PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-30 05:16:50 +01:00

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	585b4e6af8	fix(chat): preserve deferred Retry source batches (#17883 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work through tasks and governed execution. > - Connected conversations retain the source and authority for each request. > - Task Retry pins the full saved GitHub input batch before it waits for cleanup. > - Resuming that wait could append an independent board queue after authorization. > - Dispatch then rejected the changed batch before the provider started. > - This pull request keeps the authorized batch intact and restores certified undelivered input from historical failed attempts. > - Each board message retains a separate turn and its own admission checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A deferred GitHub task Retry could consume a separate board message while promoting its saved receipt. The new run then failed with `chat_failed_run_retry_not_authorized`. A second Retry could also fail because the historical run retained the mixed batch. Expected behavior Retry must preserve the source batch it authorized. Separate board input must keep its own execution path. Historical input may be restored only when durable evidence proves that the rejected attempt never started a provider. Steps to reproduce 1. Retain ten authorized GitHub requests behind a failed native turn. 2. Start task Retry while the predecessor still lacks its exact termination receipt. 3. Save an independent board message. 4. Complete cleanup and resume the same Retry receipt. 5. Observe the mixed batch rejected during dispatch. Retry that failed attempt to reproduce the second refusal. Refs #17725 for the existing saved-input Retry contract. This change repairs the later queue merge and its retained failed state. Related #17878 covers snapshot continuation and later turns in recovered directories; its workspace repair can be reviewed independently. ## What Changed - Keep deferred chat Retry promotion scoped to its exact receipt. Ordinary board Retry coalescing retains its existing behavior. - Let a new explicit task Retry restore a historical mixed batch only after strict never-started, source, ownership, allocation, board-comment and prior-delivery checks. - Preserve failed-run history and original budget-skipped receipts. Record restored queue ownership in activity. - Add production queue and HTTP-route regressions. Update the execution contract and verification maps. ## Verification - Before the repair, the deferred ten-input batch failed before identity initialization. The same regression now reaches the real initializer with the exact GitHub batch. The independent board message then reaches its own initializer in a separate turn. - Before historical recovery, ordinary task Retry refused the persisted mixed failed batch. The repair passes that case without changing the failed run. HTTP duplicate requests retain one Retry owner. An additional compatibility probe restored the old queue candidate predicate and removed all historical mixed-state fixture writes: the real producer created the exact batch and the complete historical HTTP recovery case passed (1/1). The fixed-source historical fixture now uses the production serializers. - The affected Retry group passes 86 cases on commit `325c00158df5569f5b42731cda4ecc4584909d99`, including already-coalesced external receipts. Refusals cover edited sources, active controllers, unresolved allocations, changed receipts, foreign external receipt ownership and prior delivery of either board or GitHub input, including immutable budget-skipped receipts. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass with these source changes. Map, module-boundary and diff checks pass. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was started. The host cannot create additional PostgreSQL semaphores; database-dependent suites fail or skip at startup. The affected database group runs against a separate migrated PostgreSQL 17.10 test database with Node 24.22.0 on macOS arm64. - The regression deliberately stops after the real identity initializer to avoid provider allocation. It proves HTTP, queue, source authorization, identity and separate continuation behavior. It does not claim a live model result, GitHub publication, deployment or recovery of the original hosted task. - Current head `325c00158df5569f5b42731cda4ecc4584909d99`: all checks are terminal with no failures or pending checks; required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` pass. Conditional Storybook checks are skipped. Greptile and Paperclip each reviewed this exact commit at 5/5. Both earlier review threads are resolved. Paperclip retains one optional robustness suggestion for batch ordering; the verified historical producer order remains a strict recovery contract. ## Risks Restoring input could repeat work if the prior turn had executed. The existing strict bootstrap proof rejects provider output, native state, process or controller evidence, and allocations. Restoration also checks current external authority, unchanged board revisions and other run history. An uncertain executor remains held. No migration, provider fallback or relaxation of dispatch validation is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing and test execution. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. A separately shared regression supplied independent reproduction evidence. ## 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 (affected database regressions; full local suite has the host limitation described above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-27 11:34:18 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2f3516f6fd	fix(github): authenticate external contributor lookups (#17902 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their access to external services. > - A GitHub bot connection can add external contributors by username. > - The lookup sent an anonymous request even when the bot had an App installation. > - Anonymous requests share the server IP quota and can fail for a valid username. > - This pull request uses the selected bot installation for the lookup. > - It also gives users clear errors without exposing credentials or provider response text. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? The Access tab could reject a valid external contributor username with a generic GitHub error. The lookup did not use the connected bot's identity. Expected behavior The lookup uses the selected bot's active App installation. It returns the numeric user identity or a clear account, rate limit, or installation error. Steps to reproduce 1. Configure a GitHub review bot and open its Access tab. 2. Exhaust the server IP's anonymous GitHub quota. 3. Look up a valid external contributor username. 4. Observe the generic rejection even though the bot has an installation. The original provider HTTP status was not retained. Source inspection proves the anonymous request. The historical cause remains unconfirmed. Paperclip version or commit The defect is present at `eda2a03bfe5213ffef2fbbdefdf572be775f1e14`. Deployment mode Server deployment with an active GitHub App bot connection. ## What Changed - Pass the endpoint ID from the existing authorized lookup route. - Issue a short-lived installation token with metadata read permission. - Reject inactive connections and invalid installation IDs without an anonymous fallback. - Distinguish missing accounts, rate limits, and installation access failures. - Add 25 lookup tests and update the connector guide and both access maps. The GitHub management service owns the provider behavior. The shared route only passes its authorized endpoint ID. The request body and response shape stay the same. ## Verification - Passed: [full CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40535979115) on `38d1ebcebb08553f159b3b81ee1bb31d1fbbba8e`, including typecheck, build, server and workspace tests, Runner checks, serialized suites, eight E2E shards, and the final verification gate. - Passed: Greptile 5/5 for the same head, with no open review threads. - Passed: 25 lookup regression tests on the final test fixtures. - Passed: 91 tests across five GitHub service suites before the fixture-only change. - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check`. - The tests exercise actual GitHub request construction with provider response fixtures. They assert the installation identity, metadata-only token request, request count, and sanitized error details. - `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck` could not complete because this environment has no Cargo executable. - Two standalone server TypeScript attempts were killed. The second ran after the full suite was stopped, with a 5120 MiB Node heap limit. The 8 GiB container recorded two OOM kills. Neither attempt produced a typecheck verdict. - `pnpm test:run` was started, then interrupted after resource exhaustion. Its first server phase did not produce a final verdict. These local attempts remain incomplete. Full CI later passed for the same head. A live authenticated bot lookup remains unverified. - The initial frozen install stopped on an existing patch configuration mismatch. Installation then succeeded with lockfile writes disabled. No dependency or lockfile changes are included. - GitHub documents installation-token support for [Get a user](https://docs.github.com/en/rest/users/users#get-a-user) without extra user permissions. ## Risks - The lookup now requires an active bot connection and a saved installation ID. - GitHub rate limits can still occur. The error keeps the retry metadata and tells the user to retry. - No database migration or permission-policy change is included. - This PR does not prove that a deployment contains the fix. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with code editing, tool use, and test execution. The recovered implementation was assisted by `gpt-6.1-sol`. This session does not expose its exact model ID or context window limit. ## 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>	2026-10-27 11:19:14 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	b8f6d9b23f	docs: clarify delegated connection feature and access maps (#17882 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature and agent access maps describe user journeys and their permission boundaries. > - PRs #17737 and #17739 added delegated connection setup across several existing areas. > - The maps include those operations, but some recipes and board-only statements are stale. > - This PR adds usable setup recipes and corrects the access descriptions. > - The benefit is a clearer verification path that preserves human and agent authority boundaries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #17737, #17739. Related: #17862 changes connection setup advice and catalog choices. This PR only clarifies the existing maps. Issue type Outdated and missing documentation. Where is the issue? The paired connection setup, app permissions, chat channels, model accounts, and gateway maps under `maps/`. What's wrong? Delegated setup guidance sits under Gotchas without a matching driving recipe. Some model-account text still groups supported account sign-in with board-only host controls. A few callback, privacy, and native admission descriptions omit important limits. Suggested fix Add the missing recipes. State the current route and service boundaries. Keep existing capability IDs and distinguish source review, fixture tests, and live provider proof. ## What Changed - Add paired entry points and driving recipes for delegated setup, permission changes, and managed AI sign-in. - Describe Google consent restoration, GitHub requested credential fields and saved rotation, and Vercel personal credential attribution. - Correct the Vercel callback state checks and chat conversation/test-status privacy scope. Name the separate GitHub registration handoff endpoint. - Replace blanket board-only AI login wording with the specific managed-account and host/session boundaries. - Link the five access maps to shared native admission and work-mode limits. State the permitted self-targeted policy administration boundary. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed: 35 paired areas and 192 stable capability IDs. This checks structure and references. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` passed. Generated output remains ignored. - `git diff --check` passed. - Eleven selected cases in `server/src/__tests__/connection-management.integration.test.ts` passed on source `db70c5acd9`, the unchanged base of this documentation commit. They use a fresh PostgreSQL database, actual agent keys/run JWTs, human sessions, and deterministic provider fixtures. The other 61 cases were not selected. - The selected cases cover connection/profile creation, Google saved choices, native API entry points, Slack caller/target policy, GitHub import and identity confirmation, durable gateway authority, AI accounts/pools, saved human handoffs, revocation, scope, trust, and Ask/Plan denial. - Read-only source reviews checked all five areas. The disposable database was removed after the run. - Full workspace typecheck, build, and test sweep were not rerun for this Markdown-only change. Live provider login and browser journeys were not run. Per-operation source-only/not-run labels remain unchanged. ## Risks Low risk. Incorrect documentation could misstate a permission boundary or imply broader verification. The changes cite the owning routes and services and retain fixture and live-provider limits. No runtime, schema, lockfile, or workflow files change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and read-only source-review agents. The session does not expose a more specific deployment ID or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable — existing fixtures verify this documentation-only change - [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 — CI is running and Paperclip Review is queued on the current head - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups — exact head `4d16f101968d6908f90f72b6ff6ecbb79037f168` - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-27 09:40:41 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	0c9d10d695	feat(connections): complete saved setup guidance and coverage maps (#17739 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Product and agent access maps describe the same capability IDs. > - Agent connection management changes the callable operations and permission boundaries. > - Reviewers need an operation inventory that distinguishes API access, human handoffs, and fixture evidence. > - This pull request adds saved setup screens and updates the maps for #17737. > - The benefit is that users and contributors can inspect the coverage and remaining boundaries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Product and permission documentation, saved authentication setup UI and consent metadata, and product/agent access maps. Problem or motivation The current maps describe board-only management paths. They need to match delegated connection management and distinguish administration from ordinary tool execution. Proposed solution Record route operations, required grants, responsible-user limits, transport, saved authentication handoffs, provider-fixture evidence, and explicit local-operator boundaries for every connection family. Roadmap alignment This is the documentation companion to #17737. It