PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-27 19:35:13 +01:00

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandClaude Opus 5	7e5898d69a	feat(apps): make the BYO URL card the guided universal flow Pasting an MCP URL now walks the operator through whatever the endpoint turns out to need. The simple path is unchanged in length — address, name, "does it need a key?" — but the dead ends are gone: an endpoint that wants browser sign-in goes to sign-in instead of a "coming soon" toast, and an invalid, private-network, unreachable, or credential-demanding endpoint says which of those it was and which field to change, inline, next to that field. Advanced authentication adds the explicit choices for operators who already know: no sign-in, key or token, custom headers, or browser sign-in with a client they registered themselves. Header values become Paperclip secrets and are rejected client-side before a round trip if Paperclip wouldn't send them. The choices are phrased as how the server authenticates; nothing on this screen mentions DCR, CIMD, PKCE or an RFC, and a test asserts that stays true. The endpoint host and "Unverified server" now ride on the step header, so they stay visible through review, access and install rather than only on the screen where the address was pasted. A curated definition matching the endpoint is offered as a branded shortcut beside — not instead of — the generic form. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-20 21:20:01 +00:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5	ca0f7bc2eb	feat(shared): validate operator-supplied remote MCP headers The guided "Connect your own MCP server" flow and the paste-config escape hatch both let an operator name arbitrary request headers for an arbitrary endpoint, and those names reach a real outbound fetch. Validate them once in shared code rather than at each call site: RFC 9110 token names only, no hop-by-hop/framing/routing/ambient-credential headers, and no control characters in values. Also add the generic-auth inputs the guided flow needs (`authMode`, a preregistered `oauthClient`) and the auth-challenge shape the wizard branches on, so a URL-only connection can describe what the endpoint asked for. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-20 21:20:01 +00:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	120ae5428f	feat(server): add a one-click relink action for detached custom-image templates (#11641 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip environments can use captured custom images for agent runs > - A configuration fingerprint change can detach a valid custom-image template > - Operators need a safe way to confirm that the image still matches the boot source > - This pull request adds a guarded relink action with drift classification and audit logging > - The benefit is a deliberate relink without a new sandbox boot or provider snapshot ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting environment, server, and UI behavior. Problem or motivation A custom-image template detaches when the environment configuration fingerprint changes. The runtime then uses the base image, even when the boot source did not change. The only prior remedy required a full re-capture. Proposed solution Add an operator-triggered relink action. Classify configuration drift from a server-owned boot-relevant snapshot. Relink knob-only drift without confirmation. Require explicit confirmation for boot-source or unclassified drift. Guard the route for instance administrators and record a safe activity event. Alternatives considered Keep requiring a full re-capture. This adds a sandbox boot and provider snapshot for cases where the image remains correct. Roadmap alignment The roadmap has no matching custom-image relink item. This change addresses an environment operation gap. Additional context The relink response exposes raw drift values only in the transient 409 response to the instance administrator. The service never persists or logs fingerprints or configuration values. Reserved identity-path segments fail closed. ## What Changed - Add `relinkActiveTemplate` with drift classification and conditional fingerprint update. - Persist a server-owned boot-relevant configuration snapshot during capture. - Add the guarded relink route with strict request validation and activity logging. - Add the relink action and confirmation flow to the environment page. - Add service, route, UI, and OpenAPI coverage. ## Verification - Run the focused service suite: `pnpm vitest run server/src/services/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`. - Run the focused route suite: `pnpm vitest run server/src/routes/environment-custom-image-routes.test.ts`. - Run the focused UI suite: `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx`. - Run server and UI TypeScript checks. - Confirm the OpenAPI snapshot matches the new route. - Confirm all required GitHub checks pass on commit `e46fdcfe94a719be854adf8849d30714e5b70b93`. - Confirm Greptile reports 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks The relink action can keep an image after configuration drift. The service requires explicit confirmation for boot-source or unclassified drift. Reserved path segments produce a safe unresolved marker and never enter stored values. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex. The model used repository inspection, GitHub operations, and PR preparation with tool use and code execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window value or a separate reasoning-mode value. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-18 11:43:39 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	6b8e42168e	Add governed secret alias confirmation cards (#11486 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents need scoped secret bindings to use external services safely. > - Agents could not request an existing secret under a new config name without an internal secret identifier. > - Existing binding proposals were only visible in Settings and did not create an issue-thread approval path. > - A confirmation card could record acceptance without proving that the binding was created. > - This pull request extends the existing secret proposal system with safe source references and governed issue-thread confirmation cards. > - The benefit is a one-click flow that creates the binding or shows a clear failure without exposing secret material. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related prerequisite: #11482. Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: server REST APIs, shared interaction contracts, database proposal schema, and issue-thread UI. Problem or motivation An agent can need an existing bound secret under a second config name. The agent cannot safely discover the internal secret identifier. The existing proposal is also easy for the operator to miss because it only appears in Settings. A generic confirmation can record acceptance without executing the binding. Proposed solution Let an agent create a binding proposal from one of its existing config paths. Mint a server-owned, human-only confirmation card on the checked-out issue. Recheck the operator's target-agent permission under the proposal row lock. Execute the existing proposal transaction after card acceptance. Store an `executed` or `failed` result on the card. Render the complete lifecycle in the issue thread and attention resolver. Alternatives considered A new alias subsystem would duplicate proposal quotas, expiry, authorization, and binding synchronization. A text-only issue comment would not provide a governed action or an execution result. An agent-supplied card payload would permit metadata smuggling. This change uses the existing proposal transaction and a server-owned payload instead. Roadmap alignment This change extends the completed "Secrets Manager with per-agent access" roadmap item. It preserves scoped bindings and audited resolution. The required GitHub search found no other open duplicate issue or pull request. ## What Changed - Added safe source-config-path binding proposals and preserved user-secret ownership checks. - Added a proposal-to-interaction link and an idempotent database migration. - Minted human-only `request_confirmation` cards with server-owned `secretProposal` metadata. - Rejected agent-supplied governed metadata and agent addressees. - Rechecked `agent_config:update` authority under the proposal lock before execution. - Recorded `executed` or `failed` results and posted a failure comment when no binding was created. - Settled failed accepted proposals atomically and mirrored rejection, withdrawal, and expiry in both directions. - Emitted `secret.binding.created` for new agent binding writes. - Added a dedicated issue-thread card for pending, executed, failed, rejected, withdrawn, and expired states. - Showed only the source label, target agent, config path, skeptical justification, expiry, and safe failure code. - Replaced resolved attention-query entries immediately with the stitched server result. - Added focused server, database, UI, and state-transition tests. - Added Storybook fixtures for every review state and documented the API and agent behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/AttentionInteractionResolver.test.ts` — 58 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build-storybook` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts` — 142 passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/company-secret-proposals-migration.test.ts --silent` — 1 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` — server 4,175 passed, UI 4,109 passed; the CLI AWS-doctor case passes 8/8 with runtime-injected static AWS credential variables unset. - `pnpm build` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` ## Risks - Migration `0221` adds one nullable foreign key and one index. It uses idempotent guards. - The accept route performs a governed write after it records card acceptance. A failed write is visible and settles the proposal as rejected. - Concurrent proposal and card resolution must use proposal-before-interaction lock order. A race test covers direct approval against card rejection. - The new audit event increases activity rows for newly added agent bindings. It does not include secret values or fingerprints. - The card includes only safe proposal metadata. It does not include secret value, fingerprint, version, or internal secret identifiers. - The UI uses the stitched resolution result. Focused tests cover immediate cache replacement and every terminal state. > This work extends an existing completed roadmap capability. The GitHub duplicate search returned no other open related work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with model ID `gpt-5`. The runtime did not expose its context-window size. Reasoning, repository tools, code execution, database integration tests, UI rendering, and GitHub tools were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-18 09:44:24 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	e71ce9a9d3	feat: sandbox provider capability contract with fail-closed effective resolution (#11463 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip runs work through adapters and sandbox providers > - Providers need a clear contract so the server can use only verified capabilities > - A declared capability must not grant a method that the live worker did not verify > - This pull request adds manifest declarations and fail-closed effective capability resolution > - The benefit is safe provider reuse across execution targets and run lifecycles ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) Problem or motivation Sandbox providers expose different runtime methods. The server needs one safe capability contract that accounts for provider declarations, worker verification, and narrowing configuration. Proposed solution Add strict manifest validation for five sandbox capabilities. Resolve effective capabilities as the subset of verified, declared, and narrowed values. Store the result as a frozen execution-target snapshot. Alternatives considered Trusting the manifest alone could grant methods that the worker does not support. Trusting only a fixed built-in list would reject valid third-party providers. The intersection rule keeps the verified runtime ceiling and supports both provider types. Roadmap alignment This change supports the ACP run lifecycle track and the sandbox provider contract work in the current roadmap. Additional context The legacy `supportsReusableLeases` field remains supported. The nested capability validator rejects unknown keys. Missing or unavailable verification resolves all capabilities to `false`. ## What Changed - Add strict `sandboxCapabilities` manifest validation with legacy reusable-lease compatibility. - Carry declarations through the ready-driver projection. - Add fail-closed effective resolution from verified, declared, and narrowed capabilities. - Add narrowing for provider configuration, Kubernetes Job leases, and Daytona sessions. - Add a frozen read-only capability snapshot to execution targets. - Add focused tests and keep existing characterization baselines covered. - Add and update sandbox provider capability documentation. ## Verification - `npx vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts` - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-environment-driver-sandbox-capabilities.test.ts` - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/sandbox-capability-contract.test.ts` - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-execution-target-capabilities.test.ts` - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/startup-characterization.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/turn-characterization.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/settlement-characterization.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/composed-run-characterization.test.ts` - Package typechecks for shared, server, and adapter-utils pass. - Stage-2 security review suites pass with 28 tests. ## Risks The resolver fails closed when verification is absent or unavailable. Providers that rely on undeclared capabilities may see narrower behavior until they expose verified worker methods. The change does not alter the existing native-sync guard. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, exact runtime model ID `gpt-5`, tool use and code execution. The implementation author used this model to assist with the change. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-17 10:55:40 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	10d0555189	fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. What happened? Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. Expected behavior Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. Steps to reproduce 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. Paperclip version or commit The problem exists on `master` before this change. Deployment mode Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-16 13:46:50 -05:00
Tonio Paperclip Claude Opus 5	f0e6c0f549	feat(server): receive and apply the Paperclip Cloud onboarding seed (#11098 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud provisions a dedicated tenant stack for each customer. During signup it asks for a mission, a name and role for the first agent, and a first task. > - Cloud pushes those answers into the new stack at activation, as `POST /api/companies/:companyId/onboarding-seed`. > - No route served that path. The tenant answered 404, so Cloud recorded the push as unacknowledged and retried on every portfolio fetch. > - The failure was soft. The answers stayed durable in Cloud and the stack still activated. But the stack opened on the empty first-run wizard, and it asked the customer again for what they had already given. > - This pull request adds the receiving endpoint. It validates the seed, applies it, and acknowledges it. > - The benefit is that a seeded stack opens with the mission, the agent and the first task already in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue covers this. The problem is described in-PR, following the feature template. Subsystem affected server/ — Express REST API and orchestration services. Also `packages/db` (one new table) and `packages/shared` (one new validator). Problem or motivation Paperclip Cloud collects onboarding answers at signup and pushes them to the tenant stack at activation. The tenant had no route for that request. It answered 404. Cloud treats a non-2xx as "not yet applied", so it kept the answers and retried, but the stack itself stayed unseeded. A customer who had already named their mission, their first agent and their first task arrived at an empty first-run wizard that asked for all three again. Proposed solution Serve `POST /api/companies/:companyId/onboarding-seed`. Validate the body, apply it to the company, then acknowledge it. The seed is customer free text, so it is bounded and validated in `packages/shared` and read from the JSON body only. It is never read from an `x-paperclip-cloud-` header. That header set is the trusted identity envelope: every member is derived server-side from the host plus verified domain records, and that is exactly what makes it trustworthy. Mixing user content into it would remove the property. A test plants a mission on a cloud header and asserts that the body value wins. Application reuses the shapes the first-run wizard already produces, so a seeded stack and a manually onboarded one look the same afterwards: - The mission becomes the company-level goal. A multi-line mission splits into a title and a description, as the wizard does. - The agent becomes the company's first hire. Its free-text role ("Chief of Staff") lands on `title`. The structural `role` stays `ceo`, which is what the org chart and the default-instructions lookup read. - The first task becomes an issue in the Onboarding project, assigned to that agent. Cloud retries until it gets a 2xx, and it reads any 2xx as "the tenant holds this content". So the endpoint is idempotent per `revision`. A new `company_onboarding_seeds` table records the applied revision together with the goal, the agent and the issue it produced. A replay of a revision that already matches is a successful no-op. A later revision — the customer edited their answers — updates those three rows in place instead of creating a second agent and a second task. The record is written last, after every other write has landed, so a partial application cannot present itself as acknowledged. Everything is applied before the 200 is sent. This is an ordering guarantee, not eventual consistency. The tests read the database immediately after the response, with no waiting and no polling, so a lazy receiver fails them on a fast machine as well as a slow one. That matters because the redirect into the tenant dashboard is gated on this acknowledgement. Alternatives considered* Store the seed and let the tenant UI apply it on first load. Rejected: the dashboard redirect is gated on the acknowledgement, so a background apply would let the dashboard open before the agent and the task exist. The whole point is that it must not. Reuse `POST /companies/:companyId/agents` and `POST /companies/:companyId/issues` over HTTP from Cloud. Rejected: it needs three round trips with no shared idempotency key, and it moves the "did all of it land?" decision to the caller. Roadmap alignment This completes an existing Cloud-to-tenant contract. It does not add a new user-facing surface. ## What Changed - Add `POST /api/companies/:companyId/onboarding-seed` in `server/src/routes/onboarding-seed.ts`. It authenticates exactly as `POST /api/companies/:companyId/logo` does, through `assertCompanyAccess`. - Add `server/src/services/onboarding-seed.ts`. It applies the mission, the agent and the first task, and records the applied revision last. - Add the `company_onboarding_seeds` table: schema, migration `0216`, and journal entry. It holds the applied revision and the ids of the goal, agent and issue the seed produced. - Add `applyOnboardingSeedSchema` in `packages/shared`. It bounds mission to 2000, agent name to 80, agent role to 120, task title to 200, and task details to 2000 — the same limits Cloud enforces before it sends. - Mount the router in `server/src/app.ts` and register the path in the OpenAPI document. - Add `server/src/__tests__/onboarding-seed-route.test.ts` with 13 tests. - The seeded agent is created on `claude_local`. This mirrors the teams-catalog default for agents created server-side, where no human runs an environment test first. `PAPERCLIP_ONBOARDING_SEED_ADAPTER_TYPE` overrides it. ## Verification ```sh pnpm typecheck # whole workspace, passes npx vitest run \ server/src/__tests__/onboarding-seed-route.test.ts \ server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts # 15 passed ``` The suite runs against embedded Postgres with migrations applied, so migration `0216` is exercised by every test. The route tests cover: - the happy path — mission, agent and task all applied, read immediately after the 200 - replay of the same revision — no second agent, no second task, no second goal, no second project - a later revision — the goal, agent and task are updated in place - a multi-line mission splitting into a goal title and description - a revision-only seed - the activity log entry written once, and not again on a replay - a caller without access to the company — 403, and nothing written - a body with no revision — 400 - each field bound past its limit — 400 - a mission planted on an `x-paperclip-cloud-` header — ignored, body wins - an existing Onboarding project — reused, not duplicated Not verified here: the full Cloud-to-tenant walk against a live stack. That needs a deployed Cloud and a provisioned tenant together, which is separate staging work. ## Risks Migration `0216` creates one new table. It adds no column to an existing table, rewrites nothing, and backfills nothing, so it is safe to apply online. The migration safety check passes. The endpoint writes to a company. Access is enforced by `assertCompanyAccess`, the same gate the company logo write uses, and a test covers the denial. Behavioral note for stacks that already hold data. If a company already has a non-built-in `ceo` agent, a first seed updates that agent's name and title rather than creating a second lead. Likewise a seed adopts an existing company-level goal rather than adding a parallel one. This is deliberate: the seed is the customer's own stated answer from signup, and two competing missions or two leads would be worse than one updated in place. In the intended case — a stack that Cloud has just activated — none of these exist yet. The seeded agent is created on `claude_local` with an empty adapter config. It is idle and needs the usual credential setup before it runs. Seeding it does not start it. ## Update — rebased onto master + review hardening Master moved on after this PR was cut, so it was rebased onto `master`* and the seed migration was renumbered from `0212` to `0216` (the merged #11101 took `0212_onboarding_first_task_unique`); the drizzle journal was re-stitched and `check:migrations` passes. Two things landed on top of the original receiver: - Mission-only walk contract (PAP-67 r17.4). The tenant now owns the first agent and the first task via #11101's server-owned onboarding path, which stamps `ONBOARDING_FIRST_TASK_ORIGIN_KIND` and races safely on the partial unique index `issues_onboarding_first_task_uq`. A comment in the apply path documents why this receiver leaves the first task to that path on the cloud walk, and a paperclip-cloud `node:test` (`src/onboarding/walk-seed.test.ts`) asserts the walk's seed carries no `agent`/`firstTask`. The receiver retains the agent/first-task code for its documented body contract, kept inert on the cloud path by the mission-only seed. - Three Greptile P1 fixes (`95622fa37`): concurrent application is now serialized under a per-company `pg_advisory_xact_lock` (no duplicate goal/agent/project/task on overlapping pushes); a revised first task carries its resolved `assigneeAgentId`/`goalId`; and the `company.onboarding_seed_applied` audit write is best-effort so a logging failure can't leave the entry permanently absent. Two new regression tests cover the first two. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context window, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. Used for the original codebase investigation, the implementation, and the tests. The rebase, migration renumber, mission-only contract, and the three P1 fixes were done with Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-12 22:54:07 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	7ea2068ef8	fix(files): only highlight accessible workspace file links (#11090 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task comments can contain references to files in project and execution workspaces. > - Paperclip detected path-shaped inline code and showed it as an actionable file chip. > - The UI did not first confirm that the current board session could open the file. > - Missing, denied, ambiguous, remote, and unsupported files therefore looked actionable and failed after a click. > - This pull request adds an issue-scoped availability check and promotes only confirmed files to chips. > - The benefit is that the task thread shows a file action only when that action can succeed. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Task comments promoted path-shaped inline code to file chips before Paperclip checked the file. A chip could point to a missing, denied, ambiguous, remote, or non-previewable file. The action then failed after the user selected it. Expected behavior Paperclip must show a file chip only after the server confirms that the current board session can open the exact file reference. All other path-shaped text must stay ordinary inline code. Steps to reproduce 1. Add a task comment that contains inline code with a missing or inaccessible workspace path. 2. Open the task thread as a board user. 3. Observe that the path looks like an actionable file chip. 4. Select the chip and observe that the file cannot open. Paperclip version or commit `19be4cf927` and earlier. Deployment mode Local dev and self-hosted server. Access context Board user. ## What Changed - Added shared request, response, and validation contracts for batched workspace-file availability checks. - Added an issue-scoped server endpoint that resolves file references with company, issue, workspace, and preview-access checks. - Added bounded batch concurrency and tests for missing, denied, ambiguous, remote, unsupported, and available files. - Added an issue-scoped UI availability registry that deduplicates, batches, caches, and invalidates file checks. - Changed task-comment markdown rendering so only confirmed files get chip styling and file-viewer behavior. - Bound each chip to the exact workspace target that passed the availability check. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/workspace-file-resource.test.ts server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.availability.test.tsx ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts ui/src/lib/workspace-file-availability.test.ts` — 93 passed, 35 skipped. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — clean. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — all server and UI groups passed. One unchanged CLI test saw the run-injected static AWS credentials and expected only its local `AWS_PROFILE`. The same test passed, 8 of 8, after removing only `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID` and `AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY` from its process environment. ## Risks - File chips now appear after an asynchronous availability check, so path-shaped text can briefly render as inline code. - Availability results use the existing 30-second file-resource cache window. File-resource invalidation forces a new check. - The endpoint limits each request to 100 references and the client chunks larger sets. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The service did not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. The agent used high-reasoning mode, repository tools, command execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-11 12:11:45 -04:00
