8 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	228f0e2807	fix(ui): make pull request review waits visible (#15375) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people supervise agent work and review its outputs. > - A task can wait for a human to review a pull request while an agent schedules checks. > - The PR work product and detected external links use separate display paths. > - A private PR can disappear from the useful sidebar view when its provider lookup fails. > - The monitor countdown says when the next check runs but omits the saved review request. > - This change shows the saved PR and requested review in the task's existing surfaces. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task kept checking whether a private GitHub PR had merged. Its work product requested board review, but the Properties sidebar used detected external objects instead. The PR URL was stored only in metadata, which the PR refresh path did not read. The composer showed a generic monitor countdown with no PR link or review action. **Expected behavior** Show saved PR links even if provider access fails. During a GitHub monitor wait, make outstanding review requests visible with the next check time and a status-check action. Stop requesting review when a PR merges or closes. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Register a PR work product with `reviewState: needs_board_review` and its URL in `metadata.url`. 2. Schedule an external-service monitor for GitHub. 3. Open the task with external-object lookup unavailable or unable to access the private repository. 4. Inspect Properties and the composer wait strip. Related work: #14469 added rich artifact cards. #8759 addresses attention on monitored task blockers. This change uses the existing work products and monitor action; it adds no blocker or approval mechanism. ## What Changed - Show saved PRs in Properties, including metadata-only links, independent of external-object availability. - Deduplicate equivalent GitHub PR URLs while preserving the saved navigation link, and put explicit review requests first. - Keep provider status and freshness on the combined PR row; keep private PR links usable when lookup fails. - Show the saved PR review request above the composer and in the existing monitor banner during a GitHub monitor wait. - Label the existing monitor action `Check status` and show check failures inline. - Suppress review prompts for merged, closed, or archived PRs even if their review flag is stale. - Refresh PR metadata using `metadata.url` and the existing `repository` alias. - Share saved work-product reads across the thread, Properties, and Artifacts. Refresh GitHub in a separate query and enrich only matching PR versions. - Start a fresh saved-row request on live invalidation so late provider responses cannot hide new artifacts or changed review requests. - Cover stalled GitHub lookups in both panels so refresh latency cannot hide saved work. - Scope monitor-check mutation state to the task so failures and late responses do not leak across navigation. - Refresh GitHub status when the displayed run finishes, including when saved PR rows have not changed. - Clarify that PR review and external release handoffs need a saved human-input interaction with an agent assigned for continuation; a flag, monitor, or handoff comment alone does not create that card. ## Verification - 386 tests pass across eleven affected UI and server suites on `184c7d8746`. Regressions cover saved links, provider status, cold-cache loading, panel reopening, monitor errors during navigation, and live updates during provider refresh. - Three live-update regressions and two run-completion regressions fail before their fixes and pass afterward. These tests use the real API client's GET coalescing and abort handling. - Full repository typecheck and build passed on the merged parent `1a49112dd2`. The latest UI changes pass UI typecheck and token gates; CI also verifies the latest build. Capability contract/inventory checks pass. - Storybook build and browser checks passed before the query race fix. Browser checks cover desktop and 390px mobile review waits, plus video, mixed-file, and empty artifact galleries after background refresh. - The earlier full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped under disk pressure. It reported failures outside the changed suites; an isolated skill-cache run reproduced three existing macOS permission failures. The full local suite was not rerun for this follow-up. - Latest-head CI passes on `184c7d8746`, including the browser shards and canary dry run. Apex is 5/5 with no actionable findings and no unresolved threads. All eight reported findings are addressed. ## Risks - This uses saved PR review state. When GitHub access fails, the saved state can remain stale until the agent updates it. The link remains visible and the status check remains available. - `Check status` wakes the existing monitor owner. It does not merge a PR, accept an approval, or mark the task done. - No schema, permissions, or scheduler behavior changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, repository analysis, code editing, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass — 277 affected tests - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-06 16:03:13 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	c3ddb288b1	fix: validate work product execution workspace references (#14063) ... Reject invalid and cross-company execution workspace references with a useful 422 before changing the work product. Hold the validated reference through the transaction so concurrent deletion cannot turn validation into a 500. Verified 13 focused tests, full typecheck/build, and green PR CI. Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved comments. The known UI copy-toast flake passed on an unchanged-commit retry and in a focused local run. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-25 17:06:30 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	87d05e194b	feat(work-products): add rich cards and run artifact inventory (#12717) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies. > - Agent outputs must remain visible after a run and easy to inspect from a task. > - The thread and artifact inventory need one consistent rich-card vocabulary. > - Run uploads also need durable artifact registration and producing-run context. > - Reviewers need deterministic examples for each rich-card kind and state. > - This pull request adds the shared presentation, registration, inventory, and Storybook review coverage. > - The benefit is a complete output path that reviewers can inspect without seeded data. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This change improves work-product presentation in task threads and the task Artifacts tab. **Subsystem affected** The change affects shared work-product contracts, the runner diff path, server attachment and work-product services, GitHub metadata refresh, the React board UI, and Storybook. **Current behavior** The thread used generic cards. Some files uploaded by a run existed only as message attachments. The Artifacts tab showed a flat list without run context or filters. Storybook showed only one resting card per kind. **Proposed behavior** The thread uses rich cards for supported work-product types. Each run-produced file registers one attachment-backed artifact work product. The Artifacts tab groups outputs by run and supports filters. Storybook shows every kind and requested state, PR lifecycle states, stats variants, truncation, mobile layout, and message-tail media. **Reason and benefit** Users can identify outputs quickly. Reviewers can inspect all card permutations without creating task data. **Breaking changes** None. The metadata fields and automatic artifact registration are additive. Existing attachments and work products keep their current behavior. ## What Changed - Added a shared rich work-product card with kind-specific content and a compact inventory variant. - Added pull-request and commit diff metadata plus bounded GitHub state refresh. - Added media strips and typed file chips to message-tail attachments. - Registered each run-produced attachment as an artifact work product in the same server transaction. - Grouped task artifacts by run with agent and timestamp headings. - Added type and run filters, image thumbnails, compact cards, and a company Artifacts link. - Added a Storybook kind-by-state matrix with stats variants for all eight visual kinds. - Added PR open, draft, merged, and closed examples, long-title truncation, an exact 375-pixel viewport, and message-tail overflow coverage. - Closed reconciled runtime work products when the linked runtime stops or disappears, so the card shows `Stopped` instead of `Unhealthy`. ### Screenshots Before: one resting card per kind.  After: the kind and state matrix.  After: message-tail media at 375 pixels.  [Open the Storybook evidence viewer](https://pages.paperclip.ing/rich-work-product-storybook-20260902/). The earlier artifact inventory comparison remains available in the [artifact inventory viewer](https://pages.paperclip.ing/rich-artifacts-inventory-proof-20260902/). ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - `pnpm build-storybook` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/work-product-runtime-reconciliation.test.ts` passed with 5 tests. - Chromium visual checks passed at desktop and 375-pixel widths. - All 30 latest-head GitHub checks passed. One unrelated annotation test was flaky and passed on its single retry. - Greptile passed at 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. ## Risks - Low risk. The Storybook change adds review fixtures only. The runtime fix changes read-time reconciliation without database writes. - The matrix is intentionally large so every permutation stays visible in one review surface. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This work does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 and GPT-5.6-sol across this pull request. Reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. The 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) - [x] My public branch name describes the change and contains no internal task id - [x] I have run tests locally and the changed-path tests pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-02 15:27:54 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	a2bf936f9a	feat(workspaces): sign the workspace login handoff and gate readiness (#11671) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Managed worktree services run isolated Paperclip instances with cloned databases. > - A reachable service was reported as ready even when its database, runtime identity, or login path was not usable. > - The first candidate added verified database seeding and managed repair in #11665. > - This pull request consolidates that candidate with signed login handoff and a complete readiness contract. > - Post-QA fixes close five defects in repair identity, repair responses, UI retry, seed journal handling, and seed-source trust. > - The benefit is a workspace that either opens safely or reports one accurate recovery action. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work, so the problem is described here. **What happened** Managed workspace URLs could return HTTP 200 and report ready while login failed. QA also found cases where repair used the wrong instance identity, returned a generic error, left the UI stuck, rejected a safe journal lag, or trusted a mutable workspace manifest. **Expected behavior** Opening a ready workspace signs the board user in to the correct isolated instance. Provisioning and repair use a registered source and report a structured recovery state. **Actual behavior** Entry depended on a password copied into the clone. Several failure paths could publish stale readiness, hide the repair precondition, or trust state that the workspace could modify. **Additional context** This pull request includes the commits first published in #11665. That pull request keeps the original base head for review history. This consolidated pull request is the merge candidate. Related open readiness work includes #11575 and #11621. ## What Changed - Adds a short-lived, signed, single-use login ticket. It binds the user, workspace, instance, and runtime origin. - Exchanges the ticket through Better Auth. It creates the session and cookie through the supported adapter path. - Adds protected workspace readiness fields for the database, clone data, login handoff, seed phase, and runtime identity. - Fails readiness closed when the guest has no company or execution-workspace binding. - Binds ticket issuance to the exact cloned user and active company membership selected for the handoff. - Verifies every current active board identity through the exact-user handoff before publication or reuse. - Gates managed runtime publication on the readiness contract and the recorded worktree instance identity. - Refreshes runtime work products from the live runtime row after a port change. - Adds one workspace access card with ready, degraded, repairing, and failed states. - Uses the runtime response identity for repair. It returns structured repair precondition errors. - Lets a valid source journal lag converge during provisioning. - Binds seed and repair manifests to a source registered outside the agent-writable worktree. - Clears recovered UI errors so a successful retry can open the workspace. - Makes runtime tests register canonical sources and avoid ports owned by live host listeners. - Keeps Vitest on source suites when compiled `dist` trees exist. - Isolates CLI and adapter tests from ambient AWS and runtime API environment variables. - Preserves a 404 response for cross-company workspace ID lookups before runtime authorization. - Makes concurrent single-flight coverage independent of path-canonicalization scheduling order. ## Verification The following checks passed on the integrated head: ```sh pnpm -r typecheck pnpm build pnpm check:token-gates pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations ``` - The server source lane passed 420 files and 4,953 tests. Five tests were skipped. - The CLI lane passed 57 files and 385 tests. - The database lane passed 26 files and 97 tests. - The shared package passed 58 files and 506 tests. - The adapter utility lane passed 640 tests. Four tests were skipped. - The Claude adapter passed 220 tests. One test was skipped. - The Codex adapter passed 323 tests. - The OpenClaw adapter passed 13 tests. - The OpenCode adapter passed 42 tests. - The plugin SDK passed 45 tests. - The workspace runtime suite passed 124 tests. - The caller-scoped readiness and handoff suite passed 52 tests. - The workspace provisioning shell suite passed 7 tests. - The runtime exposure suite passed 17 tests while live host mappings occupied fixed test ports. - `git diff --check` passed and the worktree is clean. The serialized route lane will run in GitHub CI with its normal shards. No deployment or active-workspace migration was performed. ## Risks - This is a medium-risk authentication and runtime-readiness change. - The login ticket uses exact origin, workspace, instance, and user binding. It has a short expiry and a one-time nonce. - Runtime publication is stricter. A real readiness, identity, per-user handoff, or control-plane database disagreement now blocks publication. - This pull request supersedes #11665 as the merge candidate. Close #11665 after this pull request merges. - No new database migration is included. The lockfile and workflow files are unchanged. - Deployment and active-workspace migration are intentionally outside this pull request. > 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 Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5[1m]`), 1M context, extended thinking, tool use, and code execution produced the main candidate. OpenAI GPT-5 (`gpt-5`) through Codex, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution, integrated the post-QA fixes and hardened the test gates. The Codex context-window size was not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have 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>	2026-08-19 02:37:02 -05:00