covers existing Connected Apps, governed MCP gateways, chat channels, and personal/shared AI accounts. It uses existing server setup operations and adds their saved handoffs to the existing UI. ## What Changed - Show saved AI sign-in and connection setup handoffs in the existing UI. - Open GitHub import and rotation links at the required human step. Resume a committed rotation after reload without asking for another secret. - Restore saved Google service choices for the addressed user while preserving newer consent. Successful direct/cloud consent records its own timestamp, independently of refresh or lease writes; existing refresh paths preserve it. - Update product, implementation, and permission-default documentation. - Reconcile app permissions, connection setup, chat channels, profiles/gateways, and model account coverage. - Use matching capability IDs in the product and agent access maps. - Label source-reviewed operations separately from fixture-tested operations and live provider setup. - Preserve catalog creator attribution under the responsible user, with the actual agent still recorded. This follow-up moved from the implementation to keep both reviews below 100 files. This companion now changes 38 files, including the preserved Vercel personal-credential and OAuth callback attribution follow-ups alongside consent and catalog ownership. - Name the addressed-human browser-session and consent step for Slack managed authorization and installation. Preserve source-only evidence for those individual operations. ## Verification - Current companion head: `04d40cdd605452d91cf4931476eb292a210825af`, including implementation `2ecd6451d0` and master `ea727dc3c2`, 38 files. All intended companion files survive: 35 are byte-identical to the previous companion; two chat maps and qualification add current evidence. Exact-head Superagent passed and Paperclip Review supplied an actual neutral5/5 assessment with no findings and explicit no-independent-runtime/live/current-CI verification limits. Exact-head Greptile also completed at5/5 with no findings; both formerly failed shards and their verification aggregate passed on attempt2; full exact-head Linux CI workflow40446969603 completed SUCCESS. All current checks and statuses are terminal clean, with no unresolved findings. This PR remains dependent on #17737 and needs fresh checks after its required post-squash replay. The preceding 605 head’s reviews are historical after this update. Older b0ea Linux workflow success after its single rerun also remains historical. - Earlier preserved-stack verification passed 2,165 tests: 70 assembled-server actual-auth scenarios, 27 OpenAPI contracts, 2,022 native API tests and 46 saved GitHub wizard cases in fresh PostgreSQL. The parent also passed 141 existing gateway/policy tests. Workspace typecheck/build, maps and token gates passed. The initial typecheck IPC denial and all material intermediate regressions remain in the qualification record; no full local sweep or live provider setup is claimed. - Operation maps now cover issuer/target gateway policy intersection and post-approval revocation, bounded activity pagination through private-only windows, and native local-login encrypted receipts. The companion preserves the Vercel OAuth callback ownership change with its existing credential ownership follow-up. - Parent CI has one retained connection-intent e2e failure from a periodic-recovery timing race. GitHub refused the first job-rerun attempt while its workflow was nonterminal. Once completed, the single failed-job rerun was accepted as attempt 2 and passed, including the full parent Linux workflow. - Companion Linux server shard 4/12 retained a cleanup-idleness timeout in `login-cleanup-work.test.ts` (active work was still 1 after its five-second wait). The same unchanged cleanup suite passed all 16 cases in the parent Linux job 121950185096 and all 16 cases locally against a fresh disposable PostgreSQL database. Relevant cleanup/reaper/scheduling runtime code is unchanged. The single unchanged-code failed-job rerun was accepted as attempt 2 on the previous `b0ea3c940f` head (workflow 40431671705). The failed shard and complete Linux workflow passed on attempt 2; no additional unchanged-code rerun was used for this failure. The first local attempt failed the existing dedicated `_test` database-name guard before running tests; the correctly named fixture passed without weakening the guard. - Earlier 82 GitHub UI tests passed. All three new replacement cases were red before the fix. A confirmed unchanged generation preserves the earlier copy; a changed or unreadable generation blocks copying and reconnecting. An explicit status check can restore the copy when it is still current. All earlier import, rotation, verification, and retry states remain covered. - The complete stack passed 82 API/OpenAPI tests in fresh PostgreSQL, including 55 scenarios with real agent keys, run JWTs, human sessions, production defaults, persistence, and deterministic providers. The parent also passed 60 Copilot installation tests, preserving published v62 and binding combined guidance as v63. - Earlier 10 focused Google/OAuth tests passed: eight picker cases and two local-HTTP protocol cases proving consent metadata survives concurrent token refresh. The refresh and legacy UI cases were red before the fix. These protocol fixtures use the existing injected board actor and do not count as agent-authenticated proof. - Workspace typecheck/build passed after the consent change; normal migration generation reported no SQL changes for the additive JSON metadata. The parent's latest caller-authorization correction passed server typecheck/build. Map validation and token gates passed. Maps cover 35 areas and 192 capability IDs. The specification names migration `0380_broken_aqueduct.sql`. - The test-call operation maps now record the full caller/target tool access decision (profiles, policies, and explicit grants), credential identity for every auth label, approval, and rate checks. The profile-only precondition was removed after the new permitted-access cases failed; those cases and the no-auth identity regression now pass. Saved test status requires its originating principal and current linked-task access; actual key/JWT privacy-denial evidence is recorded. - Tool-connection activity is now operation-verified: 100 events over two tasks require two capability decisions and at most two run captures (previously 100/102), preserve private-event filtering, and deny the next request after audit revocation. The regression was red before the fix. - Cloud enrollment creation and callback entries now name instance-administrator and company/principal checks. The callback is a browser return with HTML or a 303 redirect. Status reads retain their separate board-actor rule. - Operation maps identify the API, transport, authorization, evidence, and human/operator boundaries. Structural checks do not establish live provider behavior. Earlier failures and fixture corrections remain in `doc/plans/2026-10-13-connection-api-parity.md`. - An earlier companion head (`26edbe17`) received an actual Paperclip Review assessment of 5/5 with no actionable findings, published with neutral status. That review did not run tests or confirm CI, and it is historical for this new head. The prior incomplete execution result is not counted as a passed assessment. Fresh review remains pending. The duplicate enrollment findings have explanatory replies and are resolved. - The latest implementation correction passed all 55 actual-auth scenarios and 27 OpenAPI contracts (separate commands). It repairs unavailable old credential material, preserves fresh import versus configured reconnect links, and distinguishes credential field sets/completion modes in handoff keys. The new fresh-link and collision cases were red before the fix. All 41 GitHub wizard tests now pass, including filling the fresh saved handoff and asserting App import rather than reconnect; UI typecheck, maps and token gates also pass. Qualification retains the earlier failures and an incorrect OpenAPI filename that selected only the integration module before the correct separate contract run. - Configured GitHub credential-entry links carry canonical requested fields and all/any mode. The form displays and submits those values through human reconnect while retaining other saved credentials. Two webhook/client-secret cases were red before the fix; combined all/any and legacy-link cases also pass. The current UI fixes the old `bf760912` baseline referenced by the duplicate main review finding. - After merging master `baec3abd67` and regenerating migration0380, the complete stack passed 128 tests (55 actual-auth, 27 OpenAPI and 46 GitHub wizard cases), workspace typecheck/build, maps and token gates. Eight current Google UI cases also passed. The two local-HTTP OAuth cases could not initialize embedded PostgreSQL in this fresh attempt, so that attempt is not a protocol pass; the earlier ten-case evidence is historical and fresh Linux CI remains required. - The reproduced Linux automatic-Slack challenge failure is fixed by retaining verification only for the same signing fingerprint and callback URL; all eight neighboring provider compatibility cases pass. Qualification also retains the uncommitted GitHub field variant that failed initial-secret compatibility before the extension was narrowed to reconnect, and the first unmigrated external-database diagnostic. Upstream 0379 remains intact; normal generation/pruning produced additive/idempotent 0380, with repeated application verified. - Both PRs must ship together. The user authorized merging when checks pass. Merge #17737 first, replay only this companion's changes onto master, retarget this PR, and require fresh current-head CI and review before its squash merge. - The updated maps distinguish authorized bot-token/API-key setup from human verification-key entry and forbid generic channel secret-reference replacement. Actual key/JWT security baselines were red before both guards; all 82 API/OpenAPI cases, eight native receipt protections, and 49 policy-service tests now pass. The qualification record preserves the initial lifecycle/fixture/union-assertion diagnostics and the preceding Linux CI assertion failures. Maps pass on this updated stack. Fresh exact-head CI and reviews remain required. - The parent now preserves a per-field credential-change boundary before retiring saved credential-entry cards. Old health, unchanged entry, unrelated repair and retries cannot bypass it. Current authority is checked before and inside credential persistence; a real provider-time revocation regression was red before the fix. Final 82 API/OpenAPI tests, four neighboring lifecycle cases, and server typecheck/build pass. Maps pass, and qualification retains the hidden-metadata fixture failure and the measured minute-boundary rate-test failure. Production rate behavior is unchanged; only the relevant test Date clock is fixed. - After the current master/parent refresh, all 341 affected UI cases, combined workspace typecheck/build, maps and token gates pass. The updated parent also passed 97 actual-auth/OpenAPI cases, 141 gateway/policy cases and 61 profile installation cases. Published upstream Copilotv62/v63 remain unchanged; combined guidance is now v64 (`sha256:22e31f95ef972bcead98a4a707c9f33433558fd111e390e027a2bbb4346e112a`). Qualification retains the initial source-identity failure and fixture port/migration setup failures. No full local sweep, fresh local OAuth protocol run or live acceptance is claimed; fresh Linux CI must qualify this successor. - Latest review follow-up: the parent fixes caller-policy bypass in Slack tests/invitations and premature identity-handoff completion. The maps now name caller/target Block/Ask/rate intersection, one charge for a shared bucket, and the addressed human’s exact current identity link. Parent verification passes all 99 actual-auth/OpenAPI tests, typecheck and build. The preserved combined companion passes the four focused tests (including twelve Slack policy/recipient combinations and the actual human OAuth confirmation path), workspace typecheck/build and maps. The 50 embedded-PG continuation cases were skipped locally because their database could not start; fresh Linux CI remains required. All material red/intermediate results and corrected-fixture evidence are retained in the qualification record. - Current `04d40cdd60` CI workflow40446969603 retained two new failures: server1/12 `workspace-runtime.test.ts` could not reach a fixture subprocess’s health endpoint within its ten-second readiness window (job122001926052), and chat2/3 `wakes Slack session sync from publication commit and leaves settled action queues quiet` observed one select after its idle predicate (job122001925936). Both same cases passed in parent `2ecd6451d0` Linux jobs122001920494/122001920581. The runtime and queue implementations are unchanged by this companion. Both failing cases also pass unchanged locally: two real-subprocess runtime readiness/reuse tests and the exact Slack quietness assertion against a fresh migrated PostgreSQL database. Logs: `/tmp/parity-04d-server1-failure.log`, `/tmp/parity-04d-chat2-failure.log`, `/tmp/parity-2ecd-server1-green.log`, `/tmp/parity-2ecd-chat2-green.log`, `/tmp/parity-04d-runtime-qualified.log`, `/tmp/parity-04d-chat-quiet-qualified.log`. The single standard unchanged-code failed-job rerun was accepted as attempt2 on the unchanged exact head at `2026-10-27T04:24:30.513973+00:00` after the workflow completed. Both new failure retry allowances are now consumed; both failed shards and the complete Linux workflow have now passed on attempt2, including the verification aggregate. No additional unchanged-code rerun will be requested for either failure. No timing, assertion, idle-work guard or policy was weakened. If either case fails again, investigate/fix rather than rerun again. The older 5b/b0ea rerun allowances remain consumed and separate. ## Risks - Saved handoff links depend on the API changes in #17737, including the nonsecret credential-generation metadata. Both PRs must ship together. - A map can overstate operation coverage. Entries identify their evidence and retain human authentication and trusted-host limits. - Structural map checks do not prove live provider behavior. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific deployment ID or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass — focused UI/guidance and map checks - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable — saved setup UI tests and map validation apply - [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 — exact `04d40cdd60` full Linux CI completed SUCCESS on attempt2; all current checks/statuses are terminal clean, with an actual neutral5/5 Paperclip assessment - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups — exact `04d40cdd60` review completed with no findings - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-27 08:21:02 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	db32bdf98b	fix(github): recover review replay and preserve passive summaries (#17726 ) <!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/8/changes/paperclip/8 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub tools save review assessments and publish their confirmed receipts. > - A timeout before publication staging can leave an invocation with no saved publication. > - Exact replay must repeat only the authorized preflight and converge on one publication. > - PR requests also share an App-owned summary comment. Progress and maintenance must preserve its final content. > - A native turn can intentionally wait for an author without sending another reply. > - This pull request repairs unstaged replay and prevents queued or passive-wait notices from replacing a published assessment. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related repairs: Refs #16883, Refs #16284, Refs #16275 recover saved publication receipts. Refs #17183 covers unavailable approved replay output. Refs #17714 fixes a separate publication lock-order problem. What happened? Exact review retries can return null `begin_review` output or `github_publication_unavailable` after an upstream read times out before publication staging. Separately, response maintenance can replace a completed PR assessment with “Review queued…” or a generic missing-response notice after an authorized no-new-work reply. The latter run can correctly commit a passive wait while its external summary is still overwritten. Expected behavior Exact retries repeat only the authorized preflight. A saved or uncertain publication keeps its existing recovery owner. Queued acknowledgements preserve final App-owned summary content. A committed native passive wait settles its current acknowledgement without writing a response or treating an old summary as a new-run reply. Success before presentation remains held until a durable decision exists; exact current-run confirmed receipts can retire their placeholders. Genuine missing/error responses retain fallback handling. Steps to reproduce 1. Hold a GitHub metadata read until an authorized gateway call times out before publication staging. Repeat the exact request. 2. Publish a valid PR assessment. Send an ordinary author reply that asks for no new work and no duplicate comment. 3. Commit the native `response_wake` with a no-comment server presentation decision. Run response maintenance twice. 4. The base returns the invalid replay result or replaces the assessment with progress/fallback text. Paperclip version or commit Replay regression: `41c42895fa862c586ff841f8c50200d93ffc83a4`. Maintenance regression: the previous PR head `c7553d2325df53d98d9febff7023ade4b1e704eb`. Both use real PostgreSQL and simulated GitHub responses. The maintenance failure was also observed in normal hosted use. Deployment mode Source checkout on macOS arm64 with isolated PostgreSQL 18, followed by a dedicated QA qualification. No production rollout is included. ## What Changed - Route exact `begin_review` replay through its typed owner. Repeat unstaged preflight only with the complete request digest and no successful invocation result. - Preserve current policy, immutable assessments, unique action keys, receipt recovery, and provider leases. - Preserve a verified App/marker-owned final shared PR comment during acknowledgements. New canonical assessments can still replace it at the same or a new head. - Project only a bounded server-committed native wait decision. Settle the current main-PR acknowledgement without provider writes or a fabricated current-run reply receipt. - Hold succeeded native runs while presentation is undecided, including the committed-before-presentation window. An exact current-run confirmed receipt can still retire its placeholder. - Keep missing/error fallback and uncertain publication checks. Update the bot guide, execution semantics, maps, and real-database regressions. ## Verification - Causal RED: exact begin replay returned null; exact unstaged submit replay returned unavailable. The new real-database maintenance test then reproduced the exact generic summary overwrite. Its first repair also exposed an earlier queued-acknowledgement overwrite. Both publication boundaries are repaired. Four additional ordering regressions reproduced the generic PATCH while native presentation was undecided; the corrected tests hold until the same row settles. - Local GREEN: 196 complete GitHub workflow cases pass on an empty migrated PostgreSQL fixture. This includes queued/running preservation, both success-before-presentation windows, null/scalar/invalid decisions, exact-current versus predecessor receipts, durable acknowledgement settlement, repeated no-op maintenance, eventual genuine missing/error fallback, pending writes and same/new-head canonical replacement. Workspace typecheck, exact-head build, maps and whitespace checks pass. The real database respects the actual selected-column projection. - Command: `PAPERCLIP_TEST_DATABASE_URL=<owned-postgres-18> pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t 'GitHub agent review workflow'`. - CI/review: historical heads `c7553d2325df53d98d9febff7023ade4b1e704eb` and `4d00d3af6f2ccbda8f38a98f81d392d82dd3c59c` had Greptile 5/5. Final readiness head `2d267f1e4aa0b835a11aede97798fbd800d9cd96` passed independent source review with no actionable finding and fresh Greptile 5/5 with zero unresolved threads; all 54 check runs pass with 2 intended skips; Snyk is successful and the merge state is CLEAN. The dedicated QA destination acceptance also passed. - Full-suite limitation: the earlier `pnpm test:run` attempt produced no final summary. Its retained log reports failures in unchanged workspace-runtime tests and 15-second gateway-audit and stale-question timeouts. Their cause remains unknown. Do not treat the targeted results as a full local-suite pass. - Live evidence and limits: normal native OpenCode/DeepSeek review delivery published a useful assessment, inline finding and App check at the exact reviewed head. A separate ordinary author reply delivered a useful answer and settled. Those are ordinary delivery proofs, not live injected-timeout proofs. A later no-new-work reply exposed the maintenance overwrite. The final combined source `070e9c4ead9341cd497b23f533a91bf194475e79` includes the exact publication repair and passed normal review → ordinary author reply → quiet destination acceptance. A normal current-head review restored the legitimate assessment; the ordinary no-new-work reply then committed a passive wait without new GitHub tools. The same 1,436-character summary stayed identical while queued/running, after terminal settlement, and more than 3 minutes 50 seconds after successful cleanup. Review rows and receipts stayed unchanged, with no owner, live run or queued input. The timeout fault fixtures prove replay and single-publication safety. The historical first upstream timeout producer remains unknown. The live board reads do not expose the raw acknowledgement action row: its terminal cancellation and next-pass no-op are real-PostgreSQL fixture proofs, while the hosted checks prove actual destination stability. The hosted journey did not inject a timeout or pause the terminal/presentation writer window. Private destinations, raw receipts and internal task identifiers remain outside this PR. ## Risks - Original and repeated metadata reads can overlap. The immutable assessment, action uniqueness and publication lease must remain authoritative. - Missing complete request identity or a deleted completed receipt remains held. The gateway does not reconstruct receipts or relax approval. - Passive suppression requires actual native mode/committed phase, current source ownership and the server's no-comment decision. It applies only to the main PR review surface. Uncertain current writes stay held; other surfaces keep normal placeholder retirement. - There is no migration, credential change, dependency or new retry scheduler. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`) in Codex assisted with diagnosis, implementation, tests, and source review. It used reasoning, repository tools and code execution. The context window size is not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-26 22:22:57 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	208a093d19	fix(chat): preserve resumed review waits and retry newer saved input (#17725 ) <!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/36/changes/paperclip/36 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review agents publish findings and wait for an authorized reply or head change. > - Review tools could retain the requester after resume while completion lost that same wait proof. > - A yielded report could then queue its own continuation or repeat a missing-wait error. > - Ordinary Retry could also select an older failed turn while a newer saved request had no admission. > - This change shares the existing authority proofs and canonical admission owners. > - Current access, publication, execution and budget gates remain required. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17318. Builds on the canonical saved-input retry owner in #17733. Related #16550 covers deferred legacy comments after ownership waits. The separate recovery repair in #17724 owns the cleanup-to-saved-input handoff; this PR does not add a second admission owner. A resumed review could publish an assessment, then turn its `response_wake` into an immediate `issue_status_changed` wake. A provider that omitted its continuation could instead repeat a completion error. A newer linked-human message saved during a budget hold could also remain unstarted because Retry selected the older failed source. ## What Changed - Resolve passive review waits through the accepted requester ledger used by GitHub tools. Require the latest reviewed head, exact company, task, agent, repository and processed publication under current access. - Fill omitted/null yielded continuation from that server proof. Permit an inherited normal tree resume only through its accepted parent identity. Permit an ordinary follow-up only after this run has a processed useful reply linked to its exact inbound message. Reject acknowledgements, partial assessments, pending or uncertain writes as that reply proof. - Recheck the same run/review/head/source proof during feedback, finalization and final status commit. Preserve explicit malformed-input rejection and Done policy. Add no monitor permission or publication grant. - Keep heartbeat and publication projections narrow. Preserve both published Copilot v62 identities and generate source-bound v63 from the pinned merged base. No v63 live qualification is claimed. - Certify the structured isolated-directory binding failure only at its pre-allocation boundary and only through canonical task Retry. Other workspace validation reasons and unknown effects remain denied. - Route Retry to eligible newer saved input through the existing canonical owner. Preserve the old result and skipped receipt. Require current principal, source, App, runtime fence, budget, native ownership and exact cleanup proof. - Recover absent historical App metadata only through an earlier trusted processed response receipt and an immutable non-null endpoint claim. Explicit malformed or conflicting metadata stays denied. - Revalidate execution through the exact claimed wake, coalesced task Retry and resolved user-continuation receipt after admission. A second normal Retry can recover the exact never-started authorization failure with unchanged saved input. Require empty execution evidence, exact diagnostics and no allocated or active executor. - Explain when a recorded result prevents exact replay. Ordinary board Retry directs a new task message to continue from saved work. Inherited requester identity alone never grants replay. - Keep accepted board-message preparation failures with the canonical task Retry owner. Certify the exact unchanged comment, original user wake, accepted same-user identity and absence of provider execution. Pin that source, recheck it at admission, and bind identity initialization to the coalesced intent and exact claimed successor receipt. Uncertifiable sources retain an actionable fresh-message refusal. - Return safe named authority categories for board Retry refusals. Update execution documentation and capability maps. Add no schema or polling loop. ## Verification - A fresh external review request exposed a separate isolated-directory preparation failure before allocation. Its first normal Retry saved an intent but admitted no successor. This follow-up certifies only that exact structured preparation boundary through the existing canonical Retry owner, with trusted failed settlement and no executor, lease, result or output. A real HTTP/queue regression reproduces the missing successor before the repair. Twenty-three current-source safety cases and the final 98-case Retry/HTTP group pass, including a fresh click after a denied intent, source revocation, accepted results and the older direct API remaining denied. The warning case uses actual configuration preparation and production event append; unknown warning shape or provider provenance stays denied. Full workspace typecheck, build, maps and diff checks pass. Renewed hosted normal Retry now succeeds on the final combined source: it preserves the exact saved request and linked requester, starts one native successor in a fresh attempt workspace, publishes the current-head 2/5 assessment and commits In review with passive response wake. - A later hosted normal Retry published a low-score assessment but lost its accepted source identity because the previous attempt failed before identity initialization. It repeated continuation errors, then submitted Done. This is failed acceptance, not a successful qualification. The initializer now retains the exact source only after execution-time failed-chat Retry authorization; generic Retry and Done policy are unchanged. A real queue/initializer regression fails with a null source on the previous code and passes with the newer saved source. Two real database completion cases verify that source yields the authoritative wait and commits In review. Renewed hosted normal Retry now retains the accepted source and exposes the authoritative current-review wait. It completed after two semantic feedback corrections (wrong contract revision, then wrong criterion IDs); the correct contract was present in emitted input. The third finish was accepted and committed In review, with no missing-wait loop or Done escalation. - Repeated board-message preparation failures now walk their canonical intent, failed dispatch and accepted parent identity, rechecking each contained predecessor. A production queue regression fails the second ordinary HTTP Retry before the repair and passes afterward. Changed source, contradictory execution evidence and cyclic receipts remain denied; traversal stops after twenty links. - New inherited omission cases failed before the repair. The final full PostgreSQL 18 wait/status suite passes 252 tests under Node 24.22. It covers omitted/null input, malformed-first recovery, same-head resume, exact-source replies, changed heads, revoked access, pending/uncertain/mixed publications, final commit revalidation, no duplicate review and no self-wake. - 15 existing publication tests passed before the pinned merge on a separate fresh database. They retain default partial-delivery and failure-fallback behavior. Context reads remain below the unchanged 16 KiB heartbeat and publication response limits with large saved output present. - Saved-input tests cover a real signed PR webhook, production accounting-budget refusal, normal policy recovery and canonical Retry. Historical producer-shaped tests prove the missing-App case red, then check trusted prior receipts and malformed, late, revoked or mismatched proof. A broader order-coupled test was reproduced on the prior source; its global fault injector now targets its own authorization query. The 43-case sequence passes without changing production behavior or its safety assertions. - New signed-ingress and real heartbeat execution tests reproduced the admitted-successor failure, then the next normal Retry failure. The final pinned merged source passes 249 full GitHub review/publication and Retry cases on a fresh database, including all 49 saved-input cases. A separate 74-case Retry/HTTP run also passes. Exact dispatch negatives cover source, company, agent, task, successor, receipt, pause, assignment, accepted success, controller and cleanup proof. Bootstrap contradictions remain denied. The canonical Retry suite passes 16 cases through its supported external PostgreSQL test connection. - The normal board HTTP route reproduced the unusable inherited-result refusal. It now returns actionable guidance without starting a successor. The actual UI Retry hook and banner tests pass 12 cases. - A production-shaped accepted board comment followed by a pre-provider qualification failure reproduced HTTP 409 before the repair. The final real HTTP/queue test certifies one canonical successor and preserves the accepted identity. It rejects changed source, actor, task, agent, result, controller, process, profile, allocation and receipt evidence. A post-acceptance source change keeps the same intent pending. Execution revalidation rejects removed or mismatched proof. The probe stops deliberately after production identity initialization; it does not claim provider execution. The final source passes the 75-case Retry group, the focused two-case board/inherited-policy group and 19 canonical Retry cases. Full workspace typecheck, build and map checks pass. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. Map, module-boundary and diff checks pass. Full local `pnpm test:run` remains unverified. The 256-case explicit-native suite cannot initialize its packaged PostgreSQL because libzstd is absent; an existing command-scoped fallback did not resolve it. Current-head remote full-suite checks are required. Merged-source full GitHub+Retry (249), separate Retry/HTTP (74), full wait/status (252), profile/history and completion (75), and visible Retry hook/banner (12) checks pass. The fresh owned PostgreSQL 18 databases applied all 377 migrations. - Actual Rust Runner, OpenCode 1.18.34 and exact DeepSeek used unchanged production-generated synthetic contexts. Resume finished with an explicit server wait. The author-reply trial omitted continuation twice: its first report failed the existing empty-criteria check; the corrected second report still omitted continuation and received the exact server wait. It completed once with no missing-wait loop or Done escalation. Controller acknowledgments were synthetic; these probes do not establish hosted publication or board state. - Hosted combined testing proved automatic admission of the exact saved author reply, a useful GitHub answer and committed passive wait. It required two malformed-continuation rejections before a nullish fallback succeeded. A later normal Pause/Resume completed in one finish with explicit response_wake and no new review/comment. The admitted normal Retry then exposed the execution guard gap repaired here. Those remain checkpoint results. On the final combined source, renewed normal Retry completed actual native provider work and GitHub publication, committed the passive wait, released ownership and cleaned up its environment. A subsequent ordinary unmentioned author reply woke once, made no GitHub tool calls or new assessment, and completed its first finish with an explicit response wake. Both exact leases expired with successful cleanup and the queue was empty. However, final destination inspection found a separate automatic fallback overwrote the existing summary with a generic no-final-response message. External summary preservation therefore remains failed acceptance; the separate publication repair in #17726 owns that producer. Full combined publication preservation has not passed. These hosted runs include the pinned-base native additions; they do not qualify Copilot v63. - Current-head automated review is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. All current-head CI gates passed (54 successful checks/contexts, four skipped, none pending). The earlier login-cleanup idle-work assertion also reproduced locally while its controlled baseline passed; its cause remains unknown, but the exact assertion passed in the fresh current-head CI shard. No timeout, assertion or production workaround was added. This PR is ready for review within its source, authority, native finalization, state, wake and cleanup scope. The independent automatic fallback publication regression is tracked by #17726; no complete combined workflow pass is claimed. ## Risks - The latest saved review defines the durable head boundary. Ingress must record a new head before admission. A reply receipt proves delivery only for its exact saved source; a shared GitHub comment ID alone cannot authorize this wait. - Historical App recovery cannot infer identity without direct proof or an earlier valid server response receipt. It never replays that response. - This does not infer review-score policy from instructions or override Done. No deployment, merge or repair of historical tasks is claimed by the PR. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing and test execution. The context-window size is not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (focused database and native suites; full local suite limitation described above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green (verified on immutable latest head) - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (verified on the latest head) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-26 22:22:47 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4173059081	fix(inbox): keep advisory GitHub review waits quiet (#17318 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Mine shows a person's participation and requests that need their response. > - Automatic GitHub reviews should remain quiet until the assigned work needs human input. > - Review bots used completion requests to keep tasks in review while CI or a PR was still open. > - Those requests correctly entered Mine, despite the automatic-work filter from #16356. > - This pull request gives published reviews an existing provider-event wait in the in-review state and withdraws superseded completion requests. > - Real input requests and separate approval gates keep their current behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16356 Refs #13314 An advisory score below 5/5, pending or failed CI, or an unmerged PR does not by itself require a person's approval in Paperclip. The bot can track those conditions without adding a completion card to Mine. ## What Changed - Explain the quiet review lifecycle in the GitHub review instructions. Use a yielded provider-event wait, or an existing saved monitor, after publication. Report done when the configured completion conditions are met. - Keep a confirmed, published review in `in_review` during that wait. Reuse existing authorization and monitor delivery. Add no schema, timer, or polling loop. - Recognize the committed external wait in review attention and recovery. Shared execution receives a verified publication flag; GitHub receipt lookup stays with the GitHub module. Other chat waits keep their current status. - Withdraw an older system-created completion request only when the same bot has published both reviews and its new report has no attention request. Keep explicit cards, separate approval gates, and requests without the prior review evidence. Finish validation stays read-only; withdrawal commits atomically with the new status after checking current governance, the admitted result, and both low-risk contracts. - Update the product rule, capability maps, and regression coverage. ## Verification - Final commit `7c502118eec36028d1b4537bb8797ef893940bf0`: 54 GitHub checks passed, two intentionally skipped, none pending or failed. Greptile is 5/5, the security scan passed, and all review threads are resolved. - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. Rechecked server typecheck and build after the final authorization guard. - Passed: 195 tests across `external-chat-wait.integration.test.ts`, `status-arbiter.test.ts`, `review-instructions.test.ts`, and `issue-liveness.test.ts`. The database suite used an isolated PostgreSQL 18 container through `PAPERCLIP_TEST_DATABASE_URL`. - Acceptance coverage: 3/5 stays in review outside Mine; 5/5 with pending completion conditions stays in review; 5/5 with satisfied conditions finishes quietly; a real repository-access request enters Mine until resolved. Also covers obsolete-card withdrawal, transaction rollback, rejected reports, separate approval gates, multiple reviewed heads, saved monitors, and revoked endpoints, repositories, or membership. - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs`, and `git diff --check`. - The initial acceptance run exposed a missing authenticated user in the test fixture. Added the user required by the existing addressee authorization check. All 154 tests in that database suite then passed, including the final rerun. - Review found premature withdrawal during validation, stale repository access, and a missed receipt when a run reviewed multiple heads. The revision fixes all three and includes acceptance regressions. The saved-monitor commit guard now accepts the verified published-review state. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted but could not complete on this Mac. Embedded PostgreSQL failed to allocate semaphores (`semget: No space left on device`); a direct initialization probe confirmed the host resource limit. The isolated database run proves the affected suite, not the full repository suite. - These tests exercise persisted review receipts, finalization, and Mine queries. They do not prove a live model followed the new instructions or submit a live GitHub review. ## Risks - The bot must follow the new lifecycle instructions. A real explicit attention request still enters Mine. - Existing obsolete cards are withdrawn when the same bot publishes a later review and reports no human dependency. This change does not run a bulk cleanup of historical inbox entries. - Review attention now recognizes an external response path. It requires an applied current status decision, a successful bound run, and current conversation, repository, and principal authorization. - No migration or UI change. The full local test suite is unverified because of the host database limit; CI passes on the final commit. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (195 focused tests; full-suite limitation above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-23 07:14:40 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	c2daf906d9	fix: preserve task continuation and question delivery (#17045 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and delivers its results. > - One task can need several runs and a saved workspace. > - A run can succeed while the task waits for its next run. > - Chat fallback treated that success as completion and dropped useful status. > - Monitor runs also lost their conversation origin, and text-question cards lost their prompt. > - This change preserves the task outcome and exact delivery authority across those boundaries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A Slack task requested a repository, yielded to a scheduled continuation, and showed only a generic completion message. The next run could not publish through the original conversation. A later text question showed its title and Respond button without the question context. Workspace recovery could commit the saved monitor result without restoring its explanation. Expected behavior The original conversation shows the accepted continuation explanation, receives the resumed result, and displays the full question when input is needed. A successful provider run does not claim that unfinished work is complete. Recovery delivers saved output once without another provider result. Steps to reproduce Start an authorized chat task, prepare a repository for a later admission, save a monitor wait, and let that monitor resume the task. Repeat with workspace finalization interrupted and with a free-text question. Inspect the originating conversation and the persisted output. Related merged work: #16806 and #16975. The open monitor and recovery changes found during duplicate search address different status and liveness policies. ## What Changed - Keep committed monitor summaries visible through the shared board and chat response resolver. Preserve interaction ownership and comment reuse. - Recover a saved monitor explanation after finalization, with no repeated provider result. - Prove monitor publication origin from the admitted wake and matching scheduling receipt. Match company, task, agent, requester, and schedule; reject ambiguous sources. - Include monitor continuations in the existing publication scan and use the canonical task binding. Keep current transport authorization. - Suppress completion fallback for yielded results. Explain missing final output without claiming completion. - Include question summaries, prompts, and help text in modal-backed cards. Keep answered text private. - Update execution semantics, capability maps, and the bounded reliability plan. ## Verification - Original source fails four composed PostgreSQL regressions: monitor origin, yielded completion, question body, and saved-summary recovery. The shared response resolver also fails before the repair. - Repaired focused cohort: 148 tests pass across publication, question privacy, scheduler, and native monitor suites. These use real disposable PostgreSQL; they do not qualify live Slack. - Full workspace typecheck and production build pass locally. Map checks and whitespace checks pass. - All CI gates pass at `1701c48f17`. Greptile reports 5/5. Both review findings are resolved. The local full-suite run remains separate. - The added 21-admission lineage and cycle regressions pass with the complete 11-test database suite. - The larger live Codex/Claude qualification and deployed staging acceptance remain in progress. This PR does not claim that milestone is complete. ## Risks - Incorrect lineage could disclose output to another conversation. The resolver requires one exact receipt-backed source and the worker still checks current delivery authority. - Status recovery could duplicate output or compete with a question. The source-run presentation marker, saved-comment reuse, interaction arbitration, and replay tests protect those boundaries. - No database migration or public task-status change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository editing, terminal tests, and browser inspection. The runtime does not expose an exact deployment model ID or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 20:43:17 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3bbc2104b6	docs: map missing product and operator capabilities (#16990 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map records product entry points and verification recipes. > - The paired agent access map records APIs and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. > - The new index in #16987 made several missing capabilities easier to find. > - Those gaps hid existing assistant, privacy, cost, and operator workflows. > - This pull request adds 15 capabilities with source references, test scope, and manual checks. > - Readers can find these workflows without treating documentation or structural checks as live proof. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16987. Related map work: #16025 and #16214. A search of related pull requests found no duplicate of these additions. Issue type Missing documentation. Where is the issue? `maps/feature-map/` and `maps/agent-access-map/`. What's wrong? The maps omit public assistant MCP connections, private task and project sharing, subscription fees, cost-recording recovery, agent API keys, keyboard entry points, and several operator CLI workflows. Suggested fix Add product recipes and matching access records. Show the full capability IDs in the README index and each page. Keep the existing ID format and all 175 existing IDs. Exclude AI account pools. ## What Changed - Add the `assistant-connections` family with setup, consent, device login, client use, and revocation. - Add `tasks/privacy`, `projects/privacy`, `budgets-costs/subscriptions`, and `budgets-costs/accounting-recovery`. - Add `agents/api-keys`, `agents/managed-agent-setup`, and `navigation-preferences/command-palette`. - Add `cli-operations/feedback-export`, `chat-channels/outbound-email`, and `instance-operations/runtime-setup`. - Pair all 15 additions with access rules, source evidence, manual checks, and explicit coverage gaps. Update the visible index to 35 families and 190 capability IDs. - Add cross-links from existing access, connection setup, search, and CLI recipes. Do not change the schema or add AI account pools. - Clarify that the task Share sheet displays direct and inherited access. Manage inherited access at its ancestor or project source. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes: 35 areas and 190 paired capability IDs, with valid references and contract fields. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs` passes: 17 tests. - `node scripts/storybook-feature-index.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - A comparison with the base confirms all 175 existing IDs remain and exactly the intended 15 IDs were added. The README index matches the discovered feature metadata. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` cannot run because this checkout lacks `storybook/internal/csf-tools` and installed workspace dependencies. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build` were attempted. All stopped before their task ran: the pnpm 9.15.4 bootstrap could not fetch and verify its registry packages in this environment. - Source review covers the documented UI, CLI, routes, services, and existing tests. No live browser, provider, or authorization journey was run. New access records remain `baseline`, `source-only`, and `not-run`. - Greptile and the Paperclip reviewer both rate current commit `bb8eb797b0a1dc26256faf2f0e57cbe7abc9adcf` 5/5. The inherited-access review thread is resolved. - [GitHub CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39466772379) passes for that commit, including typecheck, build, unit tests, Runner checks, and browser tests. Browser shard 7 passed after one retry for a runner shutdown. All PR checks are successful, neutral, or skipped. ## Risks - Low runtime risk: this change only edits maps. No application behavior, API, dependency, or schema changes. - Source-reviewed recipes can drift or miss deployment-specific behavior. The records state their limits and require live checks before a capability is marked verified. > 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, model ID `gpt-6.1-sol`, 475,000-token context window, xhigh reasoning effort, with tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 12:47:41 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9ef434fe79	docs: expose feature map IDs and add a recipe index (#16987 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its feature map describes user journeys and their verification paths. > - The map already defines feature IDs and full capability IDs. > - The README and child pages did not show those IDs consistently. > - Readers need those IDs to connect issues, tests, stories, and evidence. > - This pull request adds a recipe index and displays the existing IDs. > - The benefit is clear references across the product and agent access maps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Issue type Missing documentation. Where is the issue? `maps/feature-map/README.md`, the child recipes, and their agent access companions. What's wrong? The README sends readers to Storybook to browse features. Child pages show local keys, such as `installation`, without the full `plugins/installation` ID. Readers must inspect the generator to find the full reference. Suggested fix List recipe links and existing IDs in the README. Show each feature ID and full capability ID in its child pages. Explain capability IDs and entry-point references. Keep the current keys and anchors. Related work: Refs #15288. Refs #16052. Refs #15983. No duplicate open PR or issue was found by title search. ## What Changed - Add an index grouped by feature area. It lists every recipe, feature ID, and full capability ID. - Explain how IDs are formed and used in issues, tests, Storybook, and evidence. - Add feature IDs to all product recipes and agent access companions. - Show full capability IDs beside recipe keys and below access and Storybook guidance headings. - Preserve existing keys, heading anchors, and generated ID values. Keep the latest upstream company capability in the index. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes for 34 feature families and 175 capability IDs. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs` passes all 17 tests. - `node scripts/storybook-feature-index.mjs` passes on this checkout and generates the feature indexes and overview inputs. - `git diff --check` passes. - A source comparison confirms that the README matches the recipe index. After removal of the added ID labels, all 68 child pages match the upstream prose and headings. - Full workspace checks were attempted: `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build`. They could not start because the local pnpm wrapper could not fetch and verify the pinned pnpm 9.15.4 release. This checkout also has no workspace dependencies installed. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` could not run because `storybook/internal/csf-tools` is not installed. The direct map and index checks above pass without that dependency. - Remote typecheck, release-registry, and full build checks passed. The first attempts of [server shard 3/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758430448) and [server shard 12/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758429932) stopped after their runners received a shutdown signal. The test steps were canceled. GitHub rejects the rerun request with HTTP 403: "The workflow run containing this job is already running". Five other CI jobs remain active. The next action is to rerun the two interrupted shards after workflow 39460473910 ends. No application changes were made to address these runner interruptions. - To inspect the result, open the feature-map README, follow a recipe link, and compare its full capability IDs with its access companion. ## Risks - Low risk. The change updates map documentation only. It changes no application code or ID schema. - The readable README index and child labels repeat source IDs. Keep them aligned when a capability changes. - Generated capability descriptions now include the visible ID prefix. Generated IDs, labels, navigation order, and verification fields remain the same. - Full local workspace checks and catalog generation remain unverified for the environment reasons above. > 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, model `gpt-6.1-sol`, with a 475,000-token context window and `xhigh` reasoning effort. The model used local file tools, shell commands, 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 12:00:36 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4b05795712	fix(github): reuse review instructions across native turns (#16971 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub events continue an ordinary task and can reuse its provider conversation. > - Each automatic event appended the full review policy and PR description. > - Native GitHub follow-ups also repeated task history because only Slack used the compact path. > - This pull request separates admitted review configuration from commit updates. > - A verified resume sends the current messages and changed configuration. A fresh session gets full context. > - This reduces repeated input while retaining review rules and current tool checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13959, #16645, #16901. What happened? Opening a PR and pushing twice stored three full review prompts. A later native turn repeated all three in a retained provider conversation. Expected behavior A new event supplies its commit and event data. The harness delivers stable review instructions once per retained conversation and configuration. Fresh sessions receive full instructions. Steps to reproduce 1. Enable automatic GitHub reviews for a repository. 2. Open a PR, let the review finish, and push two new commits. 3. Inspect task messages and the native submitted envelopes. Before this fix, the policy and old requests repeat. ## What Changed - Store compact automatic event messages. Fetch the PR description through the existing metadata tool when needed. - Load review instructions from processed deliveries bound to the company, task, agent, and source comments. Preserve each admitted policy snapshot. - Use the existing verified native continuation path for complete GitHub text batches. Deliver configuration changes using a key over endpoint, PR conversation, revision, and instructions. - Keep full bootstrap input for fresh sessions and failed resume, including board follow-ups with no new GitHub event. Retain existing framing for incomplete batches, attachments, interactions, and recovery. - Keep the same configuration identity across automatic review, discussion, and automatic review. Coalesced requests use the last accepted request's admitted policy. - Add regression and database coverage. Update the execution contract and verification recipe. ## Verification - Red: the new event-size regression failed because policy and PR body repeated. The GitHub continuation regression failed because it returned no compact prompt. - Green: focused policy, continuation, native input, and adapter prompt tests passed (231 tests). Native resume/fresh-bootstrap cases passed (9 tests). - The signed-webhook/database case passed at `6296168253`. It checks configuration edits, queued older snapshots, coalesced policy selection, discussion continuity, board follow-ups, and company/task/agent/comment boundaries. The private PostgreSQL template used 12 connections because the host reached its semaphore limit with the default settings. - The earlier broad channel/session integration run passed 1,432 tests. Later review fixes invalidated that run. The latest focused database case passed after those fixes. - Reviewer regressions failed against the previous lookup, then passed with the fix: a mixed-revision batch delivered multiple policies, and a discussion lost the configuration identity. The board wake-to-rendered-prompt regression also failed before repair. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `git diff --check` passed on the final source. - Full local `pnpm test:run` exposed follow-up/fixture failures during development. Those cases are fixed and pass separately. The stale run was stopped after source edits. Full-suite validation for the final commit passed in CI. - All required CI checks passed for `6296168253`, including tests, typechecks, build, and clean public npm install checks. The two unrelated Storybook checks were skipped. - A live two-turn Codex smoke could not start: the local macOS sandbox helper rejected execution of the installed Codex 0.153.4 binary. No live GitHub/provider acceptance or deployment is claimed. ## Risks Skipping instructions is safe only after a verified checkpoint resume with the correct previous run. The full bootstrap remains available if resume fails. Changed or previously unknown configuration is sent again. Tests cover these cases. Tool authorization and publication checks still run under the current server policy. No database migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The exact deployment model identifier and context window are not exposed in this session. No delegated agents were used. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 10:39:17 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3b8324a233	fix(github): keep one main PR review comment and reconcile stopped work (#16901 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub connections send review requests to an assigned agent. > - A PR needs one main comment that shows its current review state. > - The response ledger used one comment per incoming request. Pushes and follow-up messages created more placeholders. > - Thread subscriptions also accepted requests addressed to external bots. Recovery could leave an acknowledged request without a final notice. > - This pull request shares the main PR comment, filters other recipients, and reconciles stopped work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #16874 showed the repeated placeholders. #15416 introduced the per-request response path. The prior summary path used one PR-level marker. What happened? Repeated pushes created new main PR comments. A subscribed `@greptile review` message also woke the Paperclip bot. If execution stopped before staging a milestone, its comment could keep claiming that work was active. Expected behavior One bot keeps one main comment per PR. Progress and review results update it. A message addressed to another recipient does not wake the bot unless it also explicitly mentions this bot. Stopped work gets an accurate notice. Steps to reproduce 1. Accept two review requests in one PR conversation. 2. Add `@greptile review` to that subscribed conversation. 3. Fail the assigned run before it stages a milestone. Run channel maintenance. ## What Changed - Add a durable main PR response target. Keep per-request receipts and the existing publication lease. - Recover the target from App-owned provider markers. Adopt older placeholders and point verified duplicates to the current review. - Use a queued notice before a PR run starts. Preserve version ordering and final responses. - Filter leading mentions addressed to another recipient. Explicit mentions of this bot take precedence. Incidental mentions keep normal thread behavior. - Reconcile acknowledged requests after terminal execution. Show paused state for saved requests on a blocked task. Preserve newer work and confirmed or uncertain tool delivery. - Keep a request open when its stale acknowledgement is suppressed. Close placeholders after replies published elsewhere. Retire old coalesced placeholders before replacing their receipts. Resolve native request identity when legacy wake fields are absent. - Update guidance, connection documentation, and feature/access maps. ## Verification - Red: all three behavioral regressions failed on the original code. A second review created a second comment; an external-bot request was processed; stopped execution retained its working placeholder. - Green: the same three cases passed after the fixes. - Review regressions also failed before their repairs: a delayed acknowledgement closed a new request; normal and stored formal-review receipts left a live placeholder; coalesced completion lost a duplicate receipt; native terminal work without legacy wake fields stayed queued. All 13 combined regression and safety cases passed after repair. - The same legacy receipt-loss bug was also reproduced in the superseded-acknowledgement branch. Its four affected cases passed after adding retirement before that receipt replacement. - A further review regression reproduced paused requests rejecting resumed progress and skipping stopped-run cleanup. Four cases failed before repair; all eight resume and neighboring safety cases passed afterward. Both paused-notice branches keep the request open. - Repeated paused maintenance reproduced two needless GitHub edits. The writer now skips an identical complete comment body. Nine affected cases passed, covering repeated maintenance, resumption, stopped work, final assessment preservation, and main-comment reuse. - Safety cases cover lost receipts, legacy adoption, newer progress, published assessments, provider-verified mention aliases, and old replies that must not complete new requests. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, map validation, and module boundaries passed. The server TypeScript check passed after the final repair. The broader local GitHub workflow and policy run passed 188 tests. Full CI passed on the final commit (`554979d79285b68bcbf90cd639e3d2d053f4ea4b`), including all three chat shards, server/workspace/Runner suites, typecheck, build, and E2E gates. Greptile is 5/5 with no open review findings. One serialized job received a runner shutdown signal mid-test; its single retry passed. - Preserved failure evidence: the first CI run exposed an overbroad recipient filter and an old queued-text assertion. The next commit passed all three CI chat shards. Greptile then found the receipt transitions covered by the new regressions above. Local full-suite runs were stopped when those defects required source changes; no clean full local pass is claimed. - Tests use real PostgreSQL and controlled provider responses. They do not establish a live GitHub App rollout. The original instance needs the fixed server before its comments change. ## Risks - Leading mentions now select a recipient even when that account has no Paperclip connection. A leading human mention also selects that person. Mid-message incidental mentions retain normal subscription behavior. - Existing comment adoption edits only comments proven by this endpoint's request ledger or prior summary marker and App identity. Deleted and replaced comments remain protected. - Failure cleanup uses current authority and does not replace newer progress or unresolved provider writes. It does not restart failed execution. - No schema migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. The model used reasoning, tools, code execution, and browser inspection. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 21:51:20 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9e8a9f28d5	fix(github): recover long publications from durable receipts (#16883 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents publish GitHub reviews through governed tools. > - GitHub can accept a publication before the caller receives its result. > - Exact retries must return the existing publication receipt. > - The gateway compared a shortened audit hash with a complete request hash. > - Long reviews therefore failed the retry check even when their content was unchanged. > - This pull request checks the complete saved publication and returns its current receipt. > - Agents can confirm their work without another provider write. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16284, which added durable publication recovery. Refs #16275, which extended the GitHub tool deadline. What happened? An exact review retry returned an idempotency conflict after GitHub had published the review. The invocation hash uses an audit preview that shortens strings to 500 characters and arrays to 50 entries. The gateway compared that hash with the complete request hash. The earlier retry tests used short assessments. Expected behavior An unchanged request returns its durable receipt. Changed content, changed authority, or a missing publication must not cause another write. Steps to reproduce 1. Submit a review with a summary and rationale longer than 500 characters. 2. Let publication finish after a short caller deadline. 3. Repeat the exact request. Before this fix, the gateway returns an idempotency conflict. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on master at `c5226daf7a37559ddc007446681717791d80a223`. ## What Changed - Use the durable publication's complete request check for GitHub retries. Keep run, agent, task, connection, tool, and current authority checks. - Return the saved receipt through normal gateway validation and bookkeeping. Leave pending provider work to the durable worker. - Refuse retries without a saved publication. Keep existing invocation keys and audit previews unchanged. - Cover long reviews, comments, progress updates, text suffix changes, nested coverage changes, pending receipts, missing publications, and revoked access. - Document the recovery contract and verification recipes. ## Verification - Red: both long-review receipt cases failed on unchanged production code with the expected idempotency conflict. - Green: all 144 GitHub review workflow tests passed on the final source. This includes long reviews, comments, progress updates, pending and missing receipts, revoked policy, and the native assigned-tool entry point. - Server and workspace typechecks passed. The production build passed. - Map checks passed. These are structural checks. - The first broad run found an incorrect new fixture assumption: its discovery query returned two review tools. The fixture now selects the exact submission tool. An existing description-edit polling test also timed out; it passed separately without a production change, then passed in the complete 144-test rerun. Both earlier failures remain recorded. - Final commit `7cdcdc3a1ac79cb4ed77510a32d795228e3315e8` passed all 55 CI checks. Two optional Storybook jobs were skipped. [Complete CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39304187397). Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit, with zero unresolved review threads. - The earlier local full-suite attempt was stopped after the fixture correction. The final local full-suite attempt was stopped after complete final-head CI passed. No complete local full-suite pass is claimed; full-suite acceptance uses the current-head CI matrix. - Provider responses are controlled fixtures. Native assigned-tool coverage uses the production gateway and disposable PostgreSQL. No live GitHub fault injection, deployment, or historical task recovery is claimed. ## Risks A pending receipt remains pending. It does not complete the task. Caller retries no longer dispatch provider work; the durable worker retains that responsibility. A missing durable publication returns a conflict because the gateway cannot establish the original write's outcome. Existing approval and revocation checks remain effective. No database migration or audit hash change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The session does not expose a more specific serving model ID or context-window limit. ## 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>	2026-10-19 13:54:42 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	5245959023	fix(github): simplify App reconnection and credential recovery (#16856 ) Show clear GitHub connection recovery guidance and reconnect the saved App before requesting replacement credentials. Preserve PEM bytes through paste, upload, and retry, with production-page Storybook and browser regression coverage. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 11:47:06 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2cbca4ceb0	fix: retain channel tools across task continuations (#16806 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels give an agent tools for its assigned task. > - Each later run must resolve the task and its accepted requester again. > - Some native runs store the task in a database column without the older JSON fields. > - Tool discovery read only the JSON fields. GitHub calls also required a new inbound comment. > - This pull request uses the durable task binding and accepted request history. > - Later runs retain their channel tools while current access checks still apply. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A GitHub task can find `begin_review` on its first run, then receive an empty tool list on a later native run. If discovery is repaired alone, a call can still fail because the later run has no new inbound comment. Slack and voice tool access also read the older JSON task fields. Expected behavior A later run for the same task can find and call its assigned channel tools. The current requester, task, company, agent, endpoint, and access rules must still allow the call. Revoked access must fail. Steps to reproduce 1. Start a GitHub task and accept its linked requester. 2. Confirm that the runtime can find `begin_review`. 3. Start a later native run with `nativeIssueId`, accepted parent identity, and no JSON task ID or new wake comment. 4. Search for `begin_review` again. Before this change, the search returns an empty list. 5. Repair discovery alone and call `read_pull_request`. Before the request-history fix, the call fails with no active conversation capability. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced in source tests before this patch. The branch includes master at `fa50cab5685b9cdbb26ad9c610cc5b6c373d3ff4`. Additional context This is a core run-binding bug. The tests use PostgreSQL and synthetic provider responses. They do not send live reviews, Slack messages, or phone calls. ## What Changed - Resolve run task IDs from durable columns, with legacy JSON fields as a fallback. - Use the same binding in the gateway, access policy, identity service, and channel runtime preparation. - Recover accepted channel request history across later runs. Keep company, task, agent, and requester boundaries. - Recover older wake sources through verified parent runs, including after same-user board follow-ups. Clear the board message’s own legacy wake fallback. Keep cycle checks without a fixed limit on valid task history. - Retain the GitHub origin after a board comment from the same accepted user. Skip GitHub origin lookup results from other providers. - Keep ordinary board tools available when the requester changes. Accept legacy user comments without an author-type field. Still reject explicit malformed task IDs. - Prevent a later failure reply from replacing an earlier final GitHub answer. Recheck this rule under the publication lease. - Rotate the native tool contract to replace retained sessions with an older tool list. - Add continuation, publication, revocation, and boundary tests. Update the access and feature maps. ## Verification - Red: the later GitHub assigned-tool search returned an empty list before the binding fix. - Red: the later GitHub read failed with no active conversation capability before the request-history fix. - Green: runtime MCP discovery, GitHub read/begin/submit review, and response publication pass for monitor and same-user board continuations. - Green: Slack history, retained access controls, revocation, and voice gateway continuation pass. - Green: 35 channel, failure-publication, legacy-origin, long-history, and provenance tests pass. Both review findings had failing tests before their fixes. - Green: 107 gateway, operation-credential, identity, and provenance tests pass. These cover both first-run CI failures without changing their tests. - Green: 122 runtime, discovery-policy, and native-session tests pass; 2 unrelated tests are skipped. - Map checks and whitespace checks pass. - Updated to master in `cfcaba22628772d7fe1fb32b57ff7031c7072781`. The sole conflict was two tests added at the same location. Both the continuation test and the publication 403/401 test are retained. - Current local verification: all 179 gateway, credential, requester-identity, access-policy, runtime-context, and session-resume tests passed. Repository typecheck and build passed. Map and whitespace checks passed. - The new review regression first returned no source for a same-user board follow-up over legacy wake metadata. After the repair, all 27 provenance and channel cases passed. The combined GitHub discovery/read/begin/submit path and revoked access are covered. - The broader local channel run passed 176 cases and failed four timing/setup cases: a 15-second Slack authorization timeout, webhook-verification polling, a Slack acknowledgement deadline, and Discord setup polling. All four passed in isolation without source, assertion, or deadline changes. The earlier failure record is retained; the exact load/order cause is not established. Full CI must pass on the latest commit. - Current head: `7b9a08dcbc7b8140b589742f136944270b0496bb`. Repository typecheck and build pass on this commit. Greptile completed on this exact commit with 5/5; all four review threads are resolved. The final-head [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39278921653) passed: 55 checks passed and 2 intentionally skipped, with no failures or pending checks. This includes the full sharded test matrix, browser tests, typecheck, build, and Runner verification. Results were delayed during the [GitHub Actions incident](https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/8tzbpcnl75jp). An additional unsharded local full test run has not completed; the completed full-suite evidence is CI. - Earlier verification: the first PR commit failed two server suites. Those failures were fixed and verified before this update. The original 4 GiB sandbox could not complete full local typechecking or tests; the current checkout completed typechecking and build. The full test suite runs through the CI shards. No full local test-suite pass or live provider delivery is claimed. ## Risks - Request history can restore the wrong authority if its scope is too broad. The resolver checks each accepted parent against the task, company, agent, and requester. Tests cover invalid and cyclic history. - The native contract change starts a new provider session for older contracts. - No database migration or public API schema changes are required. Each tool call still checks live access. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment model ID or context-window size. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, code edits, and local 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>	2026-10-19 11:20:39 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9966f31bee	fix(chat): keep permission failures scoped to the rejected operation (#16847 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - External channels deliver agent replies through a durable publication queue. > - A provider can reject one operation while other operations remain allowed. > - The shared error classifier treated generic 403 and permission errors as failures of the whole connection. > - Failure handlers then changed the user's enabled setting and removed all assigned channel tools. > - This pull request limits permission failures to the rejected operation and preserves connection intent during authentication failures. > - Unrelated work can continue, while confirmed authentication failures still stop endpoint traffic. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16137. Follows #16138, which distinguishes local authorization errors from provider errors. This change also narrows provider permission failures. Related #16806 handles a separate task-continuation tool-binding defect. A provider 403 or missing-scope response currently disables a connection that may still support other operations. The expected behavior is a visible operation failure with unrelated work preserved. Confirmed authentication failures must stop sends without changing the user's enabled setting. ## What Changed - Classify generic 403, adapter permission errors, and Slack missing-scope/no-permission responses as failed operations. - Preserve rate-limit retries, known destination quarantine, and confirmed authentication failures. - Preserve connection status and enabled intent when publication, provider-reply, or form-open authentication fails. The endpoint still enters attention and its runtime stops. - Add GitHub regressions for retained discovery and successful later publication after 403, and no further sends after 401. - Mark authentication health failed and fence persistent receiver startup, background reconciliation, and receiver callbacks. Keep signed GitHub lifecycle events available during an authentication stop. Verify Discord reconciliation and Photon restart preserve the stop, while transient Discord disconnects still recover. - Update provider, publication, and modal regression expectations and the execution contract and verification maps. ## Verification - Red: five new classifier cases returned endpoint attention before the repair. The signed-installation-removal regression also reproduced a blocked lifecycle event after a 401 before narrowing the receiver guard. - Green: all 35 classifier tests pass. - Green: 19 PostgreSQL-backed cases pass through the production channel services, including GitHub discovery/publication, Slack provider replies and question modals, Telegram credential/destination failures, rate limiting, and Discord/Photon authentication-stop persistence. - Map structural checks and `git diff --check` pass. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. All CI gates are green on `7e379bcd98aa8363e42efe7f8a4b2589b7111ae6`; Greptile is 5/5 on that exact commit with no unresolved findings. - The monolithic local `pnpm test:run` was started, then stopped after its revision passed the full CI matrix and was superseded by the authentication-stop repair. Final full-suite verification passed in CI shards; all 19 final local provider regressions pass. - The tests run from this source checkout on macOS arm64 with isolated PostgreSQL and controlled provider failures. They do not prove live GitHub recovery or deployment. No live connection settings were changed. ## Risks - Permission failures now leave unrelated work available. The rejected operation remains failed and is not automatically replayed. Provider authorization still applies to every request. - Keeping a connection enabled must not bypass an authentication stop. GitHub verifies blocked tool discovery and later sends; Discord and Photon verify background reconciliation and restart cannot clear the stop. Failed connection health is an execution gate while the endpoint requires attention. - Explicit disable, disconnect, signed installation revocation, and existing destination-specific denial handling remain unchanged. No migration or API schema change is required. - Previously disabled connections are not automatically re-enabled because an upgrade cannot safely infer the user's intent. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment model ID or context-window size. Used reasoning, shell tools, repository edits, 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>	2026-10-19 09:54:22 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	669d329f25	perf(slack): avoid unused catalog revision scans (#16630 ) Slack catalog discovery now checks live task, user, endpoint and credentials without calculating an unused compatibility revision. Full authority callers retain the unchanged revision and search-token path. Validation: 44 affected cases, full repository typecheck/build, current-head full CI/E2E and security checks, Greptile Base 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Identical production catalog output with revision statements reduced from two to zero in real-PostgreSQL comparisons. Hosted latency acceptance remains pending. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-16 22:21:03 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3db33c131e	perf(slack): overlap endpoint preparation and narrow credential reads (#16593 ) Prepare Slack endpoints in pairs with a per-call concurrency limit of two, and resolve only the current bot token for live tool authority. Preserve candidate-order errors, active-sibling settlement, credential rotation and authorization revocation. Verified with real PostgreSQL regression controls, full repository CI/E2E, security checks and current-head Greptile Plus5/5 with no unresolved findings. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-16 16:05:46 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	becdc3b08e	perf(slack): remove delays before mention acknowledgements (#16491 ) Slack mentions now start eyes reactions after the authorized task/comment commits, independently of attachments, subscription and scheduler acceptance. Omit unused optional URL-preview polling while retaining message text, links and files. Keep receipt failures and missing-file warnings independent, including terminal cleanup of older multi-line diagnostics. Verified with full current-head CI and E2E, Superagent and legacy security checks, Apex 5/5 with no unresolved findings, 19 selected real-PostgreSQL receipt/authorization/cleanup cases, and full frozen-source typecheck/build. The first CI attempt's unchanged Cursor probe timeout is retained in the PR; the one failed-only retry passed under unchanged deadlines. Live Slack latency still requires deployed acceptance. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-15 17:36:50 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	89ef37d7e0	fix(slack): accept linear DM receipt destinations (#16494 ) Accept the pinned Slack SDK linear DM address for receipt add/remove while preserving channel, source message, credential and timeout checks. SDK regressions, 106 affected tests, repository typecheck/build, full CI/E2E, Superagent, legacy Snyk and exact-head Apex 5/5 passed. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-15 16:28:19 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f69c6a8a35	fix(github): retry and recover review publication (#16284 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and its published results. > - GitHub review bots publish task-bound assessments through governed tools. > - A review can survive a caller timeout because its publication intent is durable. > - A transient provider failure still returned a failed receipt before recovery. > - Gateway replay could return an empty cached result, and publication retries had no dedicated scheduler deadline. > - This pull request adds bounded retries, receipt recovery, and an independent durable worker. > - A temporary GitHub failure can recover without another review or duplicate publication. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16275. That change increased the GitHub tool deadline. This change repairs retry and recovery behavior. What happened? A one-off GitHub HTTP 503 or 429 left the caller with a failed publication receipt. The saved retry did not have its own scheduler worker. An identical gateway call after a timeout could return an empty cached result instead of the saved publication receipt. Expected behavior Temporary failures should retry under current authority. Pending work should resume at its saved deadline after restart. Exact retries should return the current receipt. Lost responses must not create duplicate comments, findings, or checks. Steps to reproduce 1. Admit an advisory PR review request and begin its assessment. 2. Return HTTP 503 or 429 for the first summary-comment PATCH, then let GitHub succeed. 3. Submit the assessment through the run-scoped tool gateway. 4. On master, the result says publication failed. With this change, the same call returns the processed receipt and neutral check. 5. For receipt recovery, use a shorter caller deadline and repeat the exact call after publication finishes. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on master at `6cb6ac3b8e40cb90d734ba115a2f22f850ff9477`. ## What Changed - Classify transient transport, server, and rate-limit failures. Honor Retry-After and primary reset deadlines. Stop retries for permanent permission and validation errors. - Retry safe reads and installation-token issuance within a bounded call window. Retry publication writes through the existing outbox and provider receipt checks. - Wait for up to three publication attempts within a 45-second retry window. Keep the durable eight-failure cap and enforce saved deadlines on explicit retries. - Register an independent GitHub publication worker with transaction-owned wake notifications, startup recovery, and per-PR lease deadlines. - Recover exact comment, progress, and assessment gateway calls from their stored publication. Require the same company, agent, task, run, connection, tool, arguments, and current policy. Clear stale timeout errors after recovery. Approved exact retries read the current receipt through the existing signed replay path; the worker retains the verified approval for deferred writes and still rejects revocation. - Add regression coverage and update the connector guide and feature/access maps. ## Verification - Red: both one-off HTTP 503 and 429 regressions failed on master with a failed publication receipt. - Green: the same tests passed after the change. - GitHub review workflows: 133 covered against isolated PostgreSQL 18. The final combined run passed 132 and hit one fifteen-second timeout under concurrent build load. All three variants of that workflow passed in isolation. The earlier combined run passed all 131 workflows before the two approval regressions were added. - Retry policy and delivery coordinator tests: 35 passed. - Additional focused checks passed for the actual eight-failure cap, exact-argument conflicts, policy revocation, and timeout receipt recovery. The approved deferred-publication and revocation regressions failed before the review repair and passed after it, with one approval request preserved. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. `pnpm build`: passed. `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed. - The broad local `pnpm test:run` path remains blocked by the host's exhausted PostgreSQL shared-memory slots. The changed database-backed workflows use an isolated Docker database instead. All Paperclip CI jobs passed at `a6d81b67cb`, including the required verify and E2E gates. Greptile is 5/5 at the same head, with the approval-recovery finding resolved. The external Superagent Security Scan also passed. - Live acceptance passed on a dedicated single-repository local test App and native Paperclip Runner. A test-only preload returned one HTTP 503 before the final summary PATCH. One submit_review call completed in 17.305 seconds; the bot published its 3/5 advisory review and neutral check, then automatically finished the task. [Published review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-permissions-smoke-20260926-pap57-fee7428e/pull/9#issuecomment-6168809007), [neutral check](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-permissions-smoke-20260926-pap57-fee7428e/runs/115863564014). This live test ran at de6862072c; approval-specific recovery is covered by the later regressions. The preload is excluded from the repository and removed from the running local instance. ## Risks Retries make additional bounded provider requests. A provider write with a lost response is recovered through its existing App-owned identity before another write is permitted. The worker rechecks authority and the PR head; revocation and superseded work stop publication. Calls can still exceed their deadline, and repeated failures eventually exhaust the retry cap. A pending publication is not a completed task. The agent still owns task completion after receiving a confirmed receipt. No schema migration is needed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6 family), with code inspection, editing, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-14 08:40:32 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	22d05644f4	feat(ui): add Speko voice setup, task calls, and Storybook coverage (#15728 ) Runtime #15727 is merged. This PR adds the UI. Qualification follows in #15729. ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work through tasks and governed connections. > - Chat connections already bind external conversations to those tasks. > - Speko handles voice and telephony, while the selected Paperclip agent does the work. > - A call needs durable session authority, ordered follow-ups, and safe result delivery. > - This PR adds the Speko setup and call controls to the existing Apps and task UI. > - This PR depends on #15727. The qualification suite follows separately. Speko stays experimental. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Problem or motivation Phone and browser voice conversations cannot use the chat connection task lifecycle. A separate voice runtime is needed to preserve task authority, retries, and reply history. Proposed solution Add company-scoped voice sessions, signed callbacks, durable replies, inbound intake, and an agent-facing outbound-call tool. Reuse existing tasks, queues, secrets, and publications. Roadmap alignment This extends the experimental chat connector entry points under Agent Chat and Connected Apps. The project owner requested this feature. Refs #11418 for the original provider catalog proposal. This implementation uses the newer chat connection infrastructure rather than an MCP catalog-only integration. Refs #15721 for remote OpenCode startup. ## What Changed - Add the Speko Apps catalog entry, provider artwork, and browser SDK. - Reuse existing agents in setup. Keep the optional Company Phone Agent in the catalog, with connection instructions available to any assigned agent. - Add task voice controls, transcripts, phone callbacks, inbound-line settings, and call Activity entries. - Surface retryable connection and incoming-task inventory failures, preserve active call controls and cached tasks, restore keyboard focus after recovery, and bound notification polling so a stuck request cannot hide later results. - Put Save & exit and Connect Speko in the credential step’s shared footer. - Add deterministic production-component Storybook fixtures for setup, lifecycle, failures, permissions, and phone surfaces. - Include voice components in the design guide. Stories never request a real microphone or place calls. ## Verification - All 27 focused UI/controller regressions, UI typecheck, token gates, and 28 map/catalog structural tests pass. The shared connection cache test covers pause/resume invalidation during the 30-second fresh period. - Storybook builds 157 Speko production-component stories. The complete prior 156-story set passed all 624 checks on UI source `249cbc616a`. After the final cache repair, all 152 affected page/launcher checks passed across both themes, 390/1200 widths and reduced motion. Real microphone access and external provider requests are blocked. - Source annotations follow the current generated-catalog contract. No generated catalog or lockfile is included. Three inherited GitHub-heading tests passed after master reconciliation. - Latest-head CI and Greptile review must pass before merge. Local fixture success does not establish provider or spoken-playback acceptance. - The separate integrated browser run passed two journeys and failed browser answer retrieval. Real browser/telephone playback and timing acceptance remain outstanding. See the dated qualification report and E01–E16 runbook. Speko stays experimental. ## Risks - Voice sessions add migrations and provider-dependent lifecycle behavior. Migrations preserve existing chat and AI transports. - Callback origins must be reachable HTTPS. Provider keys and signing secrets remain vaulted. - Unverified callers receive task-scoped low-trust authority. Caller ID does not grant private task access. - Outbound telephony incurs provider charges. Provider acceptance is not proof that the caller heard an answer. - Keep the feature behind the existing experimental chat setting until the real browser, inbound, outbound, and delayed-result acceptance matrix passes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [ ] 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>	2026-10-13 16:26:38 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7eea9d8214	fix(github): use bot names in review summaries (#16212 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A GitHub bot can send a pull request to an agent and publish its review. > - Each bot has its own GitHub App identity, but every summary currently starts with "Paperclip Review". > - A generic heading makes it harder to identify reviewers when several bots review the same pull request. > - This pull request uses the bot display name in review summary headings. > - Users can identify each reviewer while required checks keep their existing name. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The heading of a GitHub bot's published pull request review summary. Current behavior Every summary uses "Paperclip Review", regardless of the bot's name. The check also uses "Paperclip Review" and must keep that name for existing branch rules. Proposed behavior Complete and incomplete review summary headings use the GitHub bot display name. The heading falls back to the bot login, then the assigned agent name, when old connections have no display name. Separate GitHub Apps keep independent checks with the same name. Reason and benefit Readers can identify each bot's review. A regression test confirms that publishing a review does not update a check owned by another App or endpoint. Breaking changes The summary heading changes. Consumers that parse the old heading must accept bot names. No API, prompt configuration, database schema, or check name changes are included. No duplicate PR was found in the GitHub bot title search. ROADMAP.md does not contain a duplicate of this change. ## What Changed - Use the bot display name in complete and incomplete review headings. - Escape Markdown in names and fall back to the bot login or agent name. - Verify the heading through the publication workflow and keep check updates scoped to the App and endpoint. - Document bot-named summaries and independent checks. Update both access maps. ## Verification - Focused policy, heading, and existing UI tests: 67 passed. - Database-backed regression cases: 2 passed, including bot-name publication and independent checks. - Map checks, token gates, and git diff --check passed. - Typecheck and build passed on the final rebased branch. The final focused run passed 44 tests; the two database-backed regression cases also passed in a separate run. All final-head CI checks passed, including full test suites, build, typecheck, E2E, and security scans. Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings. No review threads remain unresolved. ## Risks - Consumers that parse the old summary heading must accept bot names. - The GitHub check remains Paperclip Review. Multiple-bot check isolation was tested with provider fixtures; a live two-bot GitHub test was not run for this change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact backend model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 15:33:05 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	433d94ee0b	refactor(maps): generate indexes from local story and feature metadata (#16214 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Feature recipes and Storybook help contributors find behavior, examples, and verification steps. > - Independent feature changes currently update shared catalogs, indexes, and review hashes. > - Those shared files cause merge conflicts and repeated bookkeeping during parallel work. > - This pull request stores metadata in each feature recipe and story, then generates the combined views. > - Contributors can merge independent work without editing a common index. Git and PR evidence retain change and review history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? Maintaining the product, agent-access, and Storybook maps while multiple agents change different features. Current behavior A story or recipe change can update `catalog.json`, `INDEX.md`, review hashes, verification tables, and tracked generated navigation. Two unrelated changes then conflict in the same files. Proposed behavior Each story declares capability links and classification in `parameters.paperclip`. Each feature recipe declares its navigation and optional verification guidance. Startup, build, and UI typechecking discover these sources and generate ignored indexes and Storybook pages. Reason and benefit A routine change edits its own source files. Aggregate metadata is rebuilt from the merged checkout. There is no sidecar registry, shared review journal, or hash acknowledgment to maintain. Breaking changes The tracked Storybook catalog and index paths are retired. Consumers use `ui/storybook/generated/` or `maps/generated/` after generation. Contributor instructions and the existing feature-gap browser suite use the new paths. Story and overview IDs remain stable. ## What Changed - Move the existing annotations into 262 story files. Preserve classifications, capability associations, exports, and explicit IDs. - Discover all 35 feature recipes. Store section/order beside each recipe and move durable verification routes out of the shared table. - Remove tracked catalogs, inventories, overview pages, and inline preview ordering. Keep authored preview behavior in `preview-base.tsx`. - Generate the Storybook guide, feature/access Markdown indexes, gap report, page-reference inventory, and preview wrapper automatically. - Update the map contracts and maintenance skills to use Git history and revision-specific PR/CI evidence. - Add schema, identity, regeneration, and actual Git merge tests. Run these through the existing UI Vitest suite. Add focused browser navigation checks. This is one coordinated migration. Most of the 367 changed files contain only moved metadata or deleted generated content. Review the generator scripts, map contracts, Storybook configuration, and tests first. No product API or authorization behavior changes. ## Verification Passed: - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: 35 paired areas and 175 capabilities. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check`: 262 suites and 2,485 authored stories after incorporating current master. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs`: 28 tests, including independent branches merged in both orders with identical generated output and no tracked changes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run storybook/map-tooling.test.ts`: the CI entrypoint runs those map tests. - `pnpm check:token-gates`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` before the final master rebase. - `pnpm build-storybook`: all 2,517 original story/docs URLs retained. Current master contributes exactly four additional recovery stories. - Focused Playwright navigation checks: search and open a feature without examples; expand verification guidance and check source links; retain capability order and follow a related Foundations suite. The final clean Storybook build passed after deleting every ignored map output. Post-rebase UI typechecking and both browser tests passed. The working tree stays clean after generation. The concurrent-cleanup regression fails with `ENOENT` without the fix and passes with it. All GitHub CI gates passed on `00fc7ec18e`, which also received Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The final merge commit `1c3c5143a6` incorporates master and resolves only the two modify/delete conflicts by retaining removal of the aggregate index and catalog. Master’s new workspace feature and access guidance is preserved. Map validation, catalog generation, overview generation, all 28 map tests, and diff checks pass after conflict resolution. The maintainer explicitly requested merging without another Greptile review. CI has not been rerun to completion on this merge commit. The local repository-wide `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after the earlier CI matrix passed; it is not reported as a local pass. No screenshot baselines or production acceptance are claimed. To repeat the browser check against an owned Storybook server: ```sh PAPERCLIP_GAP_STORYBOOK_URL=http://127.0.0.1:6136 pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/storybook-visual/feature-gap-stories.config.ts map-navigation.spec.ts ``` ## Risks - Existing branches need a one-time rebase to move their catalog changes into local annotations. The PR incorporates the recovery changes from current master. - Changing the same story or capability can still produce a meaningful conflict. This removes the shared aggregate bottleneck. - The generator uses Storybook's existing CSF parser. Literal-only annotations and parser regression tests protect the current contract. - Generated Markdown is available after running the generator; the published Storybook provides a browsable guide. - Shared source changes still require review. Removing hashes removes mechanical acknowledgments; it does not establish runtime parity. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and browser-test tools. The exact deployment model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [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 on the previously reviewed head `00fc7ec18e`; final conflict-resolution checks are documented above - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on `00fc7ec18e`; another review was waived by the maintainer - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 15:27:23 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	df06df2306	fix(slack): allow direct messages without at-mentions (#16151 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Slack connections let people start and continue agent tasks. > - The Require at-mention setting currently applies to channels and direct messages. > - A person who sends a direct message has already selected the agent. > - This pull request exempts direct messages from mention checks, including queued work. > - People can talk normally in DMs while channel messages keep the configured mention rule. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15612, which introduced the Require at-mention setting. Searches found no duplicate PR for the DM exemption. What happened? With Require at-mention enabled, a plain Slack DM does not start or continue agent work. New Slack connections enable the setting by default. Expected behavior Direct messages do not need an at-mention. Top-level DM replies remain top-level. Channel messages and channel thread replies still follow the saved mention setting. Steps to reproduce 1. Enable Allow direct messages and Require at-mention on a Slack connection. 2. Send a plain DM from an authorized sender. 3. Confirm the agent responds without an at-mention. Send a plain follow-up and confirm it also works. 4. Confirm unmentioned channel messages remain filtered when Require at-mention is enabled. 5. Disable Allow direct messages and confirm new DMs remain blocked. Paperclip version or commit Source baseline: `eb06c9fedd`. Deployment mode Built from source. Automated tests use disposable local Postgres and provider fixtures. This change has not been deployed or retested in live Slack. ## What Changed - Exempt DMs at inbound admission, task mutation, work authorization, and heartbeat queue claim. - Keep channel mention checks and all existing sender, endpoint, and destination checks. - Update regressions for new connections, follow-ups, deferred delivery, and coalesced queued messages. - Clarify the Slack settings copy, connection documentation, and verification maps. - Refresh the affected Storybook review references after source inspection. ## Verification - Passed 55 Slack and durable scheduler tests with Vitest on the current rebased commit, including admission through the extracted inbound module. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` on the rebased PR commit. - Passed token gates and map checks. - Passed Storybook catalog validation after rebase: 223 files and 2,210 stories. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after three failures in the unchanged tool-access suite. All 418 tests in that suite passed in a standalone rerun. The focused regressions passed; full GitHub CI remains the merge gate. - Greptile reviewed commit `b0293fa6571403c5e01c30bb7b5fcc5e91b88c97`: 5/5, with no findings or unresolved review threads. All 55 GitHub checks passed on this commit; two optional Storybook jobs were skipped. - No live Slack messages were sent during implementation verification. ## Risks Existing Slack connections now accept authorized plain DMs even when Require at-mention is enabled. Allow direct messages and sender authorization still apply. Queued DM work follows the same exemption. Channel behavior and DM reply routing are unchanged. No schema or migration change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running as Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 07:40:46 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f329b24ee1	feat: give tasks durable project-optional workspaces (#15749 ) Give tasks durable company-scoped workspace bindings independent of project assignment, channel defaults and authorized repository preparation. Reuse verified input seeds and sparse output recovery while preserving trust, privacy and controller provisioning boundaries. Full CI and E2E, Superagent, legacy checks and Greptile Apex 5/5 passed on reviewed head `753680b61c`. All review findings are resolved; the PR records focused verification and historical acceptance limits. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 20:45:18 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7d9b93aee2	docs: establish paired feature and agent access maps (#16025 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. Issue type Missing documentation and maintenance contract. Where is the issue? The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. What's wrong? There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. Suggested fix Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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>	2026-10-12 14:52:28 -05:00