DottaandPaperclip	5da382fd59	feat(skills): require explicit merge modes (#10978 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents can select company skills and synchronize them to adapter runtimes > - The skill sync API replaced the complete selection without an explicit destructive choice > - Company package import also replaced conflicting skills by default > - These defaults could remove operator edits during setup and import reruns > - This pull request adds explicit assignment merge modes and safe package conflict handling > - The benefit is that reruns preserve operator work unless the caller explicitly requests replacement ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? This change improves agent skill synchronization and company package import. Subsystem affected This is a cross-cutting change across the shared contracts, server, CLI, and UI. Current behavior Agent skill synchronization replaces the full desired skill set from a modeless request. Package import replaces a conflicting skill when the caller does not select a conflict mode. Proposed behavior Agent skill synchronization requires `add`, `remove`, or `replace`. Package import skips conflicts by default. Each imported skill reports whether it was created, renamed, replaced, or skipped. Reason and benefit Setup and import reruns must preserve operator edits by default. Explicit destructive modes make data loss less likely and make each outcome inspectable. Breaking changes Callers of the agent skill sync API must now send `mode`. Callers that need the former behavior must send `replace`. Package import now uses `skip` when `onConflict` is absent. ## What Changed - Added required `add`, `remove`, and `replace` modes to the shared agent skill sync contract. - Added actionable `422` validation for missing or invalid modes. - Updated first-party UI and CLI callers with explicit modes. - Changed package skill conflict handling to use `skip` by default. - Kept plugin-owned and built-in stock skill imports on explicit `replace`. - Added created, renamed, replaced, and skipped results to company imports. - Added regression coverage for merge modes and package conflict outcomes. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm test:run:serialized` (128 suites passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` (20 tests passed) - Focused agent skill route, company skill service, portability, CLI, and UI tests passed. - GitHub CI passed build, typecheck, canary, all general and serialized test shards, all browser shards, policy, security, and final verification on commit `2cfbb3e4c5`. - Greptile reviewed the latest commit at 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. ## Risks - This change intentionally rejects modeless agent skill sync requests. - The safe package default can leave an existing skill unchanged where the old default overwrote it. - All first-party callers now select a mode. Regression tests cover each outcome. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI `gpt-5.6-sol` through Codex. The runtime used agentic reasoning, tool use, code execution, and repository editing. The runtime did not expose the context window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-07 00:42:08 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	72b509c895	Recognize delivered workspaces and reap terminal worktrees (#10908 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip separates workspace provisioning lifecycle from whether the work was actually delivered. > - Git ancestry alone cannot recognize squash merges or deliveries into a branch other than the workspace base. > - A merged pull request linked from a terminal issue is stronger delivery evidence for those cases. > - The read contract should expose that evidence without changing persisted workspace schema. > - Cleanup must remain conservative: terminal descendants, delivered work, and no active run checkout are all required. > - Reusing the existing cleanup primitives keeps service shutdown, lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival behavior consistent. > - Focused regression coverage locks in both the honest read signal and the fail-closed reaper guards. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? Execution workspace close-readiness payloads and terminal workspace cleanup. Current behavior Delivered squash-merged or cross-branch workspaces can remain `active` and report a permanent “not merged” warning because git ancestry does not contain their original commits. Proposed behavior Read payloads distinguish PR-confirmed delivery, ancestry delivery, unmerged work, and unknown state. Fully terminal delivered workspace trees are archived only when no active run holds the checkout. Reason and benefit Operators and automation receive an honest delivery signal, while shipped worktrees stop looking active forever and genuinely unmerged work retains its warning. Breaking changes The workspace payload gains a derived field. Existing fields and persistence remain unchanged; no database migration is required. What happened? A delivered workspace can remain `active` and warn that it is not merged forever after its issue ships through a squash or cross-branch pull request. Expected behavior Pull-request delivery should be represented honestly, and a fully terminal delivered workspace should become cleanup-eligible when no run holds its checkout. Steps to reproduce 1. Create an issue workspace with commits ahead of its configured base. 2. Deliver those commits with a squash merge or into a different target branch. 3. Mark the source issue and descendants done, then read workspace close readiness. Before this change, the workspace remains active with a “not merged” warning indefinitely. ## What Changed - Added the derived `deliveryState` workspace contract: `merged_via_pr`, `merged_by_ancestry`, `unmerged`, or `unknown`. - Extracted a shared GitHub pull-request merge classifier and reused it for merge confirmations and workspace delivery checks. - Suppressed false ancestry warnings when a terminal issue has ground-truth merged-PR evidence. - Added an idempotent terminality reaper with descendant-terminal, active-run, and delivered-work guards. - Restricted PR delivery evidence to the source issue, then required live merged state plus matching GitHub repository, head branch, and current workspace HEAD; persisted status, stale PRs, lexical mentions, inbound references, and descendant PRs cannot authorize cleanup. - Preserved workspaces with modified or untracked files even when their committed HEAD was delivered. - Bounded both long-lived pull-request state caches to 1,000 entries with oldest-entry eviction. - Routed eligible workspaces through existing runtime shutdown, lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival machinery with exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks plus non-forced removal. - Added regression coverage for delivery derivation, warning behavior, reaper guards, scheduler wiring, and squash/cross-branch delivery. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 63 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts --reporter=verbose` after review hardening — 43 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts --reporter=dot` on the final local head — 73 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 15 passed - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` — server 3,662 passed (4 skipped), UI 3,599 passed, CLI 327 passed, shared 415 passed, and skills catalog 20 passed; the aggregate DB stage ran both source and built copies of one unrelated embedded-Postgres migration test and both reached its 5-second timeout - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/status-card-migrations.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — isolated aggregate-timeout verification passed in 3.99 seconds - `NODE_ENV=production pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks The reaper intentionally fails closed when issue terminality, pull-request state, git ancestry, or checkout ownership cannot be proven. GitHub lookups can delay classification and cleanup but cannot cause an unproven workspace to be archived. Automated terminal archival holds exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks across validation and removal, skips configured destructive hooks, and uses non-forced removal so dirty writes fail closed. Reopening a source issue does not restore an archived workspace; it emits an audit event so a human or agent can re-provision explicitly. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. Reasoning, tool use, repository editing, test execution, and GitHub CLI access were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-05 16:34:04 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	6ffe9df842	fix(auth): clarify protected-agent assignment blocks (#10893 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task assignment policies control which agents can receive work. > - Protected-agent policy flags currently stop assignment. > - The existing error says that the assignment requires approval. > - Paperclip has no approval workflow for this policy. > - This pull request models the policy as a hard block and gives the operator an action that exists. > - The benefit is accurate API guidance without weakening the existing fail-closed behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #6386 What happened? A protected-agent assignment denial said that approval was required. No approval record or approval action existed for this policy, so the message sent agents and operators to a dead end. Expected behavior The authorization result must state that protected-agent policy blocks assignment. It must tell a company administrator to remove the block before retrying. Steps to reproduce 1. Set `authorizationPolicy.protectedAgent.requiresApproval` to `true` on a target agent. 2. Give another agent the `tasks:assign` permission. 3. Preview or attempt assignment to the protected agent. 4. Observe that the old response promises an approval step that does not exist. Paperclip version or commit `c54936e2e9` on `master`. Deployment mode Built from source. The behavior is in the core authorization service and is not deployment-specific. Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific. ## What Changed - Added canonical `protectedAgent.blockAssignment` and `protectedAgent.blockReason` policy fields. - Kept the legacy approval-named flags as fail-closed compatibility aliases. - Changed denial copy to name the hard block and the administrator action. - Added authorization and plugin-host regression coverage for canonical and legacy policy data. - Updated the V1 implementation contract with the protected-assignment rule. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts` — 2 files passed, 61 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` — passed. The repository-wide local wrappers exceeded the execution host resource limit before they printed a final summary. The PR check loop will use GitHub CI as the complete test and build authority. ## Risks - Low: assignment remains fail-closed. The change corrects the policy name and denial guidance. - Low: legacy fields remain supported, so existing plugin-owned policy data does not change behavior. - Low: the new policy schemas allow unknown keys for forward compatibility, as the existing authorization policy schema already does. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5`, tool-enabled coding agent with reasoning, shell, Git, and GitHub CLI access. The runtime does not expose the context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-05 10:09:17 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	678728f650	feat: maintained in_review review-path contract + stalled-review actions (#10675 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents move issues to `in_review` and rely on a "review path" (an interaction, an approval, a monitor, or a named reviewer) to tell them who decides next. > - That review path can silently disappear. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction, a monitor is exhausted, or a run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with nobody reviewing it and no visible action. > - Such issues become invisible zombies. Nobody knows a decision is owed, so the work stalls forever. > - This pull request makes the review path a maintained invariant, exposes a `reviewAttention` surface, and gives every stalled review three inline actions in the UI. > - The benefit is that an `in_review` issue always shows who reviews it, or shows an amber "nobody is reviewing this" notice with one-click Approve, Request changes, and Send back to work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request describes the problem inline. The tracking issue is internal. Subsystem affected The review and attention loop that agents and humans share: the `in_review` status, the `reviewAttention` surface, the /decisions attention feed, and the issue-page review panel. Problem or motivation Agent-owned issues in `in_review` can lose their last review path. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction. A monitor is exhausted. A run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with no reviewer and no visible action. It becomes an invisible zombie and the work never progresses. Proposed solution Maintain the review path as a server invariant. Expose a `reviewAttention` field that says what is under review, who decides, and since when. Render a persistent review panel on the issue page and inline actions on the /decisions feed. Keep human PATCHes into `in_review` ungated, but record the requesting user so the panel never renders empty. Alternatives considered A pure background auto-recovery sweep. This stays opt-in and is not enough on its own, because it is invisible to the human. A bare status banner. This is rejected, because it gives no action to resolve the stall. Roadmap alignment This improves the core review and attention loop that both agents and humans use every day. ## What Changed - Server — maintained review-path invariant: when an issue enters or sits in `in_review`, the server derives and persists a review path (interaction, approval, monitor, or the requesting user) and recovers a stale path with one bounded wake instead of leaving the issue pathless. - Server — `reviewAttention` surface: a new field describes what is under review (bound target with links), who decides, since when, and whether the review is stalled. Stalled agent-assigned reviews are now included in the attention feed. - Server — inline stalled-review decisions: secured routes let a permitted responder Approve (→ `done`), Request changes (→ `todo` + wake carrying the note), or Send back to work (→ `todo` + wake) directly from the attention feed. - Server — resume-intent wake: an `in_review -> todo` transition now wakes the assigned agent so a resumed review is not dropped. - Server — user-entry symmetry: user PATCHes into `in_review` stay ungated (no 422 for humans) and record the requesting user, who becomes the named responder when no other path exists. - UI — review panel: a persistent `IssueReviewPanel` renders above the thread whenever status is `in_review`. The covered state shows the bound target, responder, and outcomes and hoists the pending interaction/approval card. The stalled state shows the amber notice plus the three actions. - UI — decisions card actions: the same three actions render inline on the /decisions `AttentionQueueRow`. - UI — responsive fix: the stalled action row stacks to full-width buttons at phone width and returns to a horizontal row at `sm` and up. New 390px stories capture the phone layout. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueReviewPanel.test.tsx src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx src/lib/attention.test.ts src/api/issues.test.ts` — 91 tests pass. - Server suites added and updated: `issue-review-attention`, `issue-stalled-review-decision-routes`, `review-path-recovery`, `recovery-observability`, and related route/liveness tests (run by CI). - A designer reviewed the UI at 390px and desktop in light and dark themes on both the issue-page panel and the /decisions card. The stalled action row stacks cleanly at phone width with no overlap and keeps the horizontal row on desktop. ## Risks - Migration: adds migration `0200` (next after master `0199`, no renumber). It extends the agent-wakeup-requests schema and is additive. - Behavioral shift: `in_review -> todo` now dispatches a wake. This is intended (resume intent) and covered by tests. - Authz: the inline decision routes are permission-gated. Only a permitted responder sees and can trigger the actions. - Overall risk is moderate and contained to the review and attention loop. ## Model Used - Claude, Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-04 13:54:40 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Fable 5	ded813ad6f	feat(interactions): add governed agent addressees (#10252 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane that lets humans govern companies of AI agents. > - Issue-thread interactions are the structured handoff point for confirmations, questions, suggested tasks, and other governed decisions. > - Those interactions previously assumed that only board users could resolve them, preventing one agent from explicitly addressing another agent for a response. > - Agent resolution needs company-level governance, auditable resolver identity, safe terminal-state handling, and attention routing so authorization is enforced server-side rather than inferred from UI behavior. > - This pull request adds governed agent resolution, withdrawal and terminal expiry semantics, explicit agent addressees, lifecycle reconciliation, and attention-feed filtering. > - The benefit is that agents can participate in structured decisions without weakening board control, company isolation, wake behavior, or audit invariants. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Issue-thread interactions across database, shared contracts, server authorization/services, adapter callbacks, agent skill guidance, API docs, and UI governance surfaces. ### Problem or motivation Structured interactions were board-only, had no explicit agent addressee, and lacked durable withdrawal/terminal-expiry semantics. That made peer-agent decisions impossible to authorize and audit safely. ### Proposed solution Persist requested/effective resolver policy and addressee identity, enforce company governance and eligible agent resolution, reconcile addressee lifecycle changes, expose withdrawal and terminal expiry, and route attention to the intended active agent with board fallback. ### Alternatives considered Implicitly authorizing the issue assignee or mentioned agents was rejected as ambiguous and difficult to audit. Using comments alone was rejected because it loses structured outcomes and continuation behavior. ### Roadmap alignment Supports the ROADMAP direction for lightweight leadership-agent communication that still resolves into governed decisions and work objects. ### Additional context Public GitHub issue/PR search found no duplicate implementation; open PR search for interaction resolver governance and agent addressees only returned this PR. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped interaction resolver governance contracts and persistence. - Add requested/effective resolver policy, resolver identity, withdrawal, and terminal-expiry behavior. - Add explicit `addresseeAgentId` validation, authorization, persistence, lifecycle reconciliation, API documentation, and skill guidance. - Route pending addressed interactions to the intended invokable agent and fall back to board attention when that agent becomes ineligible or is deleted. - Preserve sandbox callback identity fields required by governed resolution paths. - Add migrations `0193` and `0194` plus route, service, attention, adapter, CLI, and UI coverage. - Add governance state and company settings UI, including responsive mobile behavior and distinct withdrawn/expired audit presentation. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm test:run` — feature/server and UI workspace suites passed; one unrelated CLI AWS doctor test observed injected static AWS credentials and warned instead of passing. - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts --project paperclipai` — 8 tests passed, confirming the failure was environment-sensitive. - `pnpm build` — passed. - Latest rebased head `e24cece6be9f1877bdbac7691bcb44fd583c0161` completed all GitHub CI jobs successfully. ## Risks - Migrations add interaction and company-governance fields; numbering is conflict-free on current `master`, additive statements are idempotent, and migration safety checks pass. - Agent authorization behavior expands beyond board-only resolution, but defaults remain board-only and coverage exercises company boundaries, resolver eligibility, lifecycle invalidation, wake behavior, withdrawal, expiry, and attention fallback. - Attention routing depends on current agent invokability; reconciliation and read-time filtering prevent stale addressees from retaining visibility or resolution authority. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.6-sol` with reasoning, terminal tool use, code execution, Git/GitHub integration, and Paperclip control-plane tools. Context-window metadata was not reported by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-04 12:51:06 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	717684ad8f	Add project folder browsing to skill imports (#9930 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane teams use to manage AI agents and their reusable capabilities. > - Skills Manager lets operators discover and import skills from project workspaces. > - Automatic discovery only surfaces skills in conventional locations, so valid skills stored elsewhere in a project are invisible. > - Operators need a safe way to navigate project folders without exposing paths outside the selected workspace. > - This pull request adds company-scoped workspace folder browsing and selection to the project skill import flow. > - The benefit is that operators can find and import valid skill folders regardless of repository layout while preserving workspace boundaries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Subsystem affected: Cross-cutting (`server/`, `ui/`, and `packages/shared`). - Problem or motivation: Project skill imports rely on conventional directory discovery, which prevents operators from selecting valid `SKILL.md` folders stored in atypical locations. - Proposed solution: Add a company-scoped browse endpoint and a folder browser in the import dialog. The server resolves real paths, rejects traversal outside the workspace, skips symlinks and high-noise directories, identifies skill directories/files, and caps listings at 250 entries. - Alternatives considered: Expanding the automatic scan to every directory would be slower and noisier, while accepting arbitrary filesystem paths would weaken project/workspace scoping. - Roadmap alignment: This extends the completed “Skills Manager, Skill Studio & Skills Store” capability in `ROADMAP.md` without duplicating planned core work. - Additional context: GitHub search found no duplicate or closely related public issues or pull requests. ## What Changed - Added shared browse request/result contracts and validation for project workspace navigation. - Added a company-scoped API route and service that safely lists local workspace folders and detects `SKILL.md` entries. - Added project workspace/folder navigation to the import dialog, including parent navigation, workspace switching, truncation feedback, and direct skill selection. - Added service and route regression tests for browsing, skill detection, company isolation, and traversal rejection. - Added shared response schemas and OpenAPI documentation for the browse endpoint. - Hardened explicit skill selections with realpath containment so symlinked directories cannot escape the project workspace. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills.test.ts` — 64 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — 3 tests passed. - Focused post-review reruns: `company-skills-service.test.ts` — 45 tests passed; shared/server typechecks passed. - GitHub latest-head checks — all green after one transient e2e rerun; no pending or failing checks. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean on the rebased head. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate risk: this adds a filesystem browsing surface. Realpath containment checks prevent workspace escape, symlinks are excluded, remote-managed workspaces are rejected, and directory listings are capped. - The browser intentionally hides `.git` and `node_modules`; skills inside those directories cannot be selected through this flow. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.5`, reasoning-enabled with terminal/tool use and code execution; runtime context-window size is not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details — the execution harness requires preserving the assigned branch name. - [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 — no user-facing docs changes are needed beyond this PR description because the flow is self-explanatory UI behavior. - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-02 10:55:36 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	9c1f8e7887	feat(decisions): add first-class propose mode (#10010 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents can currently perform many mutations directly, while humans often need a durable review point before cross-issue or destructive actions occur > - Existing approvals and issue-thread interactions do not provide a standalone, reusable object for presenting options, collecting typed inputs, detecting stale targets, and auditing effect execution > - The control plane therefore needs a first-class propose mode that separates an agent's recommendation from the governed mutation it may cause > - This pull request adds Decisions v1 across the database, shared contracts, server execution and telemetry, agent skill guidance, and operator UI > - The benefit is that agents can propose multi-option actions safely while operators get explicit provenance, fail-closed execution, per-effect results, and a focused attention workflow ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `server`, and `ui`. ### Problem or motivation Agents need a governed way to propose consequential work without immediately mutating issues, especially when one choice can affect several issue trees. Existing approvals and issue-thread interactions do not provide a standalone object with typed options, target snapshots, effect-level authorization, expiration, execution outcomes, and reusable attention-feed presentation. ### Proposed solution Add first-class Decisions that store options and typed inputs, surface open proposals in the operator attention feed, validate target freshness and the origin-agent/operator authorization intersection at decision time, execute a bounded set of auditable effects, and retain terminal outcomes. Decisions v1 supports comments, status and assignee changes, follow-up issue creation, blocker resolution, and issue-tree cancellation, plus bundle grouping, expiration/dismissal, rule-key telemetry, and agent-facing API guidance. ### Alternatives considered - Extend approvals with arbitrary effects: rejected because approvals represent governed yes/no actions and would become an unsafe generic mutation envelope. - Model every proposal as an issue-thread interaction: rejected because decisions can span several targets and need independent lifecycle, telemetry, idempotency, and effect results. - Let agents perform the mutation and ask for retrospective review: rejected because it removes the pre-execution governance boundary this feature is meant to provide. ### Roadmap alignment Aligns with `ROADMAP.md` sections Agent Reviews and Approvals, Enforced Outcomes, MCP Tool Gateway & Apps (governed tool access), and Activity History by making explicit decisions, authorization gates, auditable execution, and terminal outcomes first-class control-plane objects. ### Additional context This does not replace existing approvals or issue-thread interactions, and it does not add an unrestricted generic mutation effect. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped decision, option, target, and effect-execution schema plus migration and shared TypeScript/Zod contracts. - Added decision routes and services for propose, list/get, decide, dismiss, cancel, target freshness checks, authorization intersection, idempotency, activity logging, and execution auditing. - Added rule-key decision telemetry and attention-feed metadata so open decisions are visible and measurable. - Added agent skill documentation for proposing and resolving decisions through the Paperclip API. - Added the Decisions UI: API client, query keys, inline attention resolver, bundle grouping, target-issue strip, terminal history, destructive confirmation, and per-effect result rendering. - Added server service coverage, DecisionCard state tests, and Storybook stories for the supported visual states. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — 2,876 passed, 1 skipped, with one unrelated cross-suite cleanup-order failure in `heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts`; the failing file passes in isolation (`6/6`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/DecisionCard.test.tsx` — passed (`9/9`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/authz-existence-oracle-guard.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed (`5/5`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts` — passed (`16/16`). - `pnpm --filter paperclipai exec vitest run src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts` — passed (`1/1`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` and `pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - Rebased-head focused suite — passed (`6` files, `88` tests): shared decision contracts, Decisions service, OpenAPI routes, startup feedback export, DecisionCard states, and attention helpers. The follow-up stale-secondary-target regression passes in the DecisionCard suite (`10/10`). - Rebased-head scoped typechecks — passed for `@paperclipai/shared`, `@paperclipai/db`, `@paperclipai/server`, and `@paperclipai/ui`. - Rebased-head migration numbering and safety checks — passed after renumbering the additive migration to `0193` and making it replay-safe for environments that applied the earlier feature-branch number. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean. - GitHub PR workflow and Greptile review for `1f9f7645882d05dfdd9c99377c03a1f53f20e8be` — running after the stale-secondary-target fix and PR metadata refresh on July 27, 2026. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook` exposes an existing Storybook version mismatch (`storybook` 10.4.6 vs `@storybook/addon-docs` 10.5.0); Decisions stories were validated with the docs addon temporarily disabled and the tracked config remains unchanged. ## Risks - Migration: Adds replay-safe migration `0193`; migration numbering and safety checks pass. The new tables and indexes are additive. - Authorization: Effect execution intersects the proposing agent's permissions with the responsible user context and fails closed; mistakes could reject a valid proposal rather than silently over-authorize it. - Concurrency: Target snapshots and idempotency keys protect against stale or duplicate execution, but reviewers should focus on mixed-effect partial outcomes and retry behavior. - UI: Decisions are integrated into the existing attention feed rather than a separate navigation surface, reducing routing risk but increasing the importance of attention-item metadata compatibility. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI using `gpt-5.6-sol` for final PR preparation, review fixes, and verification; repository tools and code execution were enabled, and context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. - Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 with 1M context assisted with the Decisions UI implementation, as recorded in the relevant commits. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-31 19:17:02 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	fcf66f3a91	feat(skills): add managed skill rename API (#9688 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Company skills are reusable capabilities that operators install, edit, assign, and materialize for agents. > - Managed local skills currently lack a safe backend operation for changing their display name and canonical slug/key together. > - Treating rename as an ordinary save can leave duplicate records, stale runtime materializations, or agent assignments pointing at the old key. > - This pull request adds a company-scoped managed-skill rename contract, service operation, and REST endpoint with focused authorization and activity logging. > - The benefit is an atomic-enough, recoverable rename path that keeps disk state, database identity, and agent skill assignments synchronized. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #2121 - Problem: managed company skills need a dedicated rename operation rather than save-time duplication behavior. - Expected behavior: renaming a managed skill updates its name, slug, key, source directory, frontmatter, runtime materialization, and assigned-agent references while preserving version pins. ## What Changed - Added shared request/result types and Zod validation for managed skill rename requests. - Added `POST /api/companies/:companyId/skills/:skillId/rename` with `skills.edit` policy checks and `company.skill_renamed` activity logging. - Restricted renames to Paperclip-managed local skills and added slug, key, and target-directory conflict handling. - Moved the managed directory, rewrote only the `SKILL.md` frontmatter name, updated the database row, and rolled filesystem changes back when persistence fails. - Rewrote assigned agents' desired-skill keys while preserving pinned version IDs and removed stale runtime materialization. - Added focused route and service coverage for success, no-op, name-only changes, conflicts, unsupported sources, assignment rewrites, rollback-sensitive behavior, and runtime cleanup. - Rejected multiline rename names before they can inject extra `SKILL.md` frontmatter fields. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts` — 106 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. ## Risks - Filesystem and database updates cannot share one native transaction; the service stages filesystem changes and explicitly restores the original directory and markdown when the database transaction fails. - Renames intentionally reject catalog, remote, project-scanned, and unmanaged local skills to avoid changing identities owned by external sources. - No database migration is required; the endpoint updates existing company-skill and agent configuration fields. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent (exact underlying model ID and context-window size were not exposed to this runtime), with reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, and test execution. The rescued source commit also records assistance from Claude Opus 4.8. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-30 15:29:31 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	c111ee4cb3	feat(server): add per-user document stars (#9952 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work. > - Artifacts and documents are first-class outputs, but users need a personal way to keep important documents easy to find. > - Existing resource memberships already model per-user starred projects and agents with company scoping and activity logging. > - Documents lacked the equivalent membership model, route, and artifact filtering behavior. > - The shared membership contract also needs to remain safe for existing UI project/agent mutation helpers when documents become a recognized resource type. > - This pull request extends the existing resource-membership system with per-user document stars and a starred artifacts view. > - The benefit is a company-scoped, idempotent server foundation for a dedicated starred-documents experience without weakening authorization or artifact filtering semantics. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Problem / Motivation Board users cannot star individual documents, and the company artifacts API cannot return only the current user's starred documents. ### Proposed Solution Add company/user-scoped document memberships, a board-only document star route, document membership data in the shared contract, and a `starred=true` artifacts filter. ### Alternatives Considered A document column was rejected because stars are per-user; a separate star API was rejected because projects and agents already use resource memberships. ### Roadmap Alignment This extends the existing Artifacts & Work Products roadmap area and does not duplicate another open pull request found in the repository search. ## What Changed - Added the `document_memberships` schema and migration with company/user/document uniqueness and starred ordering. - Extended shared resource-membership and artifact-query contracts for documents and `starred=true`. - Added company-scoped document star/unstar service and board-only route behavior with activity logging. - Added starred document artifact filtering, including user-authored documents, document kinds, cursor ordering, and incompatible-kind handling. - Preserved idempotency under concurrent star requests and synchronized UI membership defaults/helpers with the expanded contract. - Added focused shared, route, service, and UI regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/resource-memberships.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-artifacts-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/resource-memberships-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarStarredProjects.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - The migration adds a new membership table and non-concurrent indexes; migration safety gates pass with the repository's established policy. - The starred artifacts query intentionally returns only documents and relaxes the normal agent-authored/system-kind predicates for documents the current user explicitly starred. - Document membership mutations remain board-user-only; agent callers receive no document-star capability. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI; runtime model ID and context-window size were not exposed to this session. Reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, and test execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-27 19:13:35 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f6ab82d490	feat(interactions): add interaction withdrawal and terminal-issue expiry (#10251 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents and boards coordinate through issue-thread interactions (request_confirmation, ask_user_questions, suggest_tasks, …) that wait as `pending` cards until someone resolves them > - Two lifecycle gaps existed: an interaction's creator could not take back a card it no longer stands behind, and interactions left `pending` on issues that reached a terminal status lingered forever as live-looking approval requests > - Stale pending cards mislead humans (they look actionable), distort attention/liveness signals, and in the worst case invite acting on a proposal whose issue is already closed or cancelled > - This pull request adds an explicit withdraw route for pending interactions and automatically expires pending interactions when their issue reaches a terminal status (including a catch-up sweep for issues closed before this change) > - The benefit is that interaction cards now faithfully reflect reality: only genuinely actionable requests stay pending, and creators can retract requests that events have overtaken ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #5787 Refs #7403 Related prior PRs found while searching for duplicates (all overlap partially; none combine both lifecycle paths or the route-level authorization used here): #6709 and #7312 (creator-withdraw attempts), #8169 (terminal expiry), #8081 and #5137 (generalized cancel/expire endpoints), #6094 (stale confirmation auto-resolve). Related merged context: #9568 (agent cancel for ask_user_questions), #10119 (tolerating legacy `withdrawn_by_creator` result outcomes — the reader side of the outcome this PR writes). ## What Changed - New route `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/withdraw` that resolves a `pending` interaction to status `withdrawn` with a structured result (`outcome: "withdrawn"`, optional trimmed `reason`), stamps `resolvedBy*`/`resolvedAt`, touches the issue, logs activity, and emits resolved-interaction telemetry - Withdrawal authorization: board users, the interaction's creator agent, or the issue's current assignee agent (assignees additionally pass the standard issue-mutation gate); task-watchdog runs are explicitly rejected, and authorization-boundary plus low-trust control-plane checks apply - Withdrawing an already-resolved interaction returns `409`; unknown/cross-issue/cross-company interaction ids return `404` - New service method `expirePendingInteractionsForTerminalIssue`: when an issue transitions to a terminal status, all of its `pending` interactions are resolved to `expired` with `outcome: "issue_closed"`, guarded by a `status = 'pending'` predicate so concurrent resolutions are not overwritten - The same expiry runs as a catch-up when interactions are listed on an already-terminal issue, so cards stranded by issues closed before this change also get cleaned up; expired request_confirmations are logged with a distinguishing source - Shared package: new `withdrawIssueThreadInteractionSchema` validator, `WithdrawIssueThreadInteraction` type, and `withdrawn` / `issue_closed` result-outcome support for all interaction kinds (kind-aware result shapes for `ask_user_questions` and `request_item_verdicts`) - UI helper `ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.ts` recognizes the new outcomes for card rendering - Docs: bundled skill API reference updated with the withdraw endpoint - Review follow-up: terminal expiry moved from the HTTP route hooks into `issueService.update`'s status-transition block, so direct service callers (tree control, recovery, pipelines, status cards) expire pending cards too; the list-endpoint catch-up remains for issues closed before this change - Review follow-up: withdrawing or issue-close-expiring a `request_confirmation` also settles its linked `tool_action_requests` row (withdraw -> `cancelled`, issue closed -> `expired`), so a parked tool call cannot stay approvable after its card is gone - Review follow-up: interaction cards render dedicated copy for the new outcomes ("Withdrawn" with the reason, "Expired when issue closed") instead of falling through to superseded-by-comment / stale-target variants; withdrawn plan reviews badge as "Withdrawn" rather than "Changes requested" ## Screenshots Card states rendered from a local ux-lab harness with mocked data ([full gallery](https://pages.paperclip.ing/pr-10251-interaction-withdrawal-cards/)): \| Light \| Dark \| \| --- \| --- \| \| ![All card states, light](https://pages.paperclip.ing/pr-10251-interaction-withdrawal-cards/all-light.png) \| ![All card states, dark](https://pages.paperclip.ing/pr-10251-interaction-withdrawal-cards/all-dark.png) \| ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` — clean tsc - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts` — 22 tests pass, including new coverage for: creator-agent withdraw success, non-creator/non-assignee agent 403, watchdog-run 403, double-withdraw 409, and board-user withdraw - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` — 4 tests pass, including terminal-issue expiry writing `issue_closed` results and leaving already-resolved interactions untouched - `cd ui && pnpm typecheck` — clean - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — includes a new embedded-Postgres test proving a direct `issueService.update` terminal transition expires pending interactions and writes the activity-log entry - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx` — 32 tests, including new coverage for withdrawn / issue-closed confirmation and question cards - `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit` — matches the pre-existing repo error baseline exactly (no new errors) - Manual: `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/withdraw` with `{"reason":"superseded"}` as the creator agent resolves the card to `withdrawn`; closing an issue with a pending confirmation flips it to `expired` with `outcome: "issue_closed"` ## Risks - Interactions on terminal issues now auto-expire (including retroactively via the list-time catch-up), so consumers that expected to resolve a pending interaction on a closed issue will get `409`; this is the intended semantics and matches how the attention feed already wants to treat dead cards - New result outcomes (`withdrawn`, `issue_closed`) are written to stored results; readers were already made tolerant of these outcome strings in #10119, so mixed-version reads are safe - No schema/migration changes; per-row conditional updates (`status = 'pending'`) avoid clobbering concurrent resolutions - Withdrawal is a new mutation surface, but it is strictly narrower than existing resolve paths (board, creator, or assignee only; watchdog runs blocked) ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic Mythos-class tier) with extended thinking and agentic tool use (Claude Code harness); commit authored in a Paperclip-managed engineering session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-27 19:04:46 -05:00
Dotta Claude Fable 5 Paperclip	7e40ed8c43	feat(status-cards): add experimental status card update view (#10101 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Operators need a board-level way to monitor a changing slice of company work without repeatedly rebuilding filters or reading raw task threads. > - Existing summaries are useful snapshots, but they do not provide a dedicated query-backed card with refresh policy, change tracking, update history, and per-update cost visibility. > - The capability needs to be safe to evaluate before it becomes part of the default product surface. > - This pull request adds end-to-end experimental Status Cards, from schema and query compilation through update orchestration and operator UI. > - The entire feature is gated behind the `enableStatusCards` experimental toggle, including its route and sidebar entry. > - The benefit is a governed, inspectable way to keep focused operational rollups current while preserving explicit controls over refresh frequency and spend. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `server/`, `ui/`, and bundled skills/docs). ### Problem or motivation Operators cannot currently define a reusable natural-language view of company work, compile it into an inspectable query, and keep its summary current as matching issues change. Rebuilding filters and rereading task threads makes board-level monitoring repetitive and hides the relationship between source changes, refresh cost, and the resulting summary. ### Proposed solution Add experimental Status Cards that compile operator intent into a query, summarize matched work, record each update, expose manual/interval/reactive refresh policies and costs, and preserve the last good result across stale, updating, paused, and error states. The capability is off by default and fully gated behind `enableStatusCards`, including its route and navigation entry. ### Alternatives considered - Extend existing one-off summaries: rejected because status cards require persistent query provenance, refresh policy, update history, and card-specific cost controls. - Add a dashboard-only filter widget: rejected because it would not provide governed background refresh, an update ledger, or an inspectable compile pipeline. - Ship the surface by default: rejected in favor of an experimental toggle while behavior and operator value are evaluated. ### Roadmap alignment This advances Paperclip’s board-level execution visibility and output-first product goals. `ROADMAP.md` was checked and no duplicate status-card initiative was found. ### Additional context No related open PR was found in the public GitHub search for status cards. The PR-only design wireframes were removed from the repository after review; the published prototype remains external to the production source tree. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped status-card schema, CRUD APIs, compile provenance, update ledger, shared contracts, validators, and OpenAPI coverage. - Added the text-to-query compile pipeline, bundled `status-card-query` agent skill, query versioning, and authorized write-back flow. - Added the experimental board, create flow, lifecycle tiles, detail/settings/debug drawers, archived view, routing, navigation, and instance setting. - Added a change-gated update engine with manual, interval, and reactive refresh policies, trigger selection, active hours, and daily token caps. - Added per-update token/cost recording, today and lifetime rollups, and policy-derived cost previews. - Added operator documentation and agent-authoring hardening for compile and update behavior. - Added PR-prep integration coverage for settings/startup wiring and replaced raw UI values with design-system tokens. - Removed the PR-only `design/pap-15023-status-cards` wireframe artifacts so the repository contains only production feature assets. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passes on the PR head; includes `ui` `tsc -b` passing. The UI compile gate was also independently recorded as passing at `6d7f3cf96b` on July 23, 2026. - `pnpm build` — passes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passes with all three gates clean. - `pnpm test:run` — 2,880 tests passed and 1 skipped; the sole failure was an unrelated 10-second `afterAll` database-cleanup timeout in `execution-workspaces-service.test.ts`. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` — passes on immediate focused rerun (25/25). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` — passes (31/31). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/StatusCards/StatusCardSettingsForm.test.tsx src/pages/StatusCards/StatusCardTile.test.tsx src/pages/StatusCards/format.test.ts src/lib/status-card-state.test.ts` — passes (26/26). - Recorded pre-PR QA: compile-pipeline e2e PASS; full lifecycle and cost QA PASS; security re-review PASS after write-back hardening; UX approved. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/status-card-migrations.test.ts` — passes; reapplies migrations `0185`–`0189` against an already-migrated embedded Postgres database. - `pnpm --filter /db check:migrations` — passes migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter /db typecheck` — passes. - Merged current `origin/master` on July 24, 2026 with no conflicts; migrations `0185`–`0189` remain unclaimed on master. ## Risks - The feature introduces five database migrations and a new background update path; all new DDL is repeat-safe after partial application, migration numbering/safety checks pass, and update execution is company-scoped and change-gated. - Natural-language compilation can produce invalid or overly broad queries; compile provenance, query validation, debug visibility, and version history make failures inspectable and recoverable. - Reactive or interval refresh could increase spend; active hours, max refresh frequency, daily token caps, per-update cost records, and budget-paused states bound and expose that risk. - The branch name contains an internal execution identifier because it is a fixed handoff branch; it was intentionally not renamed or rebased per the release handoff instructions. - Overall rollout risk is limited because the route, navigation, services, and UI are disabled by default behind `enableStatusCards`. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using GPT-5.5 with reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, GitHub CLI, and test/build execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change; the fixed execution-workspace identifier is documented as an authorized handoff exception - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass, with the one cleanup timeout passing on focused rerun - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-24 12:26:43 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	216d3d2680	Managed-instance config: fail-closed PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG parsing and read-time settings overlay (#10058 ) Builds on. #10055 — the `catalogVersion` this config document pins is the feature-catalog artifact #10055 emits. Summary. Instances operated by a managed hosting control plane can now receive instance configuration through a single environment variable, `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG` (versioned JSON: `mode`, `catalogVersion`, `features`, `plugins.autoInstall`). When the variable is absent the instance is self-hosted and nothing changes. When present, parsing is strict and fail-closed: blank value, malformed JSON, unknown feature key, a feature key this build's feature catalog does not mark tier `managed`, missing required section, or unsupported version refuses startup with a precise error — a typo that silently does nothing is how a security control quietly fails. Managed feature values are overlaid at read time inside the instance settings service (never persisted), so a DB restore or manual row edit cannot resurrect a disabled capability; responses expose per-key `managedKeys` metadata (`managed: true`, `managedBy`) so clients can render locked state. ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip runs both self-hosted and under managed hosting, where an operator's control plane owns instance configuration > - Today instance feature settings live only in the tenant database; a hosting control plane has no way to enforce a configuration that tenant-side writes or restores cannot undo > - Managed configuration will carry security posture, so delivery must be atomic and parsing must fail closed — a typo that silently does nothing is how a security control quietly fails > - This pull request adds strict parsing of one `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG` env var and overlays its feature values at read time inside the settings service, never persisting them > - The benefit is a minimal, auditable managed-hosting contract: absent var ⇒ self-hosted instances are byte-for-byte unchanged; present ⇒ deterministic, locked configuration surfaced to clients via per-key managed metadata ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #966 — this PR delivers that issue's "managed config injection" hook, via a strict env-var contract rather than the config-file path it sketches; the issue's other hooks (identity header, health, usage webhook, lifecycle, external secrets, IAM auth) are out of scope, so the PR refs rather than closes it. Mechanism differs from #966's proposal, so the `feature_request` fields are also filled in: - Problem or motivation: managed hosting deployments need to centrally enable/disable instance features; DB-stored settings can be edited, restored, or migrated back to permissive values, and nothing marks a value as operator-enforced. - Proposed solution: one versioned JSON env var; fail-closed parse at startup; read-time overlay in the settings service (precedence: managed value over stored value over schema default); `managedKeys` metadata in settings responses so clients can render locked state. - Alternatives considered: per-feature env vars (non-atomic across a half-updated env set, unbounded env surface); seeding the DB at boot (persisted values can be edited or restored over, and cannot express "forced"); lenient warn-and-drop parsing (fails open — unacceptable for a security-bearing control). - Roadmap alignment: supports the in-progress "Cloud deployments" milestone in `ROADMAP.md`. ## What Changed - New `server/src/services/managed-config.ts` (pure parser over the env record) - Startup parse ordered before the first `instanceSettingsService` construction in `server/src/index.ts` - Read-time merge + `managedKeys` in the settings service - Shared validator updates ## Verification - 29 parser/overlay tests (fail-closed matrix incl. blank/whitespace env, missing sections, catalog-tier mismatch, empty-section happy path): `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/managed-config.test.ts src/__tests__/instance-settings-managed-overlay.test.ts` (from `server/`) - 40 existing settings route/service tests green: `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts` (from `server/`) - 15 shared validator tests: `pnpm vitest run src/validators/instance.test.ts` (from `packages/shared/`) - Server `tsc --noEmit` clean: `pnpm typecheck` (from `server/`) ## Risks - Self-hosted instances (no `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG` set) are byte-for-byte unchanged — the parser only runs when the variable is present. - For managed instances, a malformed document now refuses startup by design (fail-closed). This is an intentional behavioral guarantee, not a regression: the control plane owns the variable and a precise startup error is the contract. - Overlay values are never persisted, so no migration or data-shape risk. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use; independently peer-reviewed by a second AI agent before push. ## 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>	2026-07-22 19:48:43 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	cac3c0fa1a	feat(connections): add runtime subjects and grants (#9982 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Connections is the subsystem that lets operators connect external apps and govern which subjects may use those credentials > - #9958 established the v3 schema foundation and #9981 adds the AppDefinition catalog layer > - The runtime still needs subject-aware authorization state, scoped key handling, and API/OpenAPI routes so connected apps can actually be granted and used safely > - This pull request adds the runtime grants/authorization behavior on top of the catalog branch, while keeping unrelated dependency and workflow sync commits out of the stack > - The benefit is a reviewable runtime layer that can land after the catalog PR, then unblock the wizard and orchestrator cutover work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9958 and #9981. Refs #9981. No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. This is the runtime layer for the Connections v3 stack and is rebased onto `master` after #9981 landed. ## What Changed - Adds the connection user authorization state migration and schema wiring. - Adds shared runtime subject/grant types and validators. - Adds runtime grant and scoped key behavior in the tool-access service. - Adds runtime route coverage and registers the routes in OpenAPI. - Replays only the Connections runtime commits on top of the catalog branch, dropping unrelated sync/dependency history from the prior closed runtime PR. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/tool-access.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` ## Risks - Medium: runtime grant enforcement is security-sensitive and must fail closed for unknown key scopes. - Migration ordering depends on the schema and catalog layers already merged through #9958 and #9981. - This PR is rebased and retargeted to `master` with runtime-only commits. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with repository tool use. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-21 16:17:02 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d23fbf8ae4	feat(connections): add AppDefinition Wave 1 catalog (#9981 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Connections is the subsystem that defines which external apps and MCP-style integrations operators can browse, configure, and run > - The v3 schema core in #9958 added stable connection identities, auth metadata, and grant-aware contracts, but the app catalog still used the older gallery shape > - The product needs a richer, typed AppDefinition catalog so browsing and setup can render provider-specific auth and configuration requirements consistently > - This pull request moves the Wave 1 app catalog onto generated AppDefinition data and carries that shape through shared types, server lookup paths, and app connection UI > - The benefit is that follow-up runtime and wizard work can build against one catalog contract instead of local-only mock/gallery data ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9958. No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. This is the catalog layer for the Connections v3 stack after the schema-core foundation in #9958. ## What Changed - Adds generated AppDefinition data for the Wave 1 catalog and ingestion reporting. - Replaces the legacy tool app gallery exports with AppDefinition-centered shared contracts, validators, and tests. - Updates server tool-access lookup behavior to use the AppDefinition catalog. - Updates app connection UI surfaces and tests to consume AppDefinition-backed catalog data. - Documents the catalog ingestion workflow in the connector playbook. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts packages/shared/src/app-definitions-url.test.ts ui/src/pages/apps/AppsConnect.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` ## Risks - Medium: this changes the catalog contract used by shared, server, and UI app connection surfaces. - Catalog data quality matters because generated definitions now drive browse/setup display. - Follow-up runtime and wizard PRs must rebase on this branch or on master after this lands. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with repository tool use. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-21 15:57:12 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	1f1f545238	feat: add built-in summarizer and summary slots (#9713 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to organize, govern, and understand AI-agent work > - Operators need concise, current status views across projects and execution workspaces without manually reading every issue and run > - Paperclip already has auditable issues, documents, built-in agents, routines, and live run events, but no first-class summary-slot workflow connecting those systems > - A built-in Summarizer can generate status prose through ordinary governed tasks while summary slots provide stable, revisioned destinations for that output > - The UI needs to show current summaries, generation progress, failures, revisions, and streaming draft status in the places operators already work > - This pull request adds the end-to-end summary-slot data, API, agent, orchestration, and UI surfaces behind an experimental setting > - The benefit is decision-oriented status context that remains company-scoped, auditable, retryable, and inexpensive by default ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. Problem Operators currently have to reconstruct project and workspace status by reading many issues, runs, and comments. This makes it hard to identify decisions, review queues, recent work, and the next event worth watching. Proposed capability Add an experimental summary system with revisioned summary slots for projects and workspaces, a paused-by-default built-in Summarizer agent, governed generation tasks, live draft status, and reusable UI cards. Expected behavior - Summary data remains company-scoped and revisions remain auditable. - Generation runs through normal issue/agent orchestration and deduplicates active requests. - Only the linked built-in Summarizer generation task can author a slot revision. - Operators can generate, retry, inspect revisions, and follow draft progress from project and workspace views. - The feature remains opt-in and background generation remains paused by default. ## What Changed - Added summary-slot schema, idempotent migrations, shared contracts, validators, API paths, and service tests. - Added company-scoped summary-slot routes for reading revisions, requesting generation, and guarded Summarizer writes with activity logging. - Added terminal generation finalization, failure reasons, assignment wakeups, and orchestration integration. - Added the paused-by-default built-in Summarizer bundle, low-cost runtime defaults, status-summarization skill, and stale-summary routine. - Added summary cards, revision selection, retry/configuration states, live draft streaming, transcript chunk handling, and project/workspace integrations. - Updated Claude local parsing for streamed status output and expanded server, adapter, shared, database, catalog, and UI coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/summary-slots-schema.test.ts packages/shared/src/summary-slot.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slot-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts server/src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.status.test.tsx ui/src/components/useSummaryDraftStream.test.tsx ui/src/lib/summary-draft-stream.test.ts ui/src/lib/run-log-chunks.test.ts ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.hook.test.tsx` — 113 tests passed - `pnpm test:run` — server and UI suites passed; one CLI AWS doctor test was affected by inherited `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID`/`AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`, and passed when those host credentials were removed - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` with inherited AWS credential variables removed — 8 tests passed - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` currently reports nine `#9627` comment references introduced by current `master`; none are in this PR diff ## Risks - Database risk is limited by incrementally ordered, idempotent migrations and migration safety checks. - Summary generation creates normal issues/runs, so misconfiguration can produce failed slots; the UI exposes retryable failure reasons and agent configuration entry points. - Streaming draft parsing depends on the documented `STATUS:` protocol; final persisted revisions remain the source of truth. - The feature is experimental, opt-in, and its built-in routine is paused with no background token spend by default. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.3 Codex with reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip control-plane integration. Earlier branch commits also record Claude model co-authorship where applicable. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-17 11:03:07 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	52aea90263	feat: organize skills with nested folders and My Skills (#9633 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to organize and govern AI-agent companies > - Company skills are durable resources that users browse, import, assign, and maintain over time > - A flat skill list plus tags does not provide a stable location or hierarchy for personal, company, project-imported, and bundled skills > - Folder paths need to be canonical, company-scoped, safe to move, and preserved across re-imports without changing skill IDs > - The `/skills` UI also needs traversal, breadcrumbs, move/create flows, and a dedicated My Skills namespace that work on desktop and mobile > - This pull request adds the folder data model and APIs, reserved-root lifecycle, project import behavior, and the folder-first skills experience > - The benefit is a predictable filesystem-like organization model while tags remain available for cross-cutting classification ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9619 — the reviewed folder foundation was intentionally closed and folded into this combined feature PR. Refs #9026 — earlier flat-folder attempt superseded by this integrated implementation. Refs #3281 — related skill organization proposal; this PR uses canonical persisted folders rather than deriving groups from skill keys, and does not add hidden-skill behavior. Feature request - Problem: Skills currently lack a canonical hierarchical location, making personal skills, project imports, bundled skills, and company-authored skills difficult to traverse and manage at scale. - Proposed behavior: Add nested company-scoped folders with stable paths, reserved My/Projects/Bundled roots, subtree queries, safe move/create operations, and a folder-first `/skills` library UI. - Import behavior: New project scans file skills under `projects/<project-slug>`; later imports update content without overriding a user-selected folder. - Alternatives considered: Tags alone remain useful for cross-cutting classification, but they do not provide canonical location, nesting, reserved namespaces, or stable import placement. - Roadmap alignment: Extends the completed Skills Manager and Scheduled Routines capabilities without duplicating an active roadmap item. ## What Changed - Adds `folders` persistence for routine and skill folders, nested canonical paths, parent/slug/system-key fields, migration backfills, and reapply-safe migrations `0174`–`0175` after current master migrations. - Adds company-scoped folder CRUD, cycle/depth/namespace validation, reserved My/Projects/Bundled lifecycle, item moves, subtree filtering, and folder paths on skill results. - Preserves project-import placement: first import files into the project folder, while re-import keeps user-owned placement and stable skill IDs. - Adds the `/skills` folder tree rail, tags facet, breadcrumbs, subfolder browser, move/new-folder dialog, canonical detail location, inline tag editing, and folder-aware Studio creation. - Keeps bundled skills read-only even when their source metadata is incomplete by detecting the reserved Bundled folder and hiding selection/move actions. - Extends routine folder UI and OpenAPI coverage, and adds regression tests across migrations, services, routes, tree helpers, pages, and Studio creation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/nested-skill-folders-migration.test.ts server/src/__tests__/folders-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/folders-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts ui/src/components/folders/FolderControls.test.tsx ui/src/components/folders/SkillFolderTree.test.tsx ui/src/components/folders/skill-folder-tree.test.ts ui/src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx ui/src/lib/company-skill-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/skill-create.test.ts` — 13 files, 192 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx ui/src/components/folders/SkillFolderTree.test.tsx` — 2 files, 20 tests passed after preserving the existing PR's bundled-skill fixes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all workspace packages. - `pnpm test:run` — passed in an isolated CI-like environment with inherited Paperclip runtime identity and static AWS credential variables removed. - `pnpm build` — production build passed for all workspace packages. - Greptile iteration 2 — 5/5 confidence with zero unresolved threads on commit `ff2d67aa71`. - Latest-head GitHub checks — all success, neutral, or skipped; PR is mergeable with a clean merge state. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — reports nine existing `#9627` comment false positives already present on `master`; this PR introduces no new token violation. ## Risks - Migration/backfill: `0174` creates the foundation and `0175` adds nested/reserved semantics. Both are ordered after current master migration `0173`, are covered by numbering/safety checks, and are designed to be reapply-safe. - Reserved namespaces: My, Projects, and Bundled roots are service-managed. Regression coverage prevents namespace squatting, cross-company folder use, bundled writes, cycles, and excessive depth. - Behavioral change: Project scans choose a project folder only on initial creation; existing skills deliberately retain their current folder during refresh. - UI scope: The folder rail applies to the Installed library; Catalog retains the discovery-oriented category sidebar. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI `gpt-5.5` in Codex CLI, medium reasoning mode; runtime did not expose a context-window value. Used repository/file tools, terminal execution, Git/GitHub operations, test execution, and code editing. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-16 15:50:45 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	ea0e899905	fix(search): honor extract match limits + harden pr-gardening candidate discovery (#9652 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The `/pr-gardening` skill drives a bundled agent that scans a company's issues for those linked to open GitHub PRs, then reports on their state; it relies on the server's company-search extract endpoint to pull PR references out of issue bodies > - Two gaps surfaced during end-to-end QA of the gardening workflow: the extract service silently ignored a per-issue match cap, so callers could not bound how many matches came back per issue, and the skill's candidate-discovery scripts fell over on large repos and on issues that referenced deleted PRs > - Left unaddressed, the gardener either truncated its scan unpredictably or aborted outright, so it could not reliably enumerate PR candidates > - This pull request honors an explicit `matchesPerIssue` limit in the extract search API and hardens the skill's candidate discovery against missing/unavailable PRs and oversized `gh` output > - The benefit is a PR-gardening workflow that scans deterministically and finishes cleanly on real-world companies ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No pre-existing public GitHub issue — describing the bug in-PR following the bug report template (`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml`). ### What happened? The company-search extract endpoint accepted a per-issue match limit but did not apply it, returning matches capped only by the old hardcoded constant regardless of the caller's request. Separately, the `/pr-gardening` skill's candidate-discovery scripts crashed when a scanned issue referenced a deleted PR (GitHub `Not Found (HTTP 404)` / GraphQL `Could not resolve to a PullRequest`) and could exceed the default `gh` output buffer on large result sets, aborting the whole scan. ### Expected behavior The extract API bounds matches per issue when a caller passes `matchesPerIssue` (default 20, max 200), and omitting it preserves the previous default. The gardening scripts skip PRs that are deleted/unavailable and tolerate large `gh` responses without aborting the scan. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Call the company-search extract endpoint with a `matchesPerIssue` value against an issue containing many PR references — previously the value was ignored. 