, while the existing `blockerAttention` classifier is not delivered to an operator-facing attention feed. ### Proposed solution Require new transitions into `blocked` to have unresolved blockers, a pending interaction/approval, or a structured `{ owner, action }` descriptor. Notify an allowed owner once per prospective transition, route human-owned cases to board attention, and leave pre-rollout blocked issues untouched. ### Alternatives considered - Keep prose-only blockers: rejected because ownership remains unroutable. - Backfill all historical blocked issues: rejected because upgrades would create notification storms. - Let agents target arbitrary users or the board: rejected after security review because it creates an attention-injection channel. ### Roadmap alignment Aligns with `ROADMAP.md` → “Enforced Outcomes (watchdogs, recovery actions, review gates)” by making blocked work carry an explicit continuation path. ### Additional context The implementation is prospective-only and deduplicated per blocked transition. Agent-authored descriptors are limited to the acting agent; board actors retain human-owner routing. ## What Changed - Added persisted unblock descriptors and prospective blocked-transition delivery timestamps with an idempotent migration. - Added shared types and validation for board, user, and agent unblock owners. - Enforced valid blocked transitions and same-company owner validation in the issue update route. - Restricted agent-authored descriptors to the acting agent itself, preventing board/user attention injection by compromised agents. - Added one-per-transition agent wake delivery and prospective-only rollout gating. - Routed human-owned blocker attention into the board attention feed. - Added focused tests for validation, prospective delivery, flap deduplication, attention routing, route authorization, and stop-relay compatibility. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routable-blocked.test.ts server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID= AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY= pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` ## Risks - Behavioral shift: new `blocked` transitions without a real blocker, pending governed action, or structured descriptor now return `422`. - Notification abuse is constrained by same-company validation, agent self-only routing, prospective rollout gating, and transition-scoped deduplication. - Migration risk is low: columns are additive, nullable, and use `IF NOT EXISTS`; historical blocked issues are not backfilled or notified. > 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 CLI with GPT-5.4, reasoning-enabled tool use and code execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window value. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (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>	2026-07-23 15:49:28 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	b13eb5b2b5	Skill Studio: three-pane skill IDE with sandboxed test runs (#9241 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Skills Manager gives operators a reusable skill layer, but iteration still required manual edits, ad hoc prompts, and indirect run inspection. > - Skill authors need a focused workflow for editing skill files, saving representative test inputs, and running those inputs through an agent without exposing harness tasks as normal company work. > - The backend therefore needs durable test inputs, reusable run templates, hidden harness issues, scoped run execution, retention metadata, and read-containment rules around hidden work. > - The frontend needs a three-pane Studio that keeps skill files, saved inputs/templates, and run output/history visible together while preserving the existing design system and token rules. > - This pull request ships that Skill Studio surface end to end: database migrations, shared contracts, server APIs/services, hidden harness execution behavior, UI routes/components, and focused tests. > - The benefit is faster and safer skill iteration, with inspectable outputs and fewer ways for internal harness work to leak into normal task lists, costs, or adjacent read APIs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. Feature request summary: - Problem: Skill authors need to edit and test company skills in one place instead of switching between the skill detail page, task creation, run output, and manual prompt history. - Proposed solution: Add a Skill Studio workbench with saved inputs, reusable templates, hidden sandboxed test runs, live run status, output inspection, run history, rerun/delete controls, and frontmatter-aware editing. - Expected users: Paperclip operators and agent-company maintainers who create, fork, import, and tune skills. - Related public PRs: Supersedes #9205, which was replaced so the public PR branch name follows contributor policy. - Duplicate search: searched public GitHub issues and PRs for "Skill Studio"; no other active public issue or PR directly covers this feature. ## What Changed - Added database migrations for Skill Studio test inputs, test runs, test run retention, and reusable run templates. - Added shared Skill Studio types, validators, route helpers, frontmatter utilities, and status handling. - Added server services and routes for saved inputs, test runs, templates, reruns, terminal-run deletion, hidden harness issue execution, and run-detail hydration. - Strengthened hidden-issue read containment across issue-adjacent routes and cost rollups used by skill test harness work. - Added the Skill Studio UI with skill file editing, frontmatter editing, saved inputs, templates, run creation/cancel/rerun/delete flows, output rendering, history, route support, and responsive pane behavior. - Added focused backend, shared, and UI tests for the new APIs, routing logic, editor/run behavior, hidden-issue containment, and migration safety. - Rebased onto current `master`, removed the generated lockfile diff from the PR, and verified no workflow files are changed. ## Verification - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - [x] `pnpm