Devin Foley	276ae3a75d	Harden company import: durable UI, async jobs, integrity guard, batched inserts (#10523) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Company Import/Export (#10507) moves whole companies between instances as portability bundles > - Real-world use on a large company (1,418 issues, ~10.6k comments) surfaced a cluster of related failures: the import took hours and the browser connection died while the server kept running, a retry silently produced a second partial import, the progress/error UI gave no durable signal, and a cloud-tenant user couldn't even open the companies afterward > - Root cause of the slowness: importBundle inserted every issue, comment, and document as a separate round-trip to a network Postgres — an N+1-over-network pattern > - This pull request hardens the whole import path: durable progress/error UI, an async server-side job so imports survive dropped connections (with a duplicate-submit guard), a fail-closed guard against incomplete payloads, and batched inserts that cut a large import from hours to minutes > - The benefit is that migrating a real, large company actually completes, is legible while it runs, and can't half-import twice ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #10507 (the Import/Export feature this hardens). Supersedes #10513 (the progress/error-UI piece, folded in here). No open issue; problem described above (large-company import: slow, connection-fragile, silently duplicable, opaque UI). ## What Changed - **Batched inserts (perf):** importBundle pre-generates entity ids in JS and inserts in chunked multi-row statements, so children no longer wait on parents' generated ids. A 1,418-issue import drops from ~15,600 insert statements to **82** (190×); benchmark below. Import semantics — collision handling, pause-on-import, label/blocker/monitor/attachment/embedded-asset handling, blob sha verification — are unchanged (full portability suite green). - **Async import jobs for board sessions:** the existing cloud-tenant async job path opens to board sessions with per-actor job keys; the import page submits, polls, and resumes watching after a reload or dropped connection instead of holding one fragile request. A non-terminal job blocks a duplicate submit (409 returns the running job), preventing the double-import. - **Fail-closed completeness guard:** an optional `expectedFileCount` on inline imports; the server rejects (422 `import_payload_incomplete`) a body carrying fewer files than declared, so a re-framed/short payload fails loudly instead of half-importing. - **Durable progress/error UI (was #10513):** persistent progress panels with size-aware copy, persistent error panels with retry guidance, and inline explanation when the preview button is disabled; request-lifecycle guards so stale previews/imports can't publish or detach. ## Verification - `pnpm -r` typechecks (shared, server, ui) clean. - `company-portability.test.ts` (76) + `company-portability-routes.test.ts` (30) green — the import correctness net — plus new `CompanyImport.test.tsx` async/resume/409 coverage and a new batching regression test (a 50-issue import issues <50 issue-insert statements; rows land unchanged). - **Batching benchmark (embedded Postgres):** at 1,418 issues × 7 comments × 1 doc — 82 insert statements vs ~15,598 one-per-row (190×), ~1s wall-clock; a row-verifying run at that scale imports all 1,418 issues / 9,926 comments / 1,418 documents with unique identifiers and no warnings (no rows dropped by chunking). Over a network DB the round-trip reduction is the hours→minutes lever. - What is NOT directly measured here: wall-clock against a real network Postgres (that happens on a staging deploy); the local timing is network-free. ## Risks - Batching is the load-bearing change: it rewrites the import write path. Mitigated by the unchanged 106-test correctness suite, a new scale/row-integrity test, and per-writer transactions (a failure rolls back its table group; not a single outer transaction across writers — noted, correctness preserved). - Async jobs are in-memory (lost on server restart → pollers 404 and can resubmit); matches the pre-existing cloud-tenant job semantics. - `expectedFileCount` is optional (older callers unaffected); over-count is allowed, only under-count fails closed. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic), Claude Code CLI, extended thinking + tool use; implementation across Fable 5 subagents with live diagnosis against a running instance. ## 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 - [ ] 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	2026-07-30 16:52:58 -07:00
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	108792ac51	Address remaining Greptile workspace review	2026-03-17 10:12:44 -05:00
Dotta	920bc4c70f	Implement execution workspaces and work products	2026-03-13 17:12:25 -05:00