2. Run the pr-gardening candidate scan against a company whose issues reference a since-deleted PR — previously the scan threw instead of skipping that PR. ### Paperclip version or commit `master` at the base of this PR (branch cut from current `origin/master`). ### Deployment mode Local Paperclip instance / self-hosted. ## What Changed - Extract search honors `matchesPerIssue`: added the `matchesPerIssue` field to the shared search validator/types and applied the cap in `company-search-extract` so results are bounded per issue (`packages/shared`, `server/src/services/company-search-extract.ts`, `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`). - Hardened pr-gardening candidate discovery: `find-candidates.mjs` / `lib.mjs` now request `matchesPerIssue=200`, treat missing/unavailable PRs (deleted PR → `isMissingPullRequestError` / `unavailable`) as skips instead of fatal errors, and raise the `gh` `maxBuffer` to 50 MB for large repos. - Tests: expanded `company-search-extract-{routes,service}.test.ts` for the new limit and added coverage in `pr-gardening.test.mjs`. ## Verification Re-run on a fresh worktree cherry-picked onto current `master`: - `node --test .agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` → 8/8 pass - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-service.test.ts` → 10/10 pass ## Risks Low risk. `matchesPerIssue` is optional and backward-compatible (omitting it preserves prior behavior). The skill changes only add skip/tolerance paths and a larger buffer; no schema or migration changes. ## Model Used Claude — Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use / code execution via the Claude Agent SDK. ## 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>	2026-07-15 21:44:21 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	ae77908618	feat(search): add bulk extract endpoint (#9507 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies > - Agents and operators need company-scoped search to discover relevant issue history safely > - The interactive search endpoint intentionally returns compact excerpts and low pagination caps for UI use > - Automation that inventories repeated references, such as pull-request URLs, needs exhaustive distinct matches without loading full issue objects into an LLM context > - Client-provided regular expressions would create an unsafe and expensive query surface, so extraction must remain literal with server-owned expansion modes > - This pull request adds a bounded agent-oriented extraction endpoint with explicit truncation > - The benefit is deterministic, compact bulk discovery across issues, comments, and documents while preserving company authorization and rate limits ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected `server/` REST API and `packages/shared/` contracts. ### Problem or motivation The existing interactive company search caps issue pagination and snippets, so automation cannot reliably enumerate every distinct literal or pull-request URL across issue descriptions, comments, and linked documents without fetching large full issue payloads. ### Proposed solution Add `GET /api/companies/:companyId/search/extract` with escaped literal matching, optional server-owned URL token expansion, issue/comment/document scopes, status/date filters, higher issue-level pagination caps, compact source references, and explicit pagination/match truncation flags. ### Alternatives considered Reusing `GET /issues?q=` would return unnecessarily large issue objects; increasing interactive-search snippet limits would make the UI API heavier; accepting arbitrary client regex would expose avoidable database cost and ReDoS risk. ### Roadmap alignment `ROADMAP.md` does not currently list a conflicting company-search or bulk-extraction initiative. GitHub searches found no directly duplicative open issue or pull request. ## What Changed - Added shared query validation and response contracts for literal and URL extraction. - Added a company-scoped extraction service that pages issues, gathers matching issue/comment/document sources, expands URL tokens, deduplicates values, and reports truncation explicitly. - Added the authenticated route using the existing company-search authorization decision and rate limiter. - Added targeted Vitest coverage for URL extraction, multi-source dedupe, date/status filters, match caps, cross-company denial, and rate limiting. - Documented the extraction surface in the implementation specification. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts` — 30 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check` — passed. ## Risks - Bulk substring search can scan large text columns. The endpoint mitigates this with a minimum literal length, bounded issue pagination, a 20-distinct-match cap per issue, explicit truncation, existing company-search rate limiting, and no client-provided regex. - URL expansion uses a fixed server-owned pattern plus an escaped literal. A security review is requested as part of PR review to confirm the pattern and abuse controls. - No database migration or existing API response shape changes are included. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI coding agent; exact runtime model ID and context-window size were not exposed to the session. Tool-enabled code execution and repository editing were used with medium reasoning effort. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-15 19:05:06 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Fable 5 Evyatar Bluzer	89ce36d7af	feat(skills): open-by-default company skill policy and core UX (#9564 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses company skills to make agent capabilities reusable across an organization. > - Skill operations currently mix capability availability with permission checks, which creates avoidable setup friction and inconsistent denial handling. > - The policy contract needs to remain open by default while allowing company-scoped restrictions for governed deployments. > - Core owns the canonical policy actions, persistence, evaluation, API behavior, safe import boundaries, and generic denial/read-only UI. > - Enterprise policy-editor implementation belongs in the separate `paperclip-ee` repository and is intentionally excluded from this PR. ### Problem or motivation Company skill operations can encounter permission dead ends even when no explicit restriction has been configured, and import-source classification can drift between policy evaluation and execution. ### Proposed solution Define eight canonical skill policy actions, default all actions to allowed, persist company-scoped restrictions, expose policy evaluation APIs, normalize import sources at the boundary, and update Skill Studio to present actionable restriction states without embedding Enterprise Edition implementation in the core repository. ### Alternatives considered Keeping capability checks distributed across routes and UI surfaces was rejected because it duplicates policy logic and makes denial behavior inconsistent. Shipping the Enterprise policy editor in this repository was rejected because `paperclip-ee` is a separate repository and must receive its own PR. ### Roadmap alignment Extends the completed Skills Manager roadmap area by adding coherent governance and removing workflow dead ends. ### Additional context The core API contract remains suitable for a separate Enterprise Edition editor, but this PR contains no `paperclip-ee` package or EE-specific UI integration code. ## What Changed - Added the company skill policy contract to product and implementation documentation, including the open-by-default rule, eight canonical actions, decision shape, and core/EE ownership boundary. - Added the company-scoped policy schema, migration `0170`, shared validators, policy service, REST routes, OpenAPI coverage, and focused server tests. - Hardened import policy enforcement by normalizing import sources and keeping source classification consistent between policy evaluation and execution. - Updated core Skill Studio behavior to remove generic permission dead ends and show actionable policy/platform denial states only when an operation is actually denied. - Removed the `plugin-paperclip-ee` package, Docker wiring, EE discovery/deep-link helpers, and EE-specific UI tests/stories from this PR so that implementation can be submitted separately to the EE repository. - Preserved open-by-default behavior when no explicit company restriction exists. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/skill-studio/SkillPolicySurfaces.test.tsx src/lib/skill-policy-denial.test.ts` — 20/20 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec tsc --noEmit` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` — 12/12 passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean. - `git diff --check` — passed. - `git diff --name-only origin/master \| rg 'paperclip-ee\|ee-skill-policy'` — no matches. ## Risks - Migration `0170` introduces company policy persistence; rollout depends on the migration applying before policy routes are exercised. - Open-by-default is an intentional behavioral policy: deployments expecting implicit denials must configure explicit restrictions. - Import normalization is security-sensitive and should retain focused review. - The separate EE editor must stay contract-compatible with the core policy API as policy actions evolve. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI, runtime model identifier and context-window size not exposed by this execution environment; reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, and code review capabilities enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details available to this runtime) - [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 or described the result 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 focused tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the latest head - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Evyatar Bluzer <bluzername@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-07-15 11:42:40 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	1de0a3bb1e	feat(mcp) [split 2/8]: add governed access contracts (#9557 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 2/8 and focuses on database schema and shared governance contracts > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: The governed access model needs additive persistence and synchronized shared types before server enforcement can compile. - Proposed solution: Adds migrations 0148–0169, tool-access and Smoke Lab schema, shared types/validators/gallery helpers, and the minimal compile-required contract consumers identified by boundary testing. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/01-demo-servers`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: QA for migrations/validators; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds migrations 0148–0169, tool-access and Smoke Lab schema, shared types/validators/gallery helpers, and the minimal compile-required contract consumers identified by boundary testing. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db test` — passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared test` — passed ## Risks - Migration or contract mistakes could affect every upper layer; all migrations are additive/idempotent and compile consumers are included in this boundary. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [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 - [ ] 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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-14 12:57:20 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	36ec79c196	feat: add attention queue and Decisions surface (#9380 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, where operators need a reliable way to find and act on work awaiting their input. > - The attention and issue-thread interaction subsystems expose those decision points across server APIs and the board UI. > - The previous navigation and interaction presentation left these actions fragmented and did not offer a controlled rollout for the Decisions surface. > - This branch adds the attention feed, richer interaction cards, grouping, dismiss/snooze behavior, and a gated Decisions sidebar entry. > - It also keeps experimental settings and API contracts synchronized, with an idempotent migration for the new dismissal state. > - This pull request delivers the complete, tested attention/Decisions experience as one reviewable unit. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Adds an operator-focused attention queue and Decisions experience: grouped decision cards, semantic interaction actions, dismiss/snooze handling, resilient interaction states, and an experimental flag to control the Decisions navigation entry. ## Feature Context ### Problem or Motivation Operators currently have to hunt across approvals, interactions, failed runs, and budget alerts to find decisions that need their action. ### Proposed Solution Provide a gated Decisions attention queue that groups actionable items, supports direct resolution, and preserves operator control through dismiss and snooze actions. ### Alternatives Considered Keep separate, source-specific views only; this leaves cross-cutting operator decisions fragmented and harder to prioritize. ### Roadmap Alignment This improves the V1 control-plane operator workflow by making pending governed actions discoverable in one company-scoped surface. ## What Changed - Added server attention-feed services, routes, interaction handling, dismiss/snooze support, and an idempotent `0145` inbox-dismissal migration. - Added shared attention, inbox-dismissal, and experimental-settings contracts. - Added Decisions/attention UI, interaction-card states, sidebar badge/navigation integration, grouping, keyboard support, and Storybook coverage. - Added tests for attention behavior, thread interactions, settings normalization, dismissals, and API behavior. - Removed generated screenshots from the final PR diff and rebased the branch onto current `master`. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-dismissals.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — passed: 158 tests across 9 focused files. - GitHub Actions for `ad636f560`: build and typecheck/release-registry have passed; remaining general-server and Greptile checks are in progress. ## Risks - Moderate: this is a cross-layer attention/interaction feature with a new migration and navigation behavior. - The `enableDecisions` experimental setting defaults to off, limiting rollout impact. - Existing dismissal data is backfilled to `dismiss`; the migration is idempotent and uses guarded constraint creation. > ROADMAP.md was checked; no duplicate planned core feature was identified. Related open pull requests were searched before opening this PR. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with tool use and local code execution. Context-window size unavailable in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My public PR branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally; focused tests pass and the remaining unrelated AWS test failure is documented above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-10 17:09:57 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	cc81eefb60	Make plan-approval continuations durable after failed wakes (#9331 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents often work from reviewed plans that are approved through issue-thread interactions. > - Accepting a plan is not just a UI decision; it must reliably resume the assignee so approved work continues. > - A failed continuation wake could leave an approved plan stranded in review with no durable retry or visible recovery path. > - This pull request makes approved plan continuations retryable, recoverable, and visible when resume fails. > - The benefit is that operators can trust plan approval to either resume the agent or produce an explicit actionable failure instead of silent limbo. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. Inline bug report follows the repository bug template. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip or can reproduce on `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? When a plan-confirmation interaction was accepted, the assignee continuation wake could fail before useful agent execution. In that case the issue could remain in review even though the plan had been approved, because the failed wake was fire-and-forget and there was no durable retry or recovery path for accepted continuations. ### Expected behavior Accepted plan continuations should either wake the assignee successfully, retry bounded infrastructure failures, recover dropped wakes, or surface an explicit failure state that operators can act on. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create an issue with an assignee and a plan confirmation that wakes the assignee on accept. 2. Accept the confirmation. 3. Simulate a pre-flight continuation failure, such as process loss before agent start or workspace validation failure. 4. Observe that the approved issue can remain in review without an active assignee wake or visible retry/failure state. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproducible on `master` before this PR's retry/recovery changes. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`) and server-side recovery paths. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm install`, `pnpm dev`, test runner). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific; this is a core continuation/recovery bug. The tests cover local-agent failure shapes without relying on a provider-specific API. ### Database mode Embedded Postgres test database for verification. The affected logic is database-backed and applies to normal Postgres deployments as well. ### Access context Board accepts the interaction; agent execution resumes through the assignee wake path. ### Relevant logs or output No sensitive logs are needed. The regression tests simulate the failed wake and recovery states directly. ### Relevant config No special config is required beyond an assignee with wake-on-demand enabled. ### Additional context This PR also prevents a stale workspace-validation payload from quarantining another issue's active workspace and prevents unrelated successful runs from masking a continuation that never resumed. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII, usernames, file paths, API keys, tokens, and company names, and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Added bounded infrastructure retries for failed accepted-interaction continuation wakes. - Extended stranded issue recovery so dropped accepted-plan continuation wakes are requeued. - Recorded and rendered explicit resume-failure state on accepted confirmation cards. - Added clean-workspace fallback for workspace-validation failures while preventing cross-issue workspace quarantine. - Tightened recovery so unrelated successful runs do not mask an accepted continuation that never resumed. - Added focused server/UI coverage for retry scheduling, recovery, visible failure state, and interaction card rendering. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` — 106 tests passed. - Earlier branch verification also covered the issue-thread interaction card tests for the visible resume-failure UI. - GitHub CI is green on the replacement PR head, and Greptile reports 5/5 with no blocking issues. ## Risks - Medium behavioral risk: this changes recovery behavior for accepted continuation interactions and workspace-validation retries. - Mitigation: retries are bounded, scoped to same-company issue context, and workspace quarantine now requires ownership by the issue being retried. - Existing stored confirmation results remain compatible because the new resume-failure field is optional. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled terminal workflow. The runtime does not expose an exact context-window value to the agent. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-10 08:12:16 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	8b6a06ee25	[codex] Add built-in agents and Reflection Coach bundle (#9206 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators need first-party agent capabilities for repeatable company work, not just manually created one-off agents. > - Built-in agents need to behave like normal company-scoped agents while preserving approval gates, permissions, budgets, and audit trails. > - Reflection and coaching work also needs bundled instructions, skill content, and a routine so the feature can be installed and reset predictably. > - The API, database, UI, portability, and tests all need to agree on the built-in lifecycle from not provisioned through setup, approval, ready, paused, and reset. > - This pull request adds built-in agent provisioning and the Reflection Coach bundle end-to-end. > - The benefit is a safer first-party path for Paperclip-managed agents without bypassing the same governance model used for operator-created agents. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this exact built-in agent and Reflection Coach bundle work. Problem/motivation: - Paperclip did not have a first-party built-in agent lifecycle for product-owned agents. - Bundled agent resources such as default instructions, skills, and routines needed managed ownership and reset semantics. - Approval-gated companies needed built-in setup to preserve requested adapter, budget, manager, and permission state through board approval. - The board UI needed clear built-in badges, setup affordances, readiness state, and bundle status without exposing secrets. Proposed solution: - Add a company-scoped built-in agent registry, provisioning/reset/reconcile/status APIs, and Reflection Coach bundled resources. - Track bundled managed resources in the database with idempotent migration behavior. - Reuse existing agent approval, authorization, budget, and activity-log paths instead of creating a bypass. - Add UI setup, badges, gates, bundle panels, and route coverage for built-in agents. Duplicate search: - Searched GitHub PRs for `built-in agents Reflection Coach repo:paperclipai/paperclip`; only this PR was returned. - Searched GitHub issues for the same query; no public issues were returned. ## What Changed - Added built-in agent definitions, lifecycle state derivation, provisioning, reset, reconcile, status, and routine-control routes. - Added the `built_in_managed_resources` migration and schema exports for bundled instructions, skill, and routine ownership. - Added the Reflection Coach built-in bundle with default instructions, skill catalog content, routine template, default permissions, and managed-resource drift handling. - Added approval-aware provisioning behavior that preserves requested adapter config, budgets, manager assignment, and built-in permissions through hire approval. - Added authorization and mutation gates for built-in agent and skill changes, including consented Reflection Coach change paths. - Added UI surfaces for built-in agent setup, roster/detail badges, readiness gates, bundle status, routine controls, and route filtering. - Added company import/export and validator coverage for built-in managed resources and low-trust/red-team presets. - Addressed Greptile follow-ups for pending approval reconciliation, consent-gate error propagation, config-read authorization fallback, approval-path manager preservation, and non-model adapter provisioning. ## Verification Local verification: - `git diff --check public/master..HEAD` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed with all gates clean. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/ConfigureBuiltInAgentModal.test.tsx` passed: 1 file, 4 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/EntityRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx ui/src/components/BuiltInAgentGate.test.tsx ui/src/components/ConfigureBuiltInAgentModal.test.tsx ui/src/components/BuiltInBundlePanel.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` passed: 7 files, 64 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts` passed: 3 files, 91 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after the rebase; `pnpm --filter ui typecheck` passed after the final UI review fix. Remote verification on latest head `1c61f693a4ec881d739022b0e75a8ca8bf8c2cd8`: - Merge state: `CLEAN`. - Greptile: `5/5`, zero unresolved Greptile threads. - PR check rollup: all checks successful, neutral, or skipped as expected. - Passing gates include Build, Typecheck + Release Registry, all server shards, all workspace shards, all serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, review, verify, Socket, Superagent, and Snyk. ## Risks - This adds a new managed-resource table and migration; the migration uses idempotent create/add/index guards and passed migration safety checks. - Built-in agent provisioning touches approval and authorization paths; tests cover pending approval preservation, stale retry rejection, consent gates, and config-read fallback behavior. - Reflection Coach creates managed instructions, skill, and routine resources; drift/reset behavior is covered by service tests and redacted API responses. - Non-model adapter setup now provisions a `needs_setup` built-in row before command/endpoint fields are complete; this matches the server lifecycle and is covered by the setup modal regression test. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5. Exact hosted model ID, context-window size, and reasoning-mode labels are not exposed in this runtime; tool use, shell execution, GitHub CLI/API access, and local code editing were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-09 16:29:30 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	b13eb5b2b5	Skill Studio: three-pane skill IDE with sandboxed test runs (#9241 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Skills Manager gives operators a reusable skill layer, but iteration still required manual edits, ad hoc prompts, and indirect run inspection. > - Skill authors need a focused workflow for editing skill files, saving representative test inputs, and running those inputs through an agent without exposing harness tasks as normal company work. > - The backend therefore needs durable test inputs, reusable run templates, hidden harness issues, scoped run execution, retention metadata, and read-containment rules around hidden work. > - The frontend needs a three-pane Studio that keeps skill files, saved inputs/templates, and run output/history visible together while preserving the existing design system and token rules. > - This pull request ships that Skill Studio surface end to end: database migrations, shared contracts, server APIs/services, hidden harness execution behavior, UI routes/components, and focused tests. > - The benefit is faster and safer skill iteration, with inspectable outputs and fewer ways for internal harness work to leak into normal task lists, costs, or adjacent read APIs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. Feature request summary: - Problem: Skill authors need to edit and test company skills in one place instead of switching between the skill detail page, task creation, run output, and manual prompt history. - Proposed solution: Add a Skill Studio workbench with saved inputs, reusable templates, hidden sandboxed test runs, live run status, output inspection, run history, rerun/delete controls, and frontmatter-aware editing. - Expected users: Paperclip operators and agent-company maintainers who create, fork, import, and tune skills. - Related public PRs: Supersedes #9205, which was replaced so the public PR branch name follows contributor policy. - Duplicate search: searched public GitHub issues and PRs for "Skill Studio"; no other active public issue or PR directly covers this feature. ## What Changed - Added database migrations for Skill Studio test inputs, test runs, test run retention, and reusable run templates. - Added shared Skill Studio types, validators, route helpers, frontmatter utilities, and status handling. - Added server services and routes for saved inputs, test runs, templates, reruns, terminal-run deletion, hidden harness issue execution, and run-detail hydration. - Strengthened hidden-issue read containment across issue-adjacent routes and cost rollups used by skill test harness work. - Added the Skill Studio UI with skill file editing, frontmatter editing, saved inputs, templates, run creation/cancel/rerun/delete flows, output rendering, history, route support, and responsive pane behavior. - Added focused backend, shared, and UI tests for the new APIs, routing logic, editor/run behavior, hidden-issue containment, and migration safety. - Rebased onto current `master`, removed the generated lockfile diff from the PR, and verified no workflow files are changed. ## Verification - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - [x] `pnpm check:token-gates` - [x] `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skill-test-runs-service.test.ts ui/src/lib/skill-studio.test.ts ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx` — 5 files, 132 tests passed - [x] Greptile review on the latest PR head - [x] GitHub PR checks on the latest PR head ## Risks - Medium risk because this is a broad feature touching database schema, server orchestration, issue visibility, and a large UI surface. - Hidden harness issue containment is security-sensitive; this PR includes regression coverage for adjacent read paths and cost rollups. - The new migrations are additive and use idempotent guards where applicable, but deployed databases that previously tested draft migration numbers should still be checked carefully. - The UI depends on a new resizable panels package in `ui/package.json`; the lockfile is intentionally left to repository automation. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with shell, git, and GitHub CLI tool use. Earlier feature commits include assistance from other Paperclip coding agents; this PR preparation, rebase, cleanup commit, and PR body were completed by OpenAI Codex in a Paperclip worktree. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-09 13:08:56 -05:00