check:token-gates` - [x] `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skill-test-runs-service.test.ts ui/src/lib/skill-studio.test.ts ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx` — 5 files, 132 tests passed - [x] Greptile review on the latest PR head - [x] GitHub PR checks on the latest PR head ## Risks - Medium risk because this is a broad feature touching database schema, server orchestration, issue visibility, and a large UI surface. - Hidden harness issue containment is security-sensitive; this PR includes regression coverage for adjacent read paths and cost rollups. - The new migrations are additive and use idempotent guards where applicable, but deployed databases that previously tested draft migration numbers should still be checked carefully. - The UI depends on a new resizable panels package in `ui/package.json`; the lockfile is intentionally left to repository automation. > 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 coding agent with shell, git, and GitHub CLI tool use. Earlier feature commits include assistance from other Paperclip coding agents; this PR preparation, rebase, cleanup commit, and PR body were completed by OpenAI Codex in a Paperclip worktree. ## 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>	2026-07-09 13:08:56 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	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
DottaandPaperclip	7069053a1f	[codex] Add ask issue work mode (#8334 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue work mode controls how a task starts and how the conversation composer frames the operator's intent. > - Paperclip already supports standard agent execution and planning mode, but there is no lightweight mode for asking a question without immediately implying execution or plan drafting. > - That gap makes low-commitment clarification workflows look like normal task execution. > - This pull request adds an explicit Ask mode and threads it through shared contracts, server heartbeat context, and the issue composer UI. > - The benefit is that operators can create or switch a task into a question-oriented mode while preserving existing agent and planning flows. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline feature request follows the repository feature request template. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `packages/shared`, `server/`, and `ui/`. ### Problem or motivation Issue conversations currently distinguish standard agent work from planning work, but question-first conversations do not have a clear public mode in the shared contract or UI. Operators who want to ask an agent a focused question have to use standard mode, which can imply normal task execution, or planning mode, which asks for a plan rather than an answer. ### Proposed solution Add Ask as a first-class issue work mode. It should be selectable from issue creation and issue chat, cycle alongside Standard and Planning from the keyboard shortcut/menu, appear distinctly in composer styling, and be included in heartbeat context so agents know to answer directly instead of executing or drafting a plan. ### Alternatives considered - Keep using standard mode for questions: rejected because it does not communicate answer-only intent to the agent or the UI. - Reuse planning mode for questions: rejected because planning mode asks for a plan and is semantically different from asking a question. - Add only local UI copy: rejected because the mode needs to be represented in the shared contract and server heartbeat context to be reliable. ### Roadmap alignment This is a focused issue-workflow improvement. `ROADMAP.md` was checked and no duplicate planned core work was found. ### Additional context Related public searches performed before opening this PR: - GitHub PR search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip` - GitHub issue search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip` - GitHub PR search for `"work mode" "ask" repo:paperclipai/paperclip` No duplicate PR was found. ## What Changed - Added `ask` to the shared issue work-mode contract and validation coverage. - Included issue work mode in heartbeat context summaries so agents can see standard, planning, and ask state. - Added Ask mode metadata, styling, composer tone handling, and selection/cycling behavior in the issue chat/new issue UI. - Updated focused tests for shared validators, heartbeat context, and affected UI work-mode flows. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` The broader targeted command passed 8 test files / 245 tests. Visual reference for Standard/Planning/Ask composer states: https://gist.github.com/cryppadotta/714d8590bac55500a65e7e16de5bb4b8 It emitted an expected warning from an existing server test fixture about a missing run-log fixture while verifying derived issue comment metadata. ## Risks Low to moderate risk. This adds a new enum value that crosses shared, server, and UI contracts. Existing standard and planning modes are preserved, but any downstream code assuming only two non-terminal work modes may need to handle `ask`. > 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 in Paperclip CodexCoder mode, with shell, git, GitHub connector, and local test execution tools. Context window and exact hosted model snapshot 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) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`, `feat/...`) 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] 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>	2026-06-19 13:06:04 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d734bd43d1	[codex] Roll up May 17 branch changes (#6210 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so agent work needs visible ownership, recovery, and operator controls. > - This local branch had accumulated several related control-plane reliability and operator-experience fixes across recovery actions, watchdog folding, model-profile defaults, mentions, markdown editing, plugin launchers, and small UI polish. > - The branch needed to be converted into a PR against the current `origin/master` without losing dirty work or including lockfile/workflow churn. > - The safest standalone shape is a single rollup PR because the recovery/server/UI files overlap heavily across the local commits and splitting would create avoidable conflicts. > - This pull request replays the local branch onto latest `origin/master`, preserves the uncommitted work as logical commits, and adds a Zod 4 validator compatibility fix found during verification. > - The benefit is that the May 17 local branch can be reviewed and merged as one coherent, conflict-free branch under the 100-file Greptile limit. ## What Changed - Rebased the local May 17 branch work onto current `origin/master` in a dedicated worktree. - Preserved and committed previously dirty changes for recovery retry handling, plugin/sidebar launcher polish, and `.herenow` ignores. - Added recovery-action behavior for returning source issues to `todo` when retrying source-scoped recovery. - Included the existing local recovery/liveness/watchdog fold, Codex cheap-profile, markdown/mention, duplicate-agent, and UI polish commits from the branch. - Normalized shared validator `z.record(...)` schemas to explicit string-key records for Zod 4 compatibility. - Confirmed the PR has no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` changes and stays below the 100-file Greptile limit. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `npm run install` in `node_modules/.pnpm/sqlite3@5.1.7/node_modules/sqlite3` to build the local native sqlite3 binding after installing with scripts disabled - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts packages/shared/src/project-mentions.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` - First pass: 13 files passed with 201 passing tests; 3 server files failed before sqlite3 native binding was built. - After rebuilding sqlite3: `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts`, `server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts`, and `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts` passed/loaded; embedded Postgres tests were skipped by the local host guard. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` ## Risks - Medium risk: this is a broad rollup PR across recovery semantics, server tests, shared validators, and UI surfaces. - Some embedded Postgres tests skipped locally due the host guard, so CI should provide the stronger database-backed signal. - UI changes were covered by component tests, but no browser screenshot was captured in this PR creation pass. - This branch may overlap with existing recovery/liveness PR work; merge this PR independently or restack/close overlapping branches rather than merging duplicate implementations together. > 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, tool-enabled local repository and GitHub workflow, medium reasoning effort. ## 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 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 - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-17 17:15:06 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4142559c37	[codex] Add blocked inbox attention view (#5603 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies through company-scoped issues, comments, approvals, and execution workspaces. > - Operators need the Inbox to show not only active work, but also blocked work that may need human or agent attention. > - The existing inbox experience did not have a dedicated blocked-work surface, so blocked tasks were harder to triage and resume deliberately. > - Backend consumers also needed a compact attention signal that distinguishes actionable blockers from covered or waiting blocker states. > - This pull request adds a Blocked Inbox tab backed by issue blocker-attention metadata, shared validators, and UI helpers. > - The benefit is a clearer triage path for stalled or blocked Paperclip work without exposing external wait internals in the operator-facing UI. ## What Changed - Added shared issue blocker-attention types, validators, and exports for the API/UI contract. - Added backend blocker-attention computation and issue route support for blocked inbox data. - Added the Blocked Inbox tab, blocked reason chips, filtering/search UI, responsive layouts, and Storybook stories. - Updated inbox helpers and page behavior so toolbar controls only appear where they apply. - Added coverage for shared validators, server blocker-attention behavior, blocked inbox UI helpers/components, and the Inbox page. - Added a screenshot helper script for the blocked inbox Storybook stories. - Addressed Greptile feedback by making urgency sorting deterministic for null stop times, avoiding full blocked-inbox list enrichment for counts, and hardening the screenshot helper. ## Verification - Rebased the branch cleanly onto `public-gh/master`. - Confirmed the diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - Confirmed the diff does not include database migration files. - Ran `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts ui/src/components/BlockedInboxView.test.tsx ui/src/components/BlockedReasonChip.test.tsx ui/src/lib/blockedInbox.test.ts ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx`. - Ran `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`. - Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is scoped inbox/operator triage work and does not duplicate a listed roadmap feature. - Greptile Review is green on the latest head and all four Greptile review threads are resolved. - GitHub PR checks are green on the latest head: policy, security/snyk, e2e, verify, Canary Dry Run, Greptile Review, and serialized server suites 1/4 through 4/4. ## Risks - Medium review surface because this touches the shared issue contract, server issue services, and the Inbox UI together. - Blocker-attention classification may need product tuning after operators use it on real blocked queues. - UI screenshots were not attached in this PR-opening pass; the branch includes `scripts/screenshot-blocked-inbox.mjs` and Storybook stories for visual capture. > 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 with shell, git, GitHub CLI, GitHub connector, and Paperclip API tool use. Reasoning mode: medium. Context window: 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 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 - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-13 16:41:36 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	0808b388ee	[codex] Add source-scoped recovery actions (#5599 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where work must end with a clear disposition rather than ambiguous agent liveness. > - Recovery currently detects stalled or missing-next-step issues, but source issue recovery can become split across child recovery issues, blockers, and comments. > - That makes it harder for operators and agents to see who owns recovery and what exact action is needed on the original issue. > - Source-scoped recovery actions give the original issue a first-class active recovery state with owner, evidence, wake policy, and resolution outcome. > - This pull request adds the recovery-action data model, backend reconciliation and resolution APIs, and board UI indicators/actions. > - The benefit is clearer stalled-work recovery without losing source issue context or relying on comments as the liveness path. ## What Changed - Added the `issue_recovery_actions` schema, shared types/constants/validators, and an idempotent `0084_issue_recovery_actions` migration ordered after current `master` migrations. - Updated stranded/missing-disposition recovery to create source-scoped recovery actions, wake the recovery owner on the source issue, and avoid locking the source issue for recovery-action wakes. - Added API support for reading active recovery actions on issue detail/list surfaces and resolving them with restored, blocked, cancelled, or false-positive outcomes. - Require blocked recovery resolutions to have an unresolved first-class blocker, and removed the UI shortcut that could mark recovery blocked without a blocker selection path. - Surfaced recovery indicators/actions in the issue UI, blocker notices, active run panels, issue rows, and Storybook coverage. - Updated docs and focused tests for recovery semantics, ownership, races, stale comments, and UI behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 5 files, 72 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering check. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up verification after blocker-resolution guard: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 3 files, 27 tests passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - UI states are available in `ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`; screenshot capture helper is `scripts/screenshot-recovery-card.cjs`. ## Risks - Medium: recovery behavior changes from child recovery issue ownership toward source-scoped actions, so operators may see stalled-work state in new places. - Migration risk is mitigated by using the next migration slot after `master` and making the table/constraints/index creation idempotent for anyone who previously applied the old branch-local `0082_dizzy_master_mold` migration. - Existing child recovery issue paths are still guarded for already-created recovery issues, but new source-scoped flows should be watched in CI and Greptile review. > 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 coding agent, tool use enabled for shell, Git, GitHub, and local test execution. Context window 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 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] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-12 09:37:15 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	e400315cbf	Guard assigned backlog liveness (#5428 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The issue graph and liveness recovery system decide whether assigned work is executable or parked > - Assigned issues created without an explicit status could silently land in backlog, making parents look blocked with no productive wake path > - The server, shared validators, recovery analysis, and UI all need to agree on that execution semantic > - This pull request makes assigned issue creation default to `todo`, flags assigned backlog blockers, and surfaces the state in the board > - The benefit is that parked assigned work becomes intentional and visible instead of creating silent liveness stalls ## What Changed - Adds contract tests for assigned issue creation defaults. - Defaults assigned issue creation to `todo` when status is omitted while preserving explicit `backlog` parking. - Exposes `resolveCreateIssueStatusDefault` through shared validators. - Teaches liveness/blocker attention paths to distinguish assigned backlog blockers. - Adds UI notices, row/header badges, and issue detail safeguards for assigned backlog blockers. - Adds Storybook fixtures and execution-semantics documentation for the assigned-backlog behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-assigned-backlog-contract-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueAssignedBacklogNotice.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx` — 50 passed, 23 skipped. - Skipped tests were embedded Postgres suites on this host with the repo skip message: `Postgres init script exited with code null. Please check the logs for extra info. The data directory might already exist.` - Pairwise merge check against the issue-controls PR branch completed without conflicts via `git merge --no-commit --no-ff` in a temporary worktree. - Screenshots for assigned-backlog UI states: [light](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-light.png), [dark](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-dark.png). - Follow-up checks: `pnpm --filter /ui typecheck`; `pnpm --filter /mcp-server build`; `pnpm --filter /mcp-server test`; `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`; focused UI component tests. - Remote PR checks on head `6300b3c`: policy, verify, serialized server shards 1/4-4/4, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Greptile Review, and Snyk all passed. ## Risks - Medium: changes status defaulting for assigned issue creation when the caller omits status. Explicit `backlog` remains supported, and server/shared tests cover both paths. - Medium: liveness classification changes can affect blocker attention labels; focused service and UI tests cover the new assigned-backlog state. > 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, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool-enabled Paperclip heartbeat environment. 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 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] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-07 12:25:26 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d0e9cc76f2	Show workspace changes and stale notices in issue threads (#5356 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The issue thread is the operator's durable audit trail for what changed and why > - Workspace changes and stale disposition notices need to be visible in that same timeline without noisy or misleading rendering > - The local branch already contained backend activity details, timeline conversion, and UI rendering work for those events > - This pull request isolates the issue-thread activity work into a standalone branch against `origin/master` > - The benefit is a focused audit-trail PR that can merge independently of the sidebar/operator UI polish branch ## What Changed - Adds readable workspace-change activity details to issue update activity events. - Surfaces workspace-change events in issue chat/timeline rendering. - Makes the existing issue comment migration idempotent. - Folds and renders stale disposition notices inline so they match activity-log styling and spacing. - Adds focused route, timeline, and issue-thread system notice coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-timeline-events.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx` — 3 files passed, 22 tests passed. - Confirmed the PR changes 9 files and does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-closed-workspace-routes.test.ts` — 1 file passed, 4 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-timeline-events.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` — 5 files passed, 54 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` after adding the Storybook screenshot fixture. - Captured Storybook screenshots for the new UI rendering paths: - Collapsed stale notice + workspace-change row: `docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5356/issue-thread-notices-collapsed.png` - Expanded stale notice details: `docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5356/issue-thread-notices-expanded.png` ### Screenshots Collapsed stale notice with workspace-change row: ![Collapsed stale notice with workspace-change row](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5356/issue-thread-notices-collapsed.png) Expanded stale notice details: ![Expanded stale notice details](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5356/issue-thread-notices-expanded.png) ## Risks - Moderate risk: this touches issue activity serialization and issue-thread rendering, both of which are central operator surfaces. - Migration risk is low: the only migration change makes an existing migration idempotent. - No new migrations are introduced, so there is no cross-PR migration ordering requirement. > 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 coding agent, shell/tool-use enabled, used to split the existing branch, verify the isolated PR branch, and create this PR. ## 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 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] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-06 09:00:54 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	a1b30c9f35	Add planning mode for issue work (#5353 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board users and agents coordinate execution. > - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead of immediate implementation work. > - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution comments from planning-oriented issue work. > - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI affordances for standard vs planning mode. > - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed, discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing the normal issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB, shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and adapter heartbeat payloads. - Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for `issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations. - Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested follow-up issues. - Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles. - Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual verification spec for planning-mode surfaces. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts` ## Screenshots Desktop planning detail: ![Desktop planning detail](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/PAP-3368-plan-a-planning-mode-for-issues/doc/assets/pap-3368/desktop-planning-detail.png) Desktop planning row: ![Desktop planning row](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/PAP-3368-plan-a-planning-mode-for-issues/doc/assets/pap-3368/desktop-planning-row.png) Desktop staged standard toggle: ![Desktop staged standard toggle](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/PAP-3368-plan-a-planning-mode-for-issues/doc/assets/pap-3368/desktop-standard-toggle.png) Mobile planning detail: ![Mobile planning detail](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/PAP-3368-plan-a-planning-mode-for-issues/doc/assets/pap-3368/mobile-planning-detail.png) Mobile planning row: ![Mobile planning row](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/PAP-3368-plan-a-planning-mode-for-issues/doc/assets/pap-3368/mobile-planning-row.png) ## Risks - Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final numbered migration safely. - Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by defaulting missing values to `standard`. - UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning display and toggle behavior. > 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 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with shell/tool use. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-06 07:01:28 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	454edfe81e	Add recovery handoff system notices (#5289 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Agent runs can end productively while the source issue still lacks a durable final disposition. > - That leaves the control plane unsure whether to resume, escalate, or close the work. > - Issue comments also need a presentation contract so system-authored recovery notices can render as first-class thread messages without overloading normal comments. > - This pull request adds successful-run handoff recovery, comment presentation metadata, and system notice rendering. > - The benefit is stricter task liveness with clearer operator-facing recovery state. ## What Changed - Added successful-run handoff decisions, wake payloads, escalation behavior, and recovery tests. - Added issue comment presentation metadata with migration `0078_white_darwin.sql` and shared/server/company portability support. - Rendered recovery/system notices in issue chat with dedicated UI components, fixtures, tests, and storybook/lab coverage. - Included the current recovery model-profile hint patch so automatic recovery follow-ups use the cheap profile. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts ui/src/components/SystemNotice.test.tsx ui/src/lib/system-notice-comment.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx` ## Risks - Migration-bearing PR: merge this before any other branch that might later add a migration. - The branch touches both recovery services and issue-thread rendering, so review should pay attention to recovery wake idempotency and comment metadata compatibility. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-06 06:05:58 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.7	a3de1d764d	Add cheap model profiles for local adapters (#4881 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where adapters are the boundary between the board, agents, and execution runtimes. > - Local adapters currently expose a primary runtime configuration, but operators often need a cheaper model lane for routine or low-risk work. > - That cheap lane has to stay adapter-owned: runtime profile settings should not mutate the primary adapter config or bypass existing auth/secret mediation. > - Issue creation also needs an ergonomic way to request primary, cheap, or custom model behavior for a selected assignee. > - This pull request adds a first-class `cheap` model profile contract across adapter capabilities, heartbeat config resolution, agent configuration, and issue creation. > - The benefit is cheaper task execution can be configured and requested explicitly while preserving adapter boundaries, secret handling, and audit visibility. ## What Changed - Added adapter model-profile capability metadata and a `cheap` profile contract for supported local adapters. - Applied `runtimeConfig.modelProfiles.cheap.adapterConfig` during heartbeat config resolution, including requested/applied/fallback run metadata. - Added agent configuration UI for cheap model profile settings without writing those settings into primary `adapterConfig`. - Added New Issue assignee model lane controls for Primary / Cheap / Custom and request payload handling. - Added run ledger profile badges and Storybook stories for the new cheap-lane UI states. - Added tests for validators, heartbeat model profile application, permission/secret mediation, UI payload helpers, and run ledger rendering. - Added committed UI verification screenshots under `docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/`. - Addressed Greptile review feedback around cheap-profile defaults, shared profile types, and fallback test data. ## Verification Local: - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/adapter-registry.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx ui/src/lib/agent-config-patch.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-assignee-overrides.test.ts ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts` — passed, 8 files / 103 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` — passed after Greptile/rebase follow-up, 2 files / 17 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after Greptile/rebase follow-up. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — did not complete successfully in this local worktree: it stopped in pre-existing `@paperclipai/adapter-utils` sandbox/SSH fixture suites outside this PR diff. Failures were 5s local timeouts plus `git init -b` unsupported by this machine's Git 2.21.0. The branch-specific targeted suites above passed. - Branch was fetched/rebased onto `public-gh/master`; `git rev-list --left-right --count public-gh/master...HEAD` reports `0 9`. Remote PR checks on latest head `e30bf399146451c86cee98ed528d51d33fa5af5a`: - `policy` — passed. - `verify` — passed. - `e2e` — passed. - `Greptile Review` — passed, confidence score 5/5; Greptile review threads resolved. - `security/snyk (cryppadotta)` — passed. Screenshots: - [New issue cheap lane desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-cheap-desktop.png) - [New issue custom lane desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-custom-desktop.png) - [New issue unsupported adapter desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-unsupported-desktop.png) - [Run ledger model profile badges desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/runledger-profile-badges-desktop.png) - Mobile variants are also in `docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/`. ## Risks - Medium: heartbeat config mediation now merges runtime model profiles into adapter configs, so adapter secret normalization and host-command restrictions must keep covering nested config paths. - Medium: the UI adds another issue creation