Dotta	4a7a732476	feat(skills): add company skill fork prechecks (#9235 ) Adds company skill fork precheck metadata, fork result/reassignment contracts, selected-agent reassignment during fork creation, and targeted server/shared test coverage.	2026-07-08 14:22:39 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	f17202b571	Add execution workspace branch reconciliation route (#9170 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is an open-source app that lets teams run AI agents for work tasks; each agent session uses an execution workspace — a git checkout — to track the agent's active code state. > - Every execution workspace has an expected target branch (`PAPERCLIP_WORKSPACE_BRANCH`). The workspace git HEAD should always point to that branch so agents commit in the right place. > - When workspace git HEAD diverges from the expected branch — for example after a harness branch-name fix or an accidental `checkout -b` during a CI-retrigger — the discrepancy must be corrected before agents can continue safely. > - Operators (board users) need a controlled, audited path to reconcile a workspace's live branch back to the expected target, with an override escape-hatch for cases where the normal forward path is blocked. > - This pull request adds a board-only `POST /api/execution-workspaces/:id/reconcile-branch` service operation and route that validates safety preconditions, resolves matching recovery-action fingerprints, posts source-issue audit comments, and records the reconciliation outcome. > - The benefit is that operators can correct branch divergence through the API with a full audit trail, instead of via raw database edits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Context below follows the feature-request template format. Subsystem affected server/ — REST API & orchestration services; packages/shared — request validation. Problem or motivation Execution workspaces have an expected branch record that must match the checked-out worktree branch. When the live git branch and stored branch record drift apart, operators currently lack a first-class, audited API to reconcile the record. The fallback is manual database repair or workspace replacement, both of which are risky and hard to audit. Proposed solution Add a board-only execution workspace branch reconciliation operation. `forward` mode re-inspects the server-side git state and only updates the branch record when the stored branch is an ancestor of the checked-out branch. `override` mode is a break-glass path that requires board access and an operator reason. Both modes require a clean, idle workspace, write audit details, post a source-issue audit comment, and resolve the matching workspace-validation recovery action. Alternatives considered Manual database edit (no durable audit trail and easy to mistype), recreating the workspace (heavier operational disruption), or trusting client-supplied ancestry evidence (unsafe because the server must verify the git state itself). Roadmap alignment This is incremental hardening for execution-workspace recovery and operator controls. It does not duplicate a public roadmap item. Additional context The endpoint is intended for operator recovery, not normal agent control flow, so the generated OpenAPI metadata and runtime route both classify it as board-only. ## What Changed - Added `reconcileExecutionWorkspaceBranchSchema` discriminated-union validator (`forward` with optional reason, `override` requiring a non-empty reason string) to `packages/shared/src/validators/execution-workspace.ts` - Exported `ReconcileExecutionWorkspaceBranch` type and the new schema from the shared package index - Added board-only reconcile-branch service operation in the execution workspaces service: safety checks, recovery-action fingerprint resolution, source-issue audit comment, and outcome recording - Added clean-worktree and stopped-runtime-service preconditions before branch-record mutation. - Marked the reconcile route as board-only in OpenAPI generated auth metadata. - Added `POST /api/execution-workspaces/:id/reconcile-branch` route wired to the new service operation with board-permission gate - Extended `execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts` and `execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` to cover: safety-check rejection, override-reason validation, audit-comment posting, and recovery-action fingerprint resolution (2 files / 19 tests) ## Verification ```sh pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ``` ## Risks - Board-only gate: the operation is gated behind the board permission; no agent can trigger it without operator authorization. - Override requires reason: the `override` mode requires a non-empty reason string so every bypass is audited. - Idempotent recovery-action resolution: re-running with the same fingerprint is safe; duplicate resolution is a no-op. - No execution-state mutation: the route records a reconciliation intent and updates the branch record; it does not restart the workspace or modify running agent state. - Overall risk: low. ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic - Model ID: `claude-sonnet-4-6` (Claude Sonnet 4.6) - Context window: 200 K tokens - Capabilities: tool use, code execution, multi-turn context Follow-up safety commit: - Provider: OpenAI - Model ID: `codex` / GPT-5 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 (`feat/execution-workspace-branch-reconciliation-route`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-07 13:41:23 -07:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	ad961227f5	feat(secrets): add user-specific runtime secrets (#8825 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other environment-bound secrets. > - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not model values that should differ by human operator. > - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value. > - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped runtime checks deterministic and auditable. > - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime resolution gates. > - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required user secrets or active definitions are unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #224 Refs #6057 This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time. Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as #1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here. ## What Changed - Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values, keeping stored values out of access metadata. - Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to pick them alongside existing secret refs. - Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve against the human responsible for the run. - Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are inactive. - Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access. - Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be resolved. - Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures. - Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes. - Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127` migrations. - Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR contains code/docs/tests only. ## Verification - PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on `paperclipai/paperclip:master`. - PASS: `git diff --check` - PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD \| rg '^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml\|\\.github/workflows/\|screenshots/)' \|\| true` produced no files. - PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130` with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`, `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`, `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`. - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests) - PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final Greptile cleanup fixes) - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests after the final rebase CI fix) - PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery, project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors, watchdog, and stale queue paths. - PASS: GitHub checks are green on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review. - PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5, and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated threads. ## Risks - Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs before adapter dispatch. - `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind explicitly. - External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side access for non-local vaults. - The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge. - The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream migrations; the branch migrations use guarded column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-05 05:58:20 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	bcac517f3b	Add browser SSH terminal for custom image setup (#8911 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Environment sandboxes already support custom image creation and refresh through a temporary SSH setup session. > - The existing workflow makes operators copy an SSH command into an external terminal before they can install packages or make image changes. > - That extra context switch is slower, easier to get wrong, and less integrated with the setup session Paperclip already tracks. > - This pull request adds an embedded browser SSH terminal for custom image setup, so operators can start working in the target sandbox directly from the environment configuration flow. > - The implementation uses short-lived websocket attachment tokens, session-lifetime SSH host-key pinning, and server-managed terminal cleanup so the feature fits the existing setup-session boundary. > - The benefit is a smoother custom image creation and refresh experience without asking users to leave Paperclip for routine sandbox setup work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `server/` custom image setup APIs and websocket handling, `ui/` environment configuration UI, and shared custom image contracts. ### Problem or motivation Custom image creation and refresh require an operator to open a separate SSH client, paste the command shown by Paperclip, perform setup work, then return to the browser to finish the image flow. This is functional but awkward for a setup process that already starts and tracks a temporary sandbox session. ### Proposed solution Embed an SSH terminal in the custom image setup UI. When a setup session exposes an SSH payload, Paperclip should open a browser terminal backed by a server-side websocket session, let the operator run setup commands in-place, and then close the terminal when setup is finished, cancelled, expired, or disconnected. ### Alternatives considered - Keep the existing copy/paste SSH command workflow. This remains a fallback, but it does not streamline the common path. - Put SSH credentials directly into websocket URLs. This was avoided so terminal authentication can happen in an explicit first websocket auth frame rather than in logged URLs. - Trust the SSH host blindly for every reconnect. This PR instead pins the observed host-key fingerprint for the setup-session lifetime. ### Roadmap alignment This fits the roadmap theme of making agent workspaces usable in more remote and sandboxed environments while preserving Paperclip's control-plane model. ### Additional context Public GitHub search did not find a duplicate issue or PR for `custom image terminal ssh` in `paperclipai/paperclip`. ## What Changed - Added server-side terminal session tracking for custom image setup sessions, including connect-token issuance, websocket attachment, expiry, resize, input, and shutdown handling. - Added an embedded browser terminal to the custom image creation and refresh flow when a setup session provides SSH connection details. - Moved terminal token authentication out of the websocket URL and into the first websocket JSON auth frame. - Added SSH host-key SHA-256 pinning for each terminal session and documented the provider convention for username-embedded SSH credentials. - Updated the custom image environment API and UI so the setup terminal can open, reconnect, show status, authenticate, resize, and remain active for the setup-session lifetime once attached. - Kept custom image setup routes company-scoped and closed active terminal sessions on setup finish/cancel. - Added focused unit/integration/UI coverage for token expiry, setup-session expiry, websocket close paths, host-key pinning, and terminal session lifecycle behavior. - Removed the generated lockfile delta from the PR; CI owns temporary lockfile regeneration for manifest-changing PRs. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-image-terminal-ws.test.ts server/src/services/environment-custom-image-terminal-sessions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-image-routes.test.ts packages/shared/src/environment-custom-images.test.ts ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx` - 6 test files passed - 58 tests passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` - `git diff --check` - Local sensitive-content scan over the PR diff using patterns for API keys, private keys, private hostnames, local paths, token fields, and credential-like strings. - Findings were limited to removed URL-token code and synthetic test placeholders such as `ssh-token-secret` and `terminal-token-terminal-token-123456`. - No real credentials, private hostnames, local filesystem paths, or instance-local links were found. - Remote PR checks were green after the implementation commit, including Build, Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, verify, Socket, Snyk, Superagent, and Greptile 5/5. - Post-merge PR hardening on July 3, 2026: merged `origin/master` at `47448721e` into the branch, resolved the `CompanyEnvironments.tsx` import conflict, reran focused tests, server/UI typechecks, server/UI builds, `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`, and `git diff --check`, scanned the final diff for sensitive content, pushed `4b43558cc`, and confirmed all remote checks plus Greptile 5/5 were green. - PR metadata correction on July 3, 2026: changed the title/body framing from bug-fix language to feature-request language. No source files changed for this metadata-only update. ## Risks - Moderate surface area because this adds websocket routing, setup-session runtime state, package dependencies, and a new custom image UI path. - New websocket attachments still require valid short-lived tokens; established terminal sessions remain bounded by setup-session expiry, explicit finish/cancel, client close, or server shutdown. - The terminal-session store is in-memory, so active terminal websocket tokens and host-key pins do not survive server restarts. - SSH host-key verification uses session-lifetime TOFU pinning because the current provider payload does not expose a trusted host-key fingerprint. - The external SSH command remains important as a fallback if a browser, proxy, or network environment cannot sustain the websocket terminal. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with shell/tool execution. Context window size was not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-03 16:44:21 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	8d9f9fd240	Add reusable sandbox custom images (#8794 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A growing part of that work runs in sandboxed environments rather than on the operator's local machine. > - Today sandbox providers can start fresh workspaces and run probes, but they do not have a shared contract for capturing and reusing prepared sandbox state. > - Operators need a way to set up tools, credentials, and project dependencies once, then reuse that prepared image for later agent runs. > - This pull request adds reusable sandbox custom images across the provider contract, server runtime, and board UI. > - It also keeps probes and sandbox copy flows aligned with pre-authenticated/custom-image environments. > - The benefit is faster, more reliable sandbox runs without repeatedly rebuilding the same environment setup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this change. Inline feature request follows. ### Problem or motivation Sandboxed agents need reusable prepared runtime state so repeated runs do not require manual setup every time. Operators often need system packages, CLIs, SDKs, dependency caches, credentials, and project tooling available before an agent can work productively. ### Proposed solution Add a provider-level custom-image capability, server-side setup/capture lifecycle, Daytona/fake provider support, and board UI controls for creating, testing, selecting, and deleting custom images. ### Alternatives considered Leaving this as provider-specific setup outside Paperclip would keep the control plane blind to image state and would not give agents consistent environment metadata. Re-running setup commands for every lease is simpler, but slower and less reliable for interactive or credentialed setup. ### Roadmap alignment Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this aligns with the Cloud / Sandbox agents roadmap area and does not duplicate any related public issue or PR found by search. Additional context: - Subsystem affected: cross-cutting (`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `packages/plugins`, `server`, `ui`). - Duplicate search: searched GitHub for `sandbox custom image` and `sandbox template environment`; no related public issues or PRs were found. ## What Changed - Added custom-image shared types, validators, constants, API paths, and database schema/migration. - Added server services/routes for custom-image templates and setup sessions, including runtime cleanup and provider metadata handling. - Extended plugin/sandbox provider capabilities for interactive setup, template capture, and template deletion. - Implemented custom-image support in the fake sandbox provider and Daytona provider. - Updated environment runtime/config handling so active custom images flow into leases, probes, and agent execution. - Added board UI controls and API client support for custom-image setup, capture, selection, status, and error states. - Hardened sandbox copy/probe behavior for insecure clipboard contexts and pre-authenticated sandbox images. - Added targeted coverage across shared validators, DB schema, server routes/services, provider plugins, adapter probes, and UI flows. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm vitest run packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/test.probe.test.ts packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/test.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck` - `pnpm vitest run packages/db/src/environment-custom-images-schema.test.ts packages/shared/src/environment-custom-images.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/src/plugin.test.ts ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx ui/src/pages/CompanySettings.test.tsx` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `rm -rf packages/db/dist && pnpm test:run` - Public-safety scan of the final diff found no internal Paperclip issue links, private instance URLs, or real secret patterns. ## Risks - Adds a database migration and new environment runtime tables, so migration ordering and rollback need care. - Provider implementations may differ in how reliably they can capture/delete images; unsupported providers surface capability-gated UI states. - Custom-image state can contain operator-prepared tooling and credentials inside the provider image, so providers must enforce their own access controls and cleanup semantics. - Broad surface area across shared contracts, server runtime, plugins, adapters, and UI means CI and Greptile review should be watched closely. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 (`gpt-5`) via Codex CLI with tool use and code execution. Assisted with branch cleanup, conflict resolution, local verification, and PR preparation. Earlier branch implementation work was assisted by Paperclip-managed Claude/Codex agents. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [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>	2026-06-30 09:57:49 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	fd2f82ac5b	[codex] Add built-in Hermes adapters (#8543 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent adapters are the boundary between the control plane and the runtimes that actually do work. > - Hermes support needs to be available as first-class local and gateway adapters while still preserving the adapter-manager override path for external packages. > - The adapter work touches runtime execution, UI adapter metadata, onboarding prompts, scoped credentials, release packaging, and smoke coverage, so the handoff needs concrete verification rather than only unit tests. > - This pull request adds built-in Hermes local and Hermes gateway support, keeps external adapter overrides compatible, and documents/tests the gateway flow end to end. > - The benefit is that operators can hire Hermes-backed agents without a manual plugin install, while self-hosted installs can still override/shadow the built-ins through Adapter manager packages. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this exact Hermes built-in adapter, gateway onboarding, and release-source work. Problem description: - Hermes local and gateway adapters need a public, reviewable source path in the monorepo so package artifacts and built-in adapter behavior match the application source. - Operators need built-in `hermes_local` and `hermes_gateway` adapter choices without losing the ability to install external Hermes packages as overrides. - Gateway onboarding needs secure defaults for API server URLs, API keys, and generated agent setup text. - Hermes-originated task bridge credentials need narrower API-key scope configuration. - Related public PRs found during duplicate search include #3027, #2363, #7544, #7950, #8095, and #8543. ## What Changed - Added the unified Hermes adapter package with local and gateway server/UI/CLI exports, config schemas, transcript parsing, model detection, and package metadata. - Registered `hermes_local` and `hermes_gateway` as built-in adapters across shared constants, server registries, CLI packaging, and UI adapter registries. - Kept the external adapter override path compatible so installed Hermes packages can shadow built-ins and restore the built-in parser when disabled. - Added Hermes gateway onboarding docs, board-operator docs, Docker smoke assets, and shell smoke harnesses for join/e2e validation. - Added scoped task-bridge API-key support, authorization checks, issue-origin handling, and tests for Hermes-created Paperclip tasks. - Hardened gateway transport and redaction behavior for API keys, headers, session data, and smoke diagnostics. - Updated release packaging/bootstrap checks for the Hermes packages while leaving `pnpm-lock.yaml` out of the PR per repository policy. ## Verification Targeted local verification recorded before PR handoff: - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter exec vitest run src/gateway/server/execute.test.ts` — 14/14 passed. - `pnpm test:hermes-gateway-smoke` — 6/6 passed. - Hermes package typecheck/build checks passed. - Focused server/UI adapter tests passed — 31/31. - Release helper Node tests passed — 18/18. - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` passed. Fresh Docker E2E smoke evidence: - Ran `pnpm smoke:hermes-gateway-e2e` on 2026-06-26 with a fresh state directory and fresh Docker container against a live Paperclip dev server. - Hermes direct execution reached `completed`. - Hermes stop/cancel path reached `cancelled`. - Hermes gateway created a Paperclip task, Paperclip ran the Hermes agent, and the task reached `done` with the expected marker response. - Temporary board auth keys, token files, smoke state, and Docker containers were cleaned up after the run. PR checks on head `b5eae40ce`: - GitHub Actions passed: `policy`, `review`, `Typecheck + Release Registry`, all general test shards, all serialized server shards, `Build`, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, and aggregate `verify`. - External checks passed: Snyk and Socket Project Report. - External Socket Pull Request Alerts remained pending after the first-party CI matrix completed. ## Risks - Medium risk: this spans adapter registration, package publishing, gateway execution, onboarding docs, API-key scoping, and UI adapter metadata. - Migration risk is low: the scope-config migration adds a nullable column and does not rewrite existing keys. - Gateway execution depends on operator-provided Hermes API configuration; the smoke covers the Docker gateway path but real deployments may differ by network/auth setup. - Direct Greptile review on the latest expanded diff is file-count limited, although the commitperclip review gate passed. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use enabled in a local repository workspace. Context window size is not exposed in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Commitperclip review gate is green; direct Greptile review is file-count limited on the latest expanded diff - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-26 16:04:58 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	43b005b704	Add pipeline workflow primitives and operator UI (#7903 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The pipeline subsystem models repeatable work as items moving through stages, with agent automation, review gates, blockers, drift notices, and linked work. > - Operators need this to be usable as one coherent workflow surface, not just as backend primitives or disconnected route experiments. > - The branch now carries the pipeline data model, service/routes, CLI/tutorial path, aggregation feeds, operator UI, stage automation controls, liveness/retry handling, and follow-up polish that make the primitive reviewable end to end. > - This pull request is the single review target for that pipeline workflow primitive stack. > - The benefit is that reviewers can evaluate the full operator experience and server contract together against `master`. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work. The underlying feature request is described inline. ### Problem or motivation Paperclip needs a first-class way to model multi-stage agent/company workflows where upstream items can spawn downstream work, request review, carry fields across pipelines, surface drift, retry automation, and show operators where work is blocked or active. Without a unified pipeline primitive, these workflows spread across ad hoc issues, routines, and comments, making the state hard to inspect or operate. ### Proposed solution Add the pipeline workflow primitive stack: database schema and migrations, shared validators/types, server services and REST routes, aggregation and liveness helpers, CLI/tutorial smoke support, and the React operator UI for pipeline lists, boards, item detail, review/learnings views, settings, stage automation, secrets, carry-over fields, and retry/recovery flows. ### Alternatives considered - Keep workflows as loosely linked issues and routines: rejected because operators need a single board/detail/settings surface for repeated workflow patterns. - Ship backend primitives first and defer UI: rejected for this branch because the operator experience is the main way to validate the primitive. - Add a narrower one-off content workflow: rejected because the same primitives are useful across future company processes. ## What Changed - Added and evolved pipeline schema, migrations, shared contracts, server services, REST routes, route tests, and CLI/tutorial smoke support. - Added pipeline aggregation, health/liveness, drift acknowledgment, blocker/carry-over, automation retry, stage automation environment, and permission recovery behavior. - Added the operator UI for pipeline index/board/item detail/settings/review/learnings flows, including stage secrets, automation controls, markdown/item descriptions, linked issue assets, liveness banners, and source automation metadata. - Refactored issue document frame rendering through the shared `DocumentFrameHeader` component to keep document controls consistent with the pipeline document surfaces. - Kept this PR as the single base-branch review target for the current pipeline branch. ## Verification Current branch refresh: - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-service.test.ts` — 31 passed - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-routes.test.ts` — 19 passed - `pnpm --filter ./server typecheck` — passed - `pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck` — passed - Verified Pipelines remains gated by `enablePipelines === true`: sidebar item is hidden unless the flag is enabled, direct pipeline routes redirect to `/dashboard` when disabled, and the Experimental settings UI still has no Pipelines toggle. - GitHub status checks on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` — all complete with no failing conclusions, including Actions, Socket, Superagent/Security, and Greptile Review - Greptile summary on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` — Confidence Score 5/5 - GitHub review-thread sweep — 0 unresolved Greptile threads Previously recorded during branch development: - Server pipeline service/route and aggregation tests - Shared validator tests - UI pipeline page/settings/item-detail/learnings/liveness tests - Pipeline tutorial smoke path ## Risks - High review surface: this is a large feature branch spanning database, shared contracts, server behavior, CLI/docs, and UI. - Migration ordering and schema compatibility need reviewer attention because this branch has been kept current across multiple `master` syncs. - GitHub still reports merge state `BLOCKED` because the PR is awaiting normal human review/branch-protection completion; all current status checks are green. - Branch-name checklist exception: this PR uses the pre-existing requested branch name, which predates the current public-branch naming rule. The PR title/body avoid internal issue references. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use, shell execution, git/GitHub CLI operations, and local verification commands. Earlier commits in this branch were assisted by Paperclip agents and other AI coding agents as recorded in commit authorship. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-26 12:02:44 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	569b7affc4	[codex] Add bounded workspace overview (#8627 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The execution workspace subsystem powers project and workspace views by listing runtime state, branch metadata, issue links, and status summaries. > - The existing workspace views relied on broad list data that can grow expensive as a company accumulates many workspaces and linked issues. > - That makes the Workspaces page and project workspace cards slower than necessary because the UI does not always need the full workspace detail payload up front. > - This pull request adds a bounded overview contract for workspace listings and moves the relevant UI surfaces to that cheaper path. > - The benefit is faster workspace loading while preserving detail fetches for pages that actually need full workspace data. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline bug report follows the repository bug template. ### What happened? Workspace index-style screens can load too much execution workspace detail before the user asks for it. Several UI surfaces used fuller workspace data paths for summary displays, which can make workspace loading slower as workspace history grows. ### Expected behavior Overview screens should request a bounded summary payload, while detail screens should keep using the full workspace detail endpoint. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Run Paperclip from source with enough execution workspace history to make workspace lists non-trivial. 2. Open the Workspaces page or a project workspace summary card. 3. Observe that summary UI needs only bounded workspace metadata but can depend on broader workspace payloads. ### Paperclip version or commit `master` at the time this branch was prepared. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`) ## What Changed - Added shared types, validators, and path constants for bounded execution workspace overviews. - Added server service and route support for overview queries with bounded linked issue/runtime metadata. - Updated workspace overview UI API calls, query keys, breadcrumbs, quicklooks, close dialogs, project summaries, and detail links to consume the cheaper overview shape where appropriate. - Added regression coverage for the new server route/service behavior and the UI overview consumers. - Registered the new workspace overview route in the generated OpenAPI spec. - Kept overview totals aligned with the project join and preserved project slug links in workspace headers. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts ui/src/api/execution-workspaces.test.ts ui/src/components/ProjectWorkspaceSummaryCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Workspaces.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` - `pnpm test:run:serialized -- --shard-index 1 --shard-count 4` ## Risks Low to medium risk. The change introduces a new overview contract across shared/server/ui layers, so the main risk is a mismatch between summary and detail payload expectations. The added route/service/UI tests cover the intended split, and full detail pages continue using the detail path. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with repository tool use and local command execution. Exact served model identifier and context window were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-25 21:38:14 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2dbaf4a7fa	External object references across issue surfaces (#8512 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI agents, issues, approvals, comments, and work products. > - The involved subsystem is issue context: markdown links, issue properties, related work, lists, filters, inbox/sidebar status, and plugin-provided external context. > - The gap is that URLs to external systems currently remain mostly plain links, so humans and agents must manually open them to understand status, identity, and liveness. > - This matters because external work objects such as GitHub issues and pull requests are part of the operational state of a Paperclip company. > - The implementation keeps core provider-neutral: shared contracts, storage, sync, routes, and UI surfaces live in core while providers can contribute detection and status resolution. > - This pull request adds the external object reference foundation, GitHub provider support, issue-surface rendering, filters, sidebar/list/inbox signals, and test/story coverage. > - The benefit is that linked external work becomes inspectable Paperclip context without hardcoding every provider directly into the UI. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work. Feature request: - Problem: URLs in Paperclip issues, comments, documents, and related surfaces do not expose provider status or object identity inline. - Proposed behavior: detect supported external object URLs, persist normalized references, refresh provider status, and render concise status-aware links across issue surfaces. - Users affected: board users, agents, and maintainers who triage issues containing external work links. - Acceptance: external object references are company-scoped, provider-extensible, visible in key issue surfaces, filterable where relevant, and covered by focused shared/server/UI tests. Related PR search: - No open duplicate PRs found for `external object references`. - Closed related prior attempt: #4556. ## What Changed - Added shared external-object contracts, validators, status/liveness helpers, and plugin protocol declarations. - Added database schema and additive migrations for external objects, source mentions, and display metadata. - Added server services/routes for detecting, syncing, summarizing, refreshing, and resolving external objects across issues, documents, comments, projects, and plugins. - Added a GitHub external-object provider plus plugin SDK authoring docs. - Wired UI presentation across markdown links, comments, issue chat, documents, properties, related work, issue rows, filters, inbox/sidebar badges, and Storybook stories. - Rebasing cleanup: moved the branch onto current `master`, repaired stale worktree provision config, hardened environment-sensitive tests/mocks, and removed committed screenshot artifacts from the PR branch to keep the reviewable file set below tool limits. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/external-objects.test.ts server/src/__tests__/external-object-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts ui/src/components/ExternalObjectPill.test.tsx ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts` passed after rebasing: 5 files, 56 tests. - Historical branch verification before this PR creation included `pnpm test:run`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`; this PR body does not claim those were rerun after the final rebase. ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new cross-surface sync path on issue/document/comment writes. The implementation uses safe sync wrappers so external-object failures warn instead of blocking core mutations. - Medium: the migrations introduce new tables and indexes. They are additive and company-scoped. - Medium: provider-specific URL parsing can miss or misclassify edge cases. Shared canonicalization tests and provider tests cover current GitHub shapes. - Low: UI badge/filter behavior could add visual noise for object-heavy issues; component tests and Storybook stories cover the intended surfaces. > Roadmap checked: `ROADMAP.md` references the plugin system as the current extension path and does not list a duplicate core feature. Related long-range docs discuss external references, work products, preview URLs, and plugin extension points; this PR implements the scoped external-object reference foundation. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding-agent runtime, with shell and GitHub CLI tool use. Reasoning mode: medium. Exact deployed runtime model ID and context window were not exposed in the environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-23 08:27:19 -05:00
Devin Foley	547463d3a2	refactor(environments): make execution environments instance-scoped (#8375 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution environment selection has to stay inspectable and predictable across companies, agents, and runs. > - The environment subsystem decides where an agent heartbeat actually runs and how remote sandbox state is realized and restored. > - That subsystem previously mixed company-scoped environment catalogs with issue-level environment stamping, so a reassigned issue could keep executing in the previous assignee's sandbox. > - That behavior breaks the control-plane contract: changing the assignee should change the executing agent/environment path unless there is an explicit current override. > - Fixing it cleanly required more than a narrow patch; the environment model had to move to instance scope with a single inherited default and per-agent override semantics. > - This pull request rewires the schema, server/API surface, runtime resolution, and UI around that model, then adds regression coverage for cross-company inheritance and per-agent isolation. > - The benefit is that environment choice now follows the approved instance/agent configuration path instead of stale issue state, while shared environments only need to be configured once per instance. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No directly matching public GitHub issue or PR was found while searching for this refactor. ### What happened? Reassigning work between agents with different execution environments could keep running in the previous sandbox because environment choice was stamped onto the issue and outranked the current assignee. The same subsystem also forced environment catalogs to be duplicated per company even though the underlying execution environments were instance-wide resources. ### Expected behavior Execution should resolve through the current instance and agent configuration path, with one instance-scoped environment catalog, one instance default, optional per-agent override, and no stale issue-level environment authority surviving reassignment. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Configure two agents to use different execution environments. 2. Assign an issue to the first agent so the issue records execution state in that environment. 3. Reassign the same issue to the second agent and run another heartbeat. 4. Observe that the pre-fix runtime can still sync or execute in the original sandbox instead of the second agent's environment. ### Paperclip version or commit Current `master` before this PR. ### Deployment mode Self-hosted server. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved - Claude Code - Not adapter-specific (core bug in environment authority / resolution) ### Database mode External Postgres. ### Access context Both board reassignment and agent heartbeats were involved. ## What Changed - Moved environments and their default selection contract to instance scope in DB/shared types, including the migration that dedupes legacy per-company environments and seeds the instance local default. - Reworked environment CRUD/auth flows to use instance-scoped APIs and added route/service coverage for instance-level environment management. - Changed runtime resolution to prefer `agent default -> instance default -> built-in local`, removed issue-level environment stamping from the active execution path, and isolated sandbox/plugin leases by `(executionWorkspaceId, agentId)`. - Added environment env-var runtime precedence so environment-provided values act as the baseline for agent execution. - Moved the environment UI into instance settings and updated agent configuration surfaces to reflect inherit/override behavior. - Added regression coverage for instance-default inheritance across companies and for the new runtime resolution behavior. - Fixed a rebase-only duplicate `enableTaskWatchdogs` flag regression in instance settings types/validators/services so the branch typechecks cleanly on current `master`. - Updated stale server tests so CI matches the shipped instance-scoped environment contract. ## Verification - `git diff --check` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime-driver-contract.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-instance-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts` ## Risks - The migration changes environment scope and dedupes existing rows, so installs with unusual legacy environment combinations should be reviewed carefully during upgrade. - Remote execution behavior now depends on instance-default inheritance semantics instead of issue-level stamping, so any remaining code paths that still assume issue-scoped environment authority would surface as follow-up bugs. - This PR includes both server/runtime behavior and UI relocation, so reviewers should watch for authorization edge cases around instance settings and environment management. > I checked [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md). This work fits the existing Cloud / Sandbox agents direction as a bug-fix/refactor to current behavior, not a new parallel product surface. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent in this Paperclip/Codex session; GPT-5-class tool-using model with code execution and shell access. The exact backend model ID is not exposed to the session runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-06-20 09:42:53 -07:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	a71c4b6782	[codex] feat(watchdog): add task watchdog control plane (#8339 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task lifecycle and recovery subsystems decide when agent work is still productive, stalled, or ready for review. > - Existing recovery paths can observe stopped or incomplete work, but there was no first-class per-task watchdog model with scoped review permissions. > - Watchdog follow-ups also need strict boundaries so recovery/status-only runs cannot mutate approvals or perform deliverable work. > - This pull request adds the task watchdog data model, API/service layer, scheduler/review flow, adapter wake context, UI configuration surfaces, and docs. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master`; the watchdog migration is now ordered after master's latest migrations as `0104_issue_watchdogs`. > - The benefit is a more explicit task-review loop that preserves Paperclip's single-assignee and governance invariants while making stalled work easier to route. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No linked GitHub issue. Paperclip task: [PAP-11275](/PAP/issues/PAP-11275). ## Problem or motivation Task recovery needs a first-class watchdog path that can inspect stopped work and create scoped follow-ups without bypassing normal task ownership. Board/UI users need a way to configure watchdogs on tasks and see watchdog-related live work. Recovery/status-only runs must remain limited to status reporting and must not create approvals, link approvals, or submit approval comments. ## Proposed solution Add a task-watchdog data model, scheduler/classifier, scoped mutation guard, adapter wake context, API/UI configuration surfaces, and documentation so watchdog agents can review stopped task subtrees under explicit boundaries. ## Alternatives considered Reuse the existing recovery-action flow only. That would keep stopped-work detection implicit, make per-task watchdog assignment harder to expose in the UI, and would not provide a durable scoped-review issue for stalled task trees. ## Roadmap alignment This is Paperclip control-plane lifecycle infrastructure for task execution and recovery. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned core item. ## What Changed - Added issue watchdog schema, migration, shared contracts, validators, CRUD API, and service support. - Added task watchdog scheduler/classifier behavior, scoped mutation enforcement, adapter wake context, and default watchdog mandate guidance. - Added UI surfaces for configuring watchdogs on new/existing tasks, viewing watchdog activity, and exposing the experimental setting. - Added docs for the user-facing task watchdog workflow and implementation semantics. - Gated new-task watchdog setup behind `enableTaskWatchdogs` and blocked cheap status-only recovery runs from approval mutations. - Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the idempotent watchdog migration from the branch-local `0102_issue_watchdogs` slot to `0104_issue_watchdogs`. - Addressed Greptile feedback by loading watchdog classifier input with a recursive subtree query and centralizing the watchdog origin-kind constant. - Added and updated focused server/UI tests for watchdog routes, scheduler/classifier behavior, scope boundaries, live task visibility, settings, and new issue dialog behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check` - Verified the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows`. ## Risks - Medium risk: this introduces a new task lifecycle surface touching DB schema, server routes/services, adapter wake context, and UI task configuration. - Watchdog scheduling behavior depends on the new experimental setting and runtime context checks behaving consistently across local and production agents. - The watchdog migration is idempotent (`IF NOT EXISTS` / duplicate-object guards) so users who tried the previous branch-local migration number should not get duplicate-object failures. - CI and the second Greptile pass are pending after the latest review-fix push. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent in the Paperclip workspace. Exact runtime model id and context window were not exposed to the agent; tool use and local command execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots — N/A per Paperclip task instruction: do not add screenshots/images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the work. - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-19 15:38:52 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	1413729a06	Build the Skills Store (#7990 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents increasingly depend on reusable skills, so the control plane needs a first-class way to browse, inspect, install, version, and attach those skills. > - The old skills surface was mostly operational plumbing; it did not give operators a store-like discovery flow, canonical detail URLs, rich source/version context, or creation paths. > - The backend also needed stronger contracts around company skill metadata, versions, install counts, runtime materialization, and adapter skill preferences. > - This pull request builds the Skills Store foundation across DB, shared contracts, server routes/services, UI, and Storybook. > - The benefit is a more inspectable, operator-friendly skill workflow that still preserves company-scoped control-plane boundaries and agent runtime behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No GitHub issue exists for this Paperclip work item. Paperclip task refs: PAP-10846 and PAP-10921. Feature request: Paperclip operators need a single Skills Store experience where company skills can be discovered, inspected, created, versioned, installed, and attached to agents without relying on scattered operational screens or implicit runtime state. Related PR search: - Searched GitHub for `Skills Store`, `company skills`, and `skill detail`. - Found several open skills-related PRs such as #7809 and #4409, but no duplicate PR for this end-to-end Skills Store branch. ## What Changed - Added the Skills Store backend foundation: company skill schema fields, migrations, shared types/validators, and expanded server skill routes/services. - Added skill discovery, category navigation, canonical skill detail routes, tabs, source attribution, version snapshots/diffs, install count backfill, and creation flows. - Updated agent skill preference handling so version selections survive runtime mention injection and runtime skill materialization honors pinned versions. - Preserved unversioned skill assignments as live/current selections instead of silently pinning them to the current version at assignment time. - Added focused regression coverage for company skill routes/services, route helpers, UI behavior, skill version diffs, and runtime skill version pins. - Added Storybook coverage for Skills Store discovery/detail states and updated the main layout navigation. - Addressed Greptile findings around version creation races, soft-deleted comments, fork metadata scoping, GitHub skill directory fallback, runtime snapshot materialization, shared runtime skill-selection helpers, and version-assignment semantics. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-project-env.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-skills.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/company-skill.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-skills.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx -t "edits existing custom assignee model options from the properties pane"` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - GitHub checks are green on `0823957a2`: Build, Canary Dry Run, General tests, Typecheck + Release Registry, serialized server suites, e2e, policy/review, Socket, Snyk, and aggregate `verify`. - Greptile Review succeeded on `0823957a2` with `40 files reviewed, 0 comments added`; GitHub unresolved review threads: 0. Not run in this heartbeat: - Browser screenshot capture for the UI changes. This PR intentionally omits screenshots per the Paperclip task direction not to add design screenshots/images. ## Risks - Broad feature branch touching DB, shared contracts, server, and UI; reviewers should still scan merge conflicts carefully if `master` moves again before landing. - Skill version/runtime behavior is sensitive: pinned skill versions must stay pinned while default selections should continue following the current version. - UI polish should get normal reviewer/browser attention before merge because this PR includes a large Skills Store surface and screenshots were intentionally omitted. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with tool use and local command 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (intentionally omitted per PAP-10921 direction) - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-11 14:02:09 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.7	468edd8b22	Add workspace file viewer and artifact links (#7681 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is issue-centered, and reviewers often need to inspect files, artifacts, and path references produced during that work. > - Before this branch, workspace-relative paths and artifact file references were not first-class inspectable objects in the board UI. > - Safe file viewing needs shared resource contracts, server-side workspace boundary checks, and UI that opens files without exposing arbitrary host paths. > - The workspace file viewer branch needed to stay as one active PR and be rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` for review. > - This pull request adds the workspace file resource API, issue-page file viewer and browser, markdown file-reference links, and artifact file chips. > - The benefit is that board users can inspect relevant files from issue context while preserving workspace boundaries and auditability. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. Internal Paperclip issues: `PAP-1953`, `PAP-10539`, `PAP-10733`. Problem / motivation: - Board users need to open workspace-relative files mentioned by agents or attached as work-product metadata without switching to a terminal. - The UI needs to support both direct file-path opening and workspace browsing/searching from an issue page. - The server must enforce company access, workspace boundaries, size limits, rate limits, and safe audit logging. Related PR: - Prior closed attempt: #4442 - Single active PR for this branch: #7681 ## What Changed - Added shared workspace file resource types, validators, and workspace-file `resourceRef` metadata validation for work products. - Added server routes/services for resolving, listing, and previewing workspace-relative files with access checks, scan caps, list-specific limits, and audit logging. - Added the issue file viewer provider, sheet, workspace browser, command-palette action, markdown workspace-file autolinks, and artifact file chips. - Updated issue workspace UI and stories/tests for file browsing and workspace file opening. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and updated the existing single PR branch. - Addressed current-head Greptile follow-ups by applying `offset` consistently across search/recent/changed file listings, restoring stopped-service port ownership checks before auto-port reuse, and stabilizing the workspace browser pagination test. ## Verification Current local verification after rebase to `public/master`: - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/work-product.test.ts server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.test.tsx ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.copy.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/context/FileViewerContext.test.ts ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts ui/src/lib/workspace-file-parser.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueWorkspaceCard.test.tsx` - 13 files passed, 197 tests passed. - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx` - 1 file passed, 25 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` - 2 files passed, 90 tests passed. - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed. - Confirmed branch is `0` behind and `46` ahead of current `public/master` after rebase and follow-up commits. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `.github/workflows` changes. - Searched GitHub for duplicate or related workspace file viewer PRs/issues; #4442 is the prior closed attempt and this PR is the single active PR for the branch. - No screenshots were committed; the task explicitly asked not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work. Current remote verification on head `a698a7bc10137baf7d25bd5722e1d6e0343387c1`: - Greptile Review - success, 64 files reviewed, 0 comments added, no unresolved Greptile review threads. - PR workflow `verify` - success. - Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, workspace test shards, serialized server suites, Build, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Socket, and Snyk - success. - `security-review` - neutral, with output saying a draft advisory was filed for maintainer review and is not a merge block. - `commitperclip PR Review / review` - cancelled after the security gate detected flags and timed out while creating/reviewing the advisory. I reran it once and it cancelled the same way; no actionable code/test failure was exposed in the job logs. ## Risks - This is a broad UI/server feature PR, so review needs to pay attention to route authorization, workspace boundary handling, and markdown autolink false positives. - Workspace browsing intentionally caps list results and scan depth; very large workspaces may require users to refine search terms. - Remote workspace preview remains unavailable until remote file-access support is implemented. - The neutral commitperclip security-review advisory needs maintainer review, but the check output says it is not a merge block. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected - check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a Paperclip/Codex local tool-use environment, medium reasoning, with shell/GitHub CLI tool use for branch inspection, verification, rebase, PR update, Greptile review, and CI 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-09 17:17:43 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d8e1004551	PAP-10440: group artifacts by task stacks (#7654 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The artifacts surface is where board users inspect files, media, and documents produced by agents. > - Grouped artifact stacks make that surface easier to scan by task, but the first pass still made grouping feel secondary to media filters. > - The follow-up request was to make grouping the default and give the grouping control the same icon-only outline treatment used on the issues page. > - This pull request keeps the existing artifact grouping API/UI, then polishes the artifacts toolbar state and Storybook review coverage. > - The benefit is that `/artifacts` now opens in the task-stack view by default while preserving explicit flat-mode filtering via `groupBy=none`. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this internal Paperclip task. ### Subsystem affected ui/ — React + Vite board UI. ### Problem or motivation The `/artifacts` grouping affordance was visually placed after the media filters, rendered as a text button, and defaulted to a flat artifact list. Internal follow-up `PAP-10465` requested the grouping icon move left of the filters, become an icon-only outlined button like `/issues`, and make Task grouping the default. ### Proposed solution Default `/artifacts` to grouped Task stacks, keep explicit flat mode available as `groupBy=none`, move the grouping control before the media chips, and restyle it as the shared icon-only outline button pattern. ### Alternatives considered Leaving flat mode as the implicit default was rejected because it does not satisfy the follow-up. Keeping a text label on the grouping trigger was rejected because `/issues` already established the icon-only outline pattern for this class of toolbar control. ### Roadmap alignment This aligns with the `Artifacts & Work Products` roadmap item by making generated outputs easier to inspect and operate from the board UI. ## What Changed - Defaulted the `/artifacts` page to `groupBy=task` when no grouping URL param is present, while keeping explicit flat mode available with `groupBy=none`. - Moved the group control before the media filter chips and changed it to an icon-only outlined button using the shared `Button` pattern. - Updated artifact page tests to cover default Task grouping, explicit flat mode, trigger ordering, and icon-only outline metadata. - Updated the artifact Storybook story so its toolbar mock matches the production ordering and grouped Task is documented as the default mode. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Artifacts.test.tsx ui/src/components/artifacts/ArtifactGroupCard.test.tsx` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check` — passed. - QA visual validation from internal follow-up PAP-10466 passed desktop/mobile scenarios. Screenshot evidence attached there: - Desktop default: http://paperclip-dev:3100/api/attachments/bc81305d-f5de-485c-abeb-9e7c3d9d8539/content - Desktop toolbar close-up: http://paperclip-dev:3100/api/attachments/3375a62b-2110-48f3-bafa-ea98c00f99f7/content - Mobile default: http://paperclip-dev:3100/api/attachments/bfc5642e-9248-431e-9bac-36284dec1c89/content - Mobile toolbar close-up: http://paperclip-dev:3100/api/attachments/ca79401a-5ba8-464d-bc6e-aeffd47fe695/content - GitHub PR checks on head `431964c8b` — passed, including Greptile 5/5. ## Risks Low to medium risk. The main behavior shift is intentional: `/artifacts` now queries grouped Task stacks by default. Existing flat mode remains available through the grouping menu and explicit `groupBy=none` URLs. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.4 class coding model in this Paperclip heartbeat environment, with shell, git, test, and GitHub CLI tool use. Context window managed by the Codex runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-06 10:22:47 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4d5322c821	[codex] Add checkbox confirmation issue interactions (#7649 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is coordinated through issues, comments, interactions, and approval-style handoffs. > - Existing issue-thread interactions could ask questions, suggest tasks, and request confirmation, but they did not support a structured checkbox confirmation payload for choosing one or more options. > - That gap made board/user confirmations harder to validate consistently across API callers, plugin helpers, CLI tooling, and the UI. > - This pull request adds the shared checkbox confirmation contract, server handling, client helpers, and issue-thread UI needed to render and submit structured selections. > - The benefit is that agents can request bounded multi-select confirmations in the same audited issue-thread flow as other Paperclip interactions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No public GitHub issue found for this exact branch. Internal Paperclip issue: PAP-10415 / PAP-10441 requested creating this PR for the checkbox confirmation issue-thread UI component work. - GitHub duplicate search performed for checkbox confirmation / issue-thread interaction PRs; no matching open PR was found. - Related issue search result `#7497` was unrelated company file cleanup work, so it is not linked as a related issue. ## What Changed - Added shared types, validators, constants, and tests for `request_checkbox_confirmation` interactions. - Extended server issue-thread interaction service and routes for checkbox confirmation creation, validation, expiration, and response handling. - Added CLI, MCP, and plugin SDK helper coverage so external callers can create the new interaction shape consistently. - Updated the issue-thread interaction UI to render checkbox confirmations with min/max bounds, selection summaries, stale-target states, and accept/decline flows. - Documented the checkbox confirmation interaction contract in the Paperclip skill/API reference. ## Verification - Rebased cleanly on `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` fetched into `public-gh/master` at `a4fa0eaf5`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Ran focused tests with `NODE_ENV=test`: ```sh NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/issue-subresources.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/project-goal.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts ``` Result: 8 test files passed, 78 tests passed. - CI on latest head `63b9e55` is green. - Greptile Review passed on latest head; GraphQL review-thread check shows all Greptile threads resolved. ## Risks - Medium surface area because the interaction contract touches shared validators, server routes/services, UI rendering, CLI, MCP, plugin SDK helpers, and docs. - No database migrations are included. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repository lockfile policy. - UI screenshots are not attached because the task explicitly requested not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work; component tests cover the new rendering and interaction states. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository file access, shell command execution, git/GitHub CLI tooling, and Paperclip control-plane API access. Exact hosted model ID/context-window metadata is not exposed inside this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-06 08:48:43 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4693d770aa	Add company artifacts page (#7621 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators need a way to inspect files and work products created by agents across a company without opening each issue one by one. > - The existing issue detail surfaces already show attachments and outputs, but there was no company-level artifacts index or search-result affordance for artifact-like records. > - The backend needed a company-scoped artifacts projection API that preserves issue/run attribution and safe links back to source records. > - The UI needed a first-class Artifacts page, sidebar entry, reusable artifact cards, and deep-link handling that keeps company prefixes intact. > - This pull request adds the company artifacts API and page, then wires artifacts into search and issue output surfaces. > - The benefit is a single place to browse, filter, and open generated work products and attachments while preserving company boundaries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #7622. Feature request fields: - Problem/motivation: company operators need a consolidated artifacts surface for attachments and work products produced by agents. - Proposed solution: add a company-scoped artifacts projection endpoint, a board Artifacts route, reusable cards, sidebar navigation, and artifact search integration. - Alternatives considered: keep artifact discovery only on individual issue pages; that forces operators to know the source issue before finding generated outputs. - Roadmap alignment: checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is a focused board UI/API improvement and does not duplicate a listed roadmap item. ## What Changed - Added shared artifact types and validators. - Added a company-scoped artifact projection service/API with tests for attachment/work-product attribution. - Added Artifacts board UI route, API client, sidebar link, cards, filters, and storybook coverage. - Added artifact result handling to company search and issue output/deep-link flows. - Rebased the branch onto the latest `public-gh/master` state and resolved the route-test conflict by preserving both upstream team-catalog coverage and artifact route coverage. - Fixed a local Sidebar test helper so it no longer depends on a runtime-undefined `React.act` export in this dependency install. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/artifacts/ArtifactCard.test.tsx src/api/artifacts.test.ts src/lib/company-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Artifacts.test.tsx src/pages/Search.test.tsx src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-artifacts-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`. - Duplicate search: no open PRs or issues found for `artifact page ArtifactCard` in `paperclipai/paperclip`. Screenshots are intentionally omitted per the internal task instruction not to add design screenshots or images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the work. I also attempted browser capture in this runner, but `agent-browser` failed to launch Chrome and Playwright Chromium is missing `libatk-1.0.so.0`. ## Risks - Low-to-medium risk: this adds a new API projection and UI surface, so attribution/link regressions could affect artifact navigation. - Company scoping is covered in the new service/API tests. - No database migrations are included. - No lockfile or workflow changes are included. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with tool use and local command execution. Exact hosted model identifier is not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (intentionally omitted per task instruction; browser capture unavailable in this runner) - [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>	2026-06-05 18:11:05 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	dbebf30c89	Add low-trust review containment (#7530 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract. > - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads. > - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context, which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer assigned to hostile content. > - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging, route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations. > - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection, preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion, documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks, enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic. > - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot surfaces. Fixes #7531. ## What Changed - Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work products. - Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context. - Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime containment, and quarantine redaction. - Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views. - Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review contract plan under `doc/plans/`. - Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered migration are not broken by the renumbered migration. ## Verification - Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata. - Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not broken. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` - `git diff --check` - GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify, policy/review, Socket, and Snyk. - Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved Greptile review threads. - No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata, and UI preset controls. - Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions. - Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover the current known routes but future integrations must route through the same containment layer. - The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is 5/5. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell and GitHub CLI workflow. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically required - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-05 16:48:02 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	fff3832a01	[codex] Add teams catalog extraction (#7550 ) Fixes #7551 ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies, and reusable company/team setup is part of making those companies faster to launch. > - The teams catalog work introduces app-shipped team templates that can be browsed, previewed, and installed into a company. > - Catalog installation crosses several contracts: bundled package contents, shared API types, server import/install behavior, CLI workflows, and the board UI. > - Agents also need a safe path through catalog installs: scoped company selection, explicit source policy, approval fallback for agent creation, and preserved catalog provenance. > - This pull request extracts the completed teams catalog branch into one reviewable PR on top of `public-gh/master`. > - The benefit is a reusable teams catalog foundation with server, CLI, package, docs, and hidden UI surfaces kept in sync. ## What Changed - Added the `@paperclipai/teams-catalog` package with bundled/optional team definitions, generated manifest, validators, catalog builder tests, and migration notes. - Added shared teams catalog types/validators plus server routes and services for listing, previewing, and installing catalog teams. - Integrated catalog install with company portability, skill/source policy checks, provenance metadata, origin hashes, target-manager reparenting, and installed/out-of-date detection. - Added CLI `teams` commands and agent-safe company selection behavior, including `company current` and approval fallback for forbidden agent-run installs. - Added hidden Team Catalog UI/API/query surfaces, Storybook fixtures, and targeted UI tests while keeping the UI route out of primary navigation. - Added docs for CLI/company/teams catalog behavior and removed generated screenshot artifacts from the PR diff. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/teams.test.ts packages/teams-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts packages/teams-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-install-no-overrides.test.ts ui/src/lib/company-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/TeamCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/TeamCatalog.test.tsx ui/src/pages/useInstallTeamCatalogEntry.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/teams-catalog typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Confirmed branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master` (`78dc3625a`) and `public-gh/master` is an ancestor of `HEAD`. - Confirmed PR diff excludes `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows/*`, generated screenshot images, and screenshot helper scripts. ## Risks - Medium review surface: this crosses package generation, shared contracts, server install behavior, CLI, docs, and hidden UI code. - Catalog install behavior creates agents/projects/tasks/skills and must keep company scoping, permissions, source policy, and provenance checks strict. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repo policy; CI/default-branch automation owns lockfile refresh. - The Team Catalog UI is included but hidden from primary navigation, so future enablement should re-check visual QA before exposure. > 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`. > > ROADMAP checked: this aligns with reusable companies/templates and plugin-adjacent onboarding work. This PR packages work already developed on the Paperclip task branch for review. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 series coding agent in this Paperclip session; exact runtime context window was not exposed. Used shell, git, `gh`, and local test/typecheck tooling. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots, or documented why screenshots are intentionally omitted - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-05 12:55:49 -05:00

1 2 3