choice; unsupported adapters must keep hiding the cheap lane and preserve primary behavior. - Low migration risk: no database migration is 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 coding agent using GPT-5-class reasoning with repo tool use and command execution. Exact served model/context window was 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 - [ ] 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] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-04-30 15:32:04 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	1991ec9d6f	[codex] Split backend control-plane QoL slice (#4700 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so backend task ownership, recovery, review visibility, and company-scoped limits need to stay enforceable without UI-only coupling. > - Closed PR #4692 bundled those backend changes with UI workflow, docs, skills, workflow, and lockfile churn. > - PAP-2694 asks for a clean backend/control-plane slice from that closed branch. > - This branch starts from current `master` and mines only the `cli`, `packages/db`, `packages/shared`, and `server` contracts/tests needed for the backend behavior. > - It explicitly excludes UI workflow/performance work, `.github/workflows/pr.yml`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, docs, skills, package-script, adapter UI build-config, and perf fixture script changes; the only UI files are fixture/test updates required by the tightened shared `Company` contract. > - The benefit is a smaller reviewable PR that preserves the control-plane fixes while staying under Greptile s 100-file review limit. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped attachment-size limits through DB schema/migrations, shared company portability contracts, CLI import/export coverage, and server attachment upload enforcement. - Added productivity review service/API behavior for no-comment streak, long-active, and high-churn review issues, including request-depth clamping and issue summary exposure. - Hardened issue ownership and recovery/control-plane paths: peer-agent mutation denial, issue tree pause/resume behavior, stranded recovery origins, and related activity/test coverage. - Preserved related backend contract updates for routine timestamp variables and managed agent instruction bundles because they live in shared/server contracts from the source branch. - Addressed Greptile feedback by making `Company.attachmentMaxBytes` non-optional, simplifying review request-depth clamping, fixing the migration final newline, and enforcing the process-level attachment cap as the final ceiling for uploads. - Added minimal company fixtures needed for repo-wide typecheck/build and kept the PR to 66 changed files with forbidden/non-slice paths excluded. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` - `git diff --name-only origin/master..HEAD \| wc -l` -> 66 files - `git diff --name-only origin/master..HEAD -- .github/workflows/pr.yml pnpm-lock.yaml package.json doc skills .agents scripts packages/adapters` -> no output - `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts packages/shared/src/routine-variables.test.ts packages/shared/src/adapter-types.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` -> 12 files, 147 tests passed - `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts cli/src/__tests__/company-delete.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts` -> 3 files, 18 tests passed - `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts` -> 1 file, 6 tests passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` ## Risks - Includes migrations `0073_shiny_salo.sql` and `0074_striped_genesis.sql`; merge ordering matters if another PR adds migrations first. - This is intentionally backend-only apart from fixture/test updates forced by shared type correctness; UI affordances from PR #4692 are not present here and should land in separate UI slices. - The worktree install emitted plugin SDK bin-link warnings for unbuilt plugin packages, but the targeted tests and package typechecks completed successfully. > 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 coding agent, tool-enabled terminal/GitHub workflow. Exact runtime context window was not exposed by the 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 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] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-28 16:46:45 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	0c6961a03e	Normalize escaped multiline issue and approval text (#4444 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The board and agent APIs accept multiline issue, approval, interaction, and document text > - Some callers accidentally send literal escaped newline sequences like `\n` instead of JSON-decoded line breaks > - That makes comments, descriptions, documents, and approval notes render as flattened text instead of readable markdown > - This pull request centralizes multiline text normalization in shared validators > - The benefit is newline-preserving API behavior across issue and approval workflows without route-specific fixes ## What Changed - Added a shared `multilineTextSchema` helper that normalizes escaped `\n`, `\r\n`, and `\r` sequences to real line breaks. - Applied the helper to issue descriptions, issue update comments, issue comment bodies, suggested task descriptions, interaction summaries, issue documents, approval comments, and approval decision notes. - Added shared validator regressions for issue and approval multiline inputs. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/approval.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` ## Risks - Low risk. This only changes text fields that are explicitly multiline user/operator content. - If a caller intentionally wanted literal backslash-n text in these fields, it will now render as a real line break. > 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 coding agent, tool-enabled with shell/GitHub/Paperclip API access. Context window was not reported by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-24 18:02:45